Abstract
Under conditions of polycentric globalisation, a positive concept of justice is definitively impossible. Justice is aimed at removing unjust situations, not creating just ones. The justice of fundamental rights coerces expansive social systems into self-restriction. Human rights in particular take the role of counter-principles to communicative violations of body and soul, a protest against inhumanities of communication, without it ever being possible to say positively what the conditions of humanly just communication might be. The article analyses some consequences of this view for social counter-movements and counter-institutions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Various social theories on legal globalisation make this point: theories of global culture, see, for example, J.W. Meyer, J. Boli, G.M. Thomas and F.O. Ramirez, “World Society and the Nation-State”, American Journal of Sociology 103 (1997), 144–181; on discourse analysis, see A. Schütz, “The Twilight of the Global Polis: On Losing Paradigms, Environing Systems, and Observing World Society”, in G. Teubner, ed., Global Law Without A State (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1997), 257ff; on global legal pluralism, see B de Sousa Santos, Toward A New Legal Common Sense: Law, Globalisation & Emancipation (London: Butterworths, LexisNexis, 2003), passim; on global civil society, see D. Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance (Cambridge: Polity, 1995), passim; on world society, see the contributions in M. Albert and L. Hilkermeier, eds, Observing International Relations. Niklas Luhmann and World Politics (London, New York: Routledge, 2004).
N. Luhmann, Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft (Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1997), at 1088 et seq.
N. Luhamnn, Die Wirtschaft der Gesellschaft (Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1994), at 344.
J. Habermas, Legitimation Crisis (Cambridge: Polity, 1975).
For what these changes mean for private law, see G. Teubner, “In the Blind Spot: The Hybridization of Contracting”, Theoretical Inquiries in Law 1/4/8 (2007), 51–71; G. Teubner, “Global Private Regimes: Neo-spontaneous Law and Dual Constitution of Autonomous Sectors?”, in K.-H. Ladeur, ed., Public Governance in an Age of Globalisation (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 71–87; G. Teubner, “Contracting Worlds: Invoking Discourse Rights in Private Governance Regimes”, Social and Legal Studies 9 (2000), 399–417.
For details see, G. Teubner, “The Anonymous Matrix: Human Rights Violations by ‘Private’ Transnational Actors”, Modern Law Review 69 (2006), 327–346; see also G. Verschraegen, “Human Rights and Modern Society: A Sociological Analysis from the Perspective of Systems Theory”, Journal of Law and Society 29 (2002), 258–281; K.-H. Ladeur, “Helmut Ridders Konzeption der Meinungs-und Pressefreiheit in der Demokratie”, Kritische Justiz 32 (1999), 281–300; C. Graber and G. Teubner, “Art and Money: Constitutional Rights in the Private Sphere”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18 (1998), 61–74.
This is the core idea of societal constitutionalism developed by D. Sciulli in his Theory of Societal Constitutionalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), at 21 ff.; see also D. Sciulli, Corporate Power in Civil Society: An Application of Societal Constitutionalism (New York: New York University Press, 2001), at 131 ff. For an elaboration, G. Teubner, “Societal Constitutionalism: Alternatives to State-centred Constitutional Theory?”, in C. Joerges, I.-J. Sand and G. Teubner, eds, Constitutionalism and Transnational Governance (Oxford: Hart, 2004), 3–28. For the related concept of constitutional pluralism beyond the nation state, see N. Walker, “The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism”, Modern Law Review 65 (2002), 317–359; and N. Walker, “Taking Constitutionalism Beyond the State”, RECON Online Working Papers (2007), 1–18; C. Walter, “Constitutionalizing (Inter)national Governance: Possibilities for and Limits to the Development of an International Constitutional Law”, German Yearbook of International Law 44 (2001), 170–201; H. Schepel, The Constitution of Private Governance: Product Standards in the Regulation of Integrating Markets (Oxford: Hart, 2005), 161 ff.; For a parallel diagnosis in the ‘new economic constitutionalism’, see J. Tully, “The Imperialism of Modern Constitutional Democracy”, in N. Walker and M. Loughlin, eds, The Paradox of Constitutionalism: Constituent Power and Constitutional Form (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 315–338.
G. Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 15 et seq.; M. Foucault, Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison (London: Penguin Books, 1991); P. Legendre, Leçons VIII. Le crime du caporal Lortie. Traité sur le père (Paris: Fayard, 1989).
J.-F. Lyotard, The Differend: Phrases in Dispute (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988), cif. 1 et seq.
N. Luhmann, Rechtssystem und Rechtsdogmatik (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1974); N. Luhmann, Ausdifferenzierung des Rechts: Beiträge zur Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie (Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1981), 374 et seq.
J. Derrida, “Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority”, Cardozo Law Review 11 (1990), at 969.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Teubner, G. Justice Under Global Capitalism?. Law Critique 19, 329–334 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-008-9033-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-008-9033-y