Correction to: Law and Critique https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-023-09357-2


In the original publication of the article, the author noticed errors in the texts and in Acknowledgements section, a sentence needs to be included. The incorrect and corrected versions are given below.


In the section “Introduction”, the fifth paragraph, the sentence beginning ‘In building an account of legal survivals as…’, the text ‘sociology of’ should have read ‘sociology of law’.


Incorrect version:


In building an account of legal survivals as a new theoretical concept the paper blends, in a deliberately eclectic manner, a variety of intellectual traditions, including Marxist legal theory, comparative law theory, legal history, sociology of, as well as general jurisprudence, including the philosophical insights of the Schmittian-Agambenian tradition.


Corrected version:


In building an account of legal survivals as a new theoretical concept the paper blends, in a deliberately eclectic manner, a variety of intellectual traditions, including Marxist legal theory, comparative law theory, legal history, sociology of law, as well as general jurisprudence, including the philosophical insights of the Schmittian-Agambenian tradition.


In the section “Law-as-Form”, the first paragraph, the sentence beginning ‘Thus, by ‘juridical form’ I mean the form of law…’, the term ‘(lex interpretata)’ should have read ‘(lex operativa)’.


Incorrect version:


Thus, by ‘juridical form’ I mean the form of law generally (as a historically overarching phenomenon), and by ‘legal form’ I mean specific forms of the positive law, such as legal rules, principles, institutions and so forth, expressed in codes, statutes, precedents, scholarly treatises etc., comprising not only the bare texts of law (lex lata), but also the intepretation of those texts (lex interpretata), and the actual law applied by the courts (lex interpretata).


Corrected version:


Thus, by ‘juridical form’ I mean the form of law generally (as a historically overarching phenomenon), and by ‘legal form’ I mean specific forms of the positive law, such as legal rules, principles, institutions and so forth, expressed in codes, statutes, precedents, scholarly treatises etc., comprising not only the bare texts of law (lex lata), but also the intepretation of those texts (lex interpretata), and the actual law applied by the courts (lex operativa).

In the section “Transfiguration: Reproduction of the Legal Form”, the first paragraph, the sentence beginning ‘A prime example of such a form of continuity…’, the text ‘form of appeal against decisions’ should have read ‘form of appeal against judicial decisions’.


Incorrect version:


A prime example of such a form of continuity is the institution of the ‘extraordinary revision’ (Mańko 2007, pp. 94–102), a public-interest form of appeal against decisions which had become final, available to certain public officials, introduced into Polish law in 1950 following the model of the Soviet ‘supervisory instance’.


Corrected version:


A prime example of such a form of continuity is the institution of the ‘extraordinary revision’ (Mańko 2007, pp. 94–102), a public-interest form of appeal against judicial decisions which had become final, available to certain public officials, introduced into Polish law in 1950 following the model of the Soviet ‘supervisory instance’.


In the Acknowledgements section, the sentence, “All views presented in this paper are strictly personal and do not represent the position of any institution” was missing.


Incorrect version:


Acknowledgements I would like to thank Gian-Giacomo Fusco, Jakub Łakomy, and Cosmin Cercel, as well as the two anonymous peer reviewers, for their helpful comments on earlier versions of the present paper.


Corrected version:


Acknowledgements I would like to thank Gian-Giacomo Fusco, Jakub Łakomy, and Cosmin Cercel, as well as the two anonymous peer reviewers, for their helpful comments on earlier versions of the present paper. All views presented in this paper are strictly personal and do not represent the position of any institution.


The original article has been corrected.