Self-subversive justice

Contingency or transcendence formula of law?

in Critical theory and legal autopoiesis
Abstract only
Get Access to Full Text

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

manchesterhive requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals - to see content that you/your institution should have access to, please log in through your library system or with your personal username and password.

If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/extracts and download selected front and end matter. 

Access Tokens

If you have an access token for this content, you can redeem this via the link below:

Redeem token

Dominated by social and legal philosophers, the present debate on justice oscillates between the poles of universality (Rawls, Habermas) and alterity (Levinas, Derrida). This chapter contrasts them with a third position, a sociological theory in which justice appears as the ‘contingency formula’ of law (Luhmann). Here, the question of justice is no longer primarily a problem for philosophy but for concrete social practices in the changing self-descriptions of law. This opens perspectives for historical analyses to investigate affinities of varieties of justice with changing social structures.

Critical theory and legal autopoiesis

The case for societal constitutionalism

Editor: Diana Göbel

Information

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 15 15 15
Full Text Views 2 2 2
PDF Downloads 0 0 0

Related Content