PurposeThe links between moral communication and legal communication have long been studied in sociology of law. Little has yet been said about moral communication invoking when communication in the legal system is impossible, ineffective or uncertain. The paper fills this gap to demonstrate that systems theory-based sociology of law can effectively recognise the role of moral communication in such situations.Design/methodology/approachThe paper presents an empirical study of moral communication in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It focused on situations when SMEs' interactions with function systems, particularly the legal system, result in irremovable legal uncertainty. The data depict strategies of managing such uncertainty and were obtained in a paths-to-justice survey of 7,292 owners and managers of SMEs and 101 in-depth interviews. The findings are interpreted using the author's concept of “uncertainty translation”, rooted in Luhmann's systems theory. It suggests that business organisations such as SMEs deal with the ubiquitous uncertainty in their operations by translating it into a convenient type.FindingsThe study distinguishes between formative and absorbing moral communication and finds that both types play a role in steering the uncertainty translation mechanism in SMEs. Six scenarios of invoking moral communication are identified in SMEs dealing with legal uncertainty. In such scenarios, moral communication facilitates the translation of business uncertainty “away from law”. Under some circumstances, this, in turn, leads to latent systematic results, reflexively affecting the legal system, the economic system and the SMEs.Research limitations/implicationsIn its core argument, the study is based on qualitative material. While it identifies empirical scenarios of invoking moral communication, it does not report the prevalence of these scenarios due to methodological limitations.Originality/valueThe study results pose questions related to the staple theoretical issue in post-Luhmannian social systems theory: functional differentiation. If moral communication–a type of communication not linked to any social system–can produce far-reaching, systematic results that affect function systems, then the functional differentiation thesis should be less pronounced than Luhmann typically stressed. This said, the paper argues that the contradiction between the findings and Luhmannian theory of morality is only apparent and may be reconciled.

The paper argues that there exists a contradiction between access to justice and public interest. It substantiates this claim by reviewing selected arguments for access to justice and by referring to empirical evidence. The contradiction is then interpreted using a sociological theory of law, which enables establishing the structural reasons for such a clash. In order to reconcile access to justice with the public interest, the legal system must develop the semantics allowing for a better understanding of social inclusion conditions. In particular, the legal system must finally do away with pre-modern charity-oriented concept of access to justice, be able to grasp access to justice in its totality and reflect on conditions of legal inclusion. If it fails to do that, it is doomed to reproduce the conflict. The concept of access to justice developed by Cappelletti and others in the 1970s is a good point of departure here, but it is by far insufficient.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract