Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law

Ehrlich, Eugen; Moll, Walter Lewis; Pound, Roscoe

doi:10.4324/9780203791127

Cited by 71 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ehrlich claimed that legal theory is a social science and`legal science in the proper sense of the term is a part of the theoretical science of society, of sociology' before concluding that`[T]he sociology of law is the theoretical science of law.' 39 This outright confrontation and methodological conflict between normative legal theory, claiming the insight into the law's internal logic and operations, and social theory, claiming the capacity for complex analysis of law as fact' may date back to the first half of the twentieth century, 40 yet it still lingers on in jurisprudential and sociological theorizations and conceptualizations of law. 41 Some even believe that H.L.A.…”

Section: Which Point Of View? Reassessing Internal and External Perspmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Sociology of Legal Distinctions: Introducing Contemporary Interpretations of Classic Socio‐legal Concepts

Priban

2017

Journal of Law and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this introduction to Main Currents in Contemporary Sociology of Law, I briefly comment on the current state of socio‐legal studies and sociology of law and reasons leading to this collection of essays. I subsequently focus on some general problems which constantly recur in different socio‐legal contexts, especially on the sociological critique of legal formalism and the closely related distinctions between internal and external perspectives of law and legal facts and values. Discussing these classic distinctions, I argue that they are an intrinsic part of both legal and sociological interpretations of positive law. Sociology of law, therefore, cannot resolve theoretical and methodological dilemmas associated with them, yet it can rethink and reformulate them to better understand its own position as a social science of positive law in contemporary society.

show abstract

Section: Which Point Of View? Reassessing Internal and External Perspmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Sociology of Legal Distinctions: Introducing Contemporary Interpretations of Classic Socio‐legal Concepts

Priban

2017

Journal of Law and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…His concept of living law was a non‐state concept of law recognised by a particular community. The unity of society was to be secured by the variety of spontaneously ordered associations of which people are members mutually coordinating their actions and reactions (Ehrlich ).…”

Section: Is Ehrlich Having the Last Laugh? Radicalising The Sociologimentioning

confidence: 99%

Asking the Sovereignty Question in Global Legal Pluralism: From “Weak” Jurisprudence to “Strong” Socio‐Legal Theories of Constitutional Power Operations

Priban

2015

Ratio Juris

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article examines recent theories of legal and constitutional pluralism, especially their adoption of sociological perspectives and criticisms of the concept of sovereignty. The author argues that John Griffiths's original dichotomy of "weak" and "strong" pluralism has to be reassessed because "weak" jurisprudential theories contain useful sociological analyses of the internal differentiation and operations of specific legal orders, their overlapping, parallel validity and collisions in global society. Using the sociological methodology of legal pluralism theories and critically elaborating on Teubner's societal constitutionalism, the author subsequently reformulates the question of sovereignty as a sociological problem of complex power operations communicated through the constitutional state's organization and reconfigured within the global legal and political framework.Theories of legal pluralism are commonly perceived as critical of the very concept of sovereignty because the plurality of legal orders and regimes indicates the absence of the ultimate rule of recognition, decision-making power or the basic norm. They are equally critical of state law as a supreme legal order backed by political deliberation and decision-making, and emphasise the role of non-state legal orders, agents and organisations. Pluralistic perspectives have been adopted by mainstream jurisprudence and the discourse of legal pluralism is thus currently typical of the differentiation between the "weak" juristic concept of legal pluralism drawing on the state legal systems and the "strong" concept of legal pluralism drawing on sociological and anthropological perspectives of law (Griffiths 1986, 5-8).In this article, therefore, I pursue the goal of analysing transformations of state sovereignty in global society by critically examining theories of legal and constitutional pluralism. In the first two sections, I establish the connection between legal globalisation and theories of legal pluralism, and discuss MacCormick and Walker's theories of legal and constitutional pluralism especially in the EU context. bs_bs_banner

show abstract

“…During the last century, the concept of norms has kept a central position within the behavioural, social and legal sciences (see some examples from the extensive literature: Kelsen, 1967;Coleman, 1994;Pound, 1996;Ehrlich, 2001;Ross, 2002;Lewis, 2002;Ajzen, 2005;Bicchieri, 2005;Sugden, 2005;Hechter and Opp, 2005;Sumner, 2007;Posner, 2007;Fishbein and Ajzen, 2009). Although this multidisciplinary focus on norms has produced a variety of theoretical discussions, the need for clariication regarding the deinition of the concept has remained signiicant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%