The Autonomy and Permeability of Law: The Case of the Canadian Prohibition of Cannabis

Abstract

RésuméLa sociologie de Niklas Luhmann suggère de concevoir le droit comme un système social autonome, ne pouvant être déterminé de l'extérieur. Dans un tel cadre théorique, les relations du droit avec son environnement sont saisies à l'aide des concepts d'autopoïèse et de déparadoxification, ainsi que par le biais du paradoxe de l'ouverture par la fermeture. La théorie propose une façon d'analyser les relations intersystémiques qui refuse une domination verticale et linéaire du droit par d'autres formations discursives. Cet article utilise (quelques dimensions) de la re-validation de la constitutionnalité de la prohibition du cannabis par la Cour Suprême du Canada comme prétexte pour clarifier théoriquement et explorer empiriquement un tel cadre. Dans le cas étudié, le juridique choisit notamment d'accorder plus d'importance à des objets biomédicaux qu'à la doctrine libérate. Il pourra faire exactement le contraire dans ses prochaines opérations. La sociologie est condamnée à être surprise par la créativité que déploie le juridique en se maintenant et se transformant de façon autonome.

Critical Criminology Meets Radical Constructivism

“…This is a frequent way of discounting Luhmann's sociology of law (e.g. Capps and Olsen 2002), despite the fact that, instead of posing law's autarchy, it invites us to apprehend the relationships between (the social system of) law and its social environment in an original, challenging way (Carrier 2007;Clam 1997Clam , 2001aTeubner 2001b). …”

“…The Supreme Court of Canada bluntly states that this obligation is maintained regardless of the actual content of the Criminal Code (see Carrier 2007). That is, the fact that so many people deliberately do not ''obey the law of the land'' is taken as a good motive to continue to apply it (R. v. Malmo-Levine et al 2003:s.174).…”

Speech for the defense of a radically constructivist sociology of (criminal) law

“…Such a description obviously contradicts liberal democracies' juridico-penal systems, which still assert that every citizen must share (at least) some of them for society to be 'governable'-authorizing punishment on this basis, and sometimes without even defining the content of what ought to be shared (for a Canadian example, see R. v. Malmo-Levine et al, 2003; for a discussion, see Carrier, 2007). satisfactorily addressed in this paper; allow me to focus on the Luhmannian suggestion to think (criminal) law with the concept of difference.…”

Committing Sociology (of Law): The Autonomy of Law in Canada's 'War on Terror'

“…(Luhmann, 2002, p. 157, italics in original). What this leads to is a highly nuanced approach to communication characterized by a refusal to see it as a 'linear' process -that is, as transfer of 'something' from one individual to another (Carrier, 2007;Luhmann, 2002).…”

“…understanding the concept of communication (Luhmann, 2002 (Luhmann, 2002, p. 158). Since observing the unity of the three elements of communication is impossible, because one cannot see into another's consciousness, any understanding of others can only be a product of the system through which we give ourselves unity; namely, our consciousness (Carrier, 2007). As such, our understanding of meaning given to communications can only ever be taken as a construction of one's own psychic system (i.e., consciousness).…”