Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T12:22:50.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remarks on the philosophy and politics of public law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Günter Frankenberg
Günter Frankenberg*
Affiliation:
Institut für Öffentliches Recht, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

To this very day, public law scholars seem to be concerned about the identity of their area of scientific interest. Many of them in many European legal cultures routinely labour, some even agonise over distinguishing public law from what appears to be a securely established field of private law. More than 20 years ago, 20 to 30 variations of the public/private-theme, usually elevated to the rank of ‘theories’, could be counted in German scholarship alone, none of them satisfying the desire to clarify, once and for all, the nature, purpose, and scope of public law.

In this vein, law students are required to discuss at least the major demarcation theories so as, for instance, to establish jurisdiction of administrative courts, liability of the state, or the scope of constitutional rights.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 177 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Achterberg, N Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht (Heidelberg: Müller, 1982)Google Scholar § 1 Rn.13 with further references and Quermonne, J L and Chagnollaud, D Le gouvernement de la France sous la Ve République (Paris: Dalloz, 4th edn, 1991) pp 407–418 Google Scholar.

2. The Critical Legal Studies Movement (CLS) has so convincingly trashed many of these distinctions that the (continental) ‘cartographic’ strategy seems hardly promising.

3. See Marshall, G ‘Lions Around the Throne: The Expansion of Judicial Review in Britain’ in Hesse, J J and Johnson, N (eds) Constitutional Policy and Change in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) 178ff. 188 Google Scholar; Allan, T R S Law, Liberty and Justice. The Legal Foundations of British Constitutionalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) ch 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. The focus on mentality was proposed by Legrand, P ‘European Legal Systems are not Converging’ (1996) 45 ICLQ 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. For a different and rather formalistic concept of ‘style’, see O Remien ‘Über den Stil des Europäischen Privatrechts’ (1996) Rabels Zeitschrift für ausl. und internat. Privatrecht 1–39.

6. See Stolleis, M Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts 2 vols (Munich: Beck, 1988 and 1992)Google Scholar and Burdeau, F Histoire de l'administration française. Du 18e au 20e siècle (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1989)Google Scholar.

7. See Frankenberg, G Die Verfassung der Republik (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1996) pp 135–136 Google Scholar.

8. ‘Publicum ius est, quod ad statum rei Romanae spectat, privatum quod ad singulorum utilitatem pertinet’ (Justinian's Institutes 1,1,4). ‘Publicum ius in sacris, in sacerdotis, in magistratibus consistit’ (Corpus Iuris Civilis 1,1,1,2).

9. See G Frankenberg (above n 7) ch III.

10. See Van Caenegem, R C An Historical Introduction to Western Constitutional Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) p 3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. For a detailed analysis of the legal doctrines, see the seminal study by Kantorowicz, E The Kings's Two Bodies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957)Google Scholar.

12. Caenegem (above n 10) pp 127f.

13. See Klaus Günther's thoughtful and incisive critique of the ordoliberal vision of a private-law society: ‘Ohne weiteres und ganz autornatisch - Zur Wiederentdeckung der Privatrechtsgesellschaft’ (1992) 11 Rechtshistorisches Journal 473–500 Google Scholar. For a defence of the private-law society, see Böhm, F ‘Privatrechtsgesellschaft und Marktwirtschaft’ (1966) ORDO XVII, 75–151 and Mestmäcker, E J ‘Der Kampf ums Recht in der offenen Gesellschaft’ (1989) 20 Rechtstheorie 273–288 Google Scholar; E J Mestmäcker ‘Die Wiederkehr der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft und ihres Rechts’ (1991) 10 Rechtshist Journal 177–192.

14. Savigny, Eg F C System des heutigen Römischen Rechts vol I (1884) pp 6ff and 331ff.Google Scholar

15. The first problem being the avoidance of unnatural death by the peace-keeping machine of the Leviathan. As to the second problem, see Günther (above n 13) at 474 and also Böhm (above n 13) at 80.

16. Hesse, K Verfassungsrecht und Privatrecht (Heidelberg: Müller, 1988) p 8 Google Scholar.

17. Smith, A An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Campbell, A H and Skinner, A S (eds) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976) p 687 Google Scholar.

18. See Smith (above n 17) p 687 and Mestmäcker, E J ‘Die sichtbare Hand des Rechts’ in Mestmäcker, E J Die sichtbare Hand des Rechts - Uber das Verhältnis von Rechtsordnung und Wirtschaftsordnung (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1978) pp 139–170 Google Scholar.

19. See Bullinger, M Öffentliches Recht und Privatrecht (Stuttgart: Kohl-hammer, 1968) pp 449–453 Google Scholar; Waline, M Droit administratif (Paris: Sirey, 9th edn 1963) pp 24fGoogle Scholar; Quermonne and Chagnollaud (above n 1) pp 52–53 and 347–350.

20. The maxim ‘tolerate and liquidate (damages)’ goes back to the Prussian General Land Law of 1794.

21. See Hesse (above n 16) p 24.

22. For more elaborate accounts of these developments see M Stolleis ‘Die Entstehung des Interventionsstaates und das öffentliche Recht’ (1989) 11 Zeitschr f Neuere Rechtsgeschichte 129–147; Wieacker, F Industriegesellschaft und Privatrechtsordnung (Göttingen: Vanden-Loeck & Ruprecht, 1974)Google Scholar; Pohl, H (ed) Sozialgeschichtliche Probleme in der Zeit der Hochindustrialisierung 1870–1914 (Paderborh: Schöningh, 1979)Google Scholar; Ritter, G A (ed) Vom Wohlfahrtsausschuß zum Wohlfahrtsstaat. Der Staat in der modernen Industriegesellschaft (Köln: Markus, 1973)Google Scholar.

23. See Bullinger (above n 19) pp 60f.

24. See Stolleis (above n 22) at 136.

25. Quermonne and Chagnollaud (above n 1) pp 347–350.

26. See Duhamel, O Droit constitutionnel et politique (Paris: Ëditions du Seul, 1994) ch 4Google Scholar.

27. See StHicks, C ‘Citizenship and the Modem Legal Theory of the State’ (1995) 59 Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie Beiheft 139–145.Google Scholar

28. Continental and British parliamentarism have to be distinguished with regard to the idea of parliamentary sovereignty that still dominates juridical thinking in the United Kingdom, see DeSmith, B ‘The Making of an Ought of an Is: the United Kingdom - the Constitution and the Challenge of Europe’ (1995) 59 Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie Beiheft 181–187.Google Scholar

29. See Caenegem (above n 10) pp 127–128.

30. Eg Wiethölter, R ‘Materialization and Proceduralization in Modern Law’ in Teubner, G (ed) Dilemmas of Law in the Welfare State (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1986) pp 221ffGoogle Scholar.

31. See Rawls, J A Theory of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Habermas, J Faktizität und Geltung (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1992)Google Scholar.

32. Chatenet, P ‘The Civil Service in France’ in Robson, W A (ed) The Civil Service in Britain and France (London: Allen, 1956)Google Scholar; see also Suleiman, E N Politics, Power, and Bureaucracy in France (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974) pp 19–29 Google Scholar.

33. See Quermonne and Chagnollaud (above n 1) pp 403–418; Barret-Kriegel, B L'Etat et la démocratie, rapport au Président de la République Francaise (Paris: Calman-Levy, 1985)Google Scholar; J Chevallier ‘Réflexions sur l'institution des autorités administratives indépendentes’ (1986) Jurisclasseur périodique.

34. M Debré‘Pour l'Etat-Nation’ (1980) Le Monde, 20 February, p 1.

35. See Suleiman (above n 32) pp 24–29 and Burdeau (above n 6) pp 296–301.

36. See Osterloh, L ‘Privatisierung von Verwaltungsaufgaben’ (1996) 54 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 206–242.Google Scholar

37. See Forrester, V L'horreur économique (Paris: Libraire Arthéne Fayard, 1997)Google Scholar, a rhetorically dramatic but analytically not very profound analysis.