Advertisement

Taking Modern Legislation Seriously: Agency Rights as a Special Challenge

  • Pierre GuibentifEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Legisprudence Library book series (LEGIS, volume 5)

Abstract

The functions of legislation are diverse and its actual impact on its addressees may vary considerably, in relation to different types of legal mechanisms. So legisprudence has to develop scholarship specialized in those different legal mechanisms. One mechanism deserving particular attention are the legal rights, and among them, what could be named agency rights. The purpose of the present paper is to put forward a tentative legisprudential discussion of such rights. After having defined agency rights by locating them in a typology of legal rights, it seeks to reconstruct their societal functions, analysing them as taking part in a broader set of mechanisms, which developed over the last centuries, and which are supposed to enable individuals to act as autonomous and productive members of the societies to which they belong. It pays particular attention to the role of specialists, and among them of jurists, in the functioning of these mechanisms, both as holders of agency rights, and as participating in the empowering of those who are expected to exercise their agency rights. It concludes arguing that legisprudence, by participating in the improvement of legislation guaranteeing these rights, might be playing a crucial role in the improvement of democratic institutions.

Keywords

Legislation theory Fundamental rights Agency rights Professional specialization Democracy 

References

  1. Almeida MT de, Caupers J, Guibentif P (2014) Feitura das Leis. Portugal e a Europa. Fundação Francisco Manuel dos Santos, Lisbon. https://www.ffms.pt/estudo/107/feitura-de-leis-portugal-e-a-europa. Accessed Feb 2018
  2. Baer S (2015) Rechtssoziologie. Eine Einführung in die interdisziplinäre Rechtsforschung. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar-Siman-Tov I (2019) The global revival of legisprudence: a comparative view on legislation in legal education and research. In: Oliver-Lalana AD (ed) Conceptions and misconceptions of legislation. Springer, Cham (in this volume)Google Scholar
  4. Belley J-G (2002) Le pluralisme juridique comme doctrine de la science du droit. In: Kellerhals J, Roth R, Manaï D (eds) Pour un droit pluriel –Études offertes au professeur Jean-François Perrin. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel, pp 135–165Google Scholar
  5. Bessy C (2007) Le libéralisme d’Amartya Sen (Compte rendu de l’ouvrage: La liberté au prisme des capacités, Amartya Sen au-delà du libéralisme). Economie et Institutions 10/11:285–305Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu P ([1986] 1987) The force of law – toward a sociology of the juridical field. Hast Law J 38: 814–853 (trans. of La force du droit – Éléments pour une sociologie du champ juridique. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 64:3–19)Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu P (1997) Méditations pascalienne. Seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. Braibant G (2001) La Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne. Témoignage et commentaires. Seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  9. Calvo García M (2014) Crisis económica y efectividad de los derechos sociales. In: Bernuz Benéitez MJ, Calvo García M (eds) La eficacia de los derechos sociales. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, pp 89–132Google Scholar
  10. Commaille J (2015) À quoi nous sert le droit? Gallimard (Folio), ParisGoogle Scholar
  11. Conseil fédéral (Switzerland) (1996) Message relatif à une nouvelle constitution fédérale. Bern, 20 novembre 1996Google Scholar
  12. Dahrendorf R (1958) Out of Utopia – toward a reorientation of sociological analysis. Am J Sociol 64:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Munck J (2017) Human rights and capabilities: a program for a critical sociology of law. Crit Sociol (Online First):1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920517715764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delpeuch T, Dumoulin L, de Galembert C (2014) Sociologie du droit et de la justice. Armand Colin, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dworkin R (1977) Taking rights seriously. Duckworth, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. EU (2005) EU Charter for researchers. https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs/charter/european-charter. Accessed Feb 2018
  17. Ewick P, Silbey S (1998) The common place of law – stories from everyday life. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guibentif P (2013) Rights in Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory. In: Febbrajo A, Harste G (eds) Law and intersystemic communication – understanding ‘structural coupling’. Ashgate, London, pp 255–288Google Scholar
  19. Guibentif P (2015) Theorien und Menschen im Werk von Gunther Teubner. Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 35:5–27.  https://doi.org/10.1515/zfrs-2015-0103
  20. Guibentif P (2016) Societal conditions of self-constitution – the experience of the European Periphery. In: Přibáň J (ed) Self-constitution of European society. Beyond EU politics law and governance. Routledge, New York, pp 274–313Google Scholar
  21. Guibentif P (2017) Entre agir sociétal et subjectivités – Pour un concept du politique dérivé de Niklas Luhmann. In: Sosoe L (ed) Systèmes psychiques et systèmes sociaux chez Luhmann. Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim, pp 99–132Google Scholar
  22. Gusdorf G (1978) Les sciences humaines et la pensée occidentale – VIII. La conscience révolutionnaire. Les Idéologues. Payot, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. Habermas J ([1963] 1974) Natural law and revolution. In: Habermas J (ed) Theory and practice. Heinemann, London, pp 82–120Google Scholar
  24. Habermas J ([1981] 1987) The theory of communicative action. Polity Press, Cambridge (original German publication: 1981)Google Scholar
  25. Hart HLA ([1961] 1994) The concept of law, 2nd edn. with a Postscript. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Hespanha AM (2003) Cultura Jurídica Europeia. Síntese de um Milénio. Publicações Europa-América, Mem MartinsGoogle Scholar
  27. Honneth A ([2011] 2014) Freedom’s right. The social foundations of democratic life. Columbia University Press, New York (original German edition: Honneth A, Das Recht der Freiheit. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main)Google Scholar
  28. Kebir L, Crevoisier O, Costa P, Peyrache-Gadeau V (2017) Sustainable innovation and regional development: rethinking innovative Milieus. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kelsen H (1934) Reine Rechtslehre. Einleitung in die rechtswissenschaftliche Problematik. Franz Deuticke, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  30. Kelsen H (1960) Reine Rechtslehre. Einleitung in die rechtswissenschaftliche Problematik. Franz Deuticke, Vienna (zweite, vollständig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage) (Portuguese translation: H. Kelsen, Teoria Pura do Direito, trans. C. Arménio Amado, 1984)Google Scholar
  31. Luhmann N ([1970] 1981) Zur Funktion der ‘subjektiven Rechte’. In: Luhmann N, Ausdifferenzierung des Rechts. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp 360–373 (orig. publ.: 1970)Google Scholar
  32. Luhmann N (1980) Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik 1. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  33. Luhmann N (1981) Subjektive Rechte: Zum Umbau des Rechtsbewusstseins für die moderne Gesellschaft. In: Luhmann N, Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik 2. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp 45–104Google Scholar
  34. Luhmann N (1989) Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik 3. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  35. Luhmann N (1995) Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik 4. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  36. Mannheim K ([1929] 1952) Ideologie und Utopie. Verlag G. Schulte-Bulmke, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  37. Marshall TH ([1950] 1992) Citizenship and social class. In: Marshall TH, Bottomore T (eds) Citizenship and social class. Pluto Press, London, pp 3–51 (orig. publ.: 1950)Google Scholar
  38. Meja V, Stehr N (eds) (1982) Der Streit um die Wissenssoziologie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  39. Meßerschmidt K (2019) Special interest legislation and legislative capture. In: Oliver-Lalana AD (ed) Conceptions and misconceptions of legislation. Springer, Cham (in this volume)Google Scholar
  40. Oliver-Lalana AD (2011) Legitimidad a través de la comunicación. Un estudio sobre la opacidad y la publicidad del derecho. Comares, GranadaGoogle Scholar
  41. Ost F (2016) À quoi sert le droit? Usages, fonctions, finalités. Bruylant, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  42. Parsons T (1954) A sociologist looks at the legal professions. In Parsons T (ed) Essays in sociological theory. MacMillan/The Free Press, New York/London, pp 370–385Google Scholar
  43. Sen A ([2004] 2008) Éléments d’une théorie des droits humains. In: de Munck J, Zimmermann B (eds) La liberté au prisme des capacités. Amartya Sen au-delà du libéralisme. Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences politiques, Paris, pp 139–183. Orig. publ. Philosophy and Public Affairs 32 (2004):315–356Google Scholar
  44. Sen A (2009) The idea of justice. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Supiot A (2015) La Gouvernance par les nombres. Cours au Collège de France (2012–2014). Fayard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. Szende P (1922) Verhüllung und Enthüllung. Der Kampf der Ideologien in der Geschichte. Archiv für die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung 10:183–270Google Scholar
  47. Teubner G (1996) Globale Bukowina: Zur Emergenz eines transnationalen Rechtspluralismus. Rechtshistorisches J 15:255–290Google Scholar
  48. Teubner G (2012) Constitutional fragments: societal constitutionalism and globalization. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Teubner G (2014) Recht und Sozialtheorie: Drei Probleme. Ancilla Iuris 9:182–221. Available on http://www.anci.ch/articles/ancilla2014_183_teubner.pdf
  50. Thornhill C (2018) The sociology of law and the global transformation of democracy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Touraine A (1984) Le retour de l’acteur. Fayard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  52. United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by General Assembly of the United Nations on 25 September 2015. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals.
  53. Van Klink B (2019) Legislation, communication, and authority. How to account for the bindingness of law? In: Oliver-Lalana AD (ed) Conceptions and misconceptions of legislation. Springer, Cham (in this volume)Google Scholar
  54. Van Klink B, Van Beers B, Poort L (eds) (2016) Symbolic legislation theory and developments in biolaw. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  55. Waldron J (1999) The dignity of legislation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Webber G et al (2018) Legislated rights – securing human rights through legislation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. World Conferences on Research Integrity (WCRI) (2010) Singapore statement on research integrity. WCRI Foundation, Amsterdam. http://www.singaporestatement.org. Accessed Feb 2018
  58. Xanthaki H (2019) Misconceptions in legislative quality: an enlightened approach to the drafting of legislation. In: Oliver-Lalana AD (ed) Conceptions and misconceptions of legislation. Springer, Cham (in this volume)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dinamia’CET-IUL, ISCTE-University Institute of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations