Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Tension Between the Functions of Law: Ending Conflict Versus Dynamics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Symbolic Legislation Theory and Developments in Biolaw

Part of the book series: Legisprudence Library ((LEGIS,volume 4))

Abstract

This chapter addresses the tension between ending conflict and stimulating dynamics, while at the same time seeking to avoid a repetition of arguments from earlier debates between opponents and proponents of communicative approaches to law. It does so by exploring the opportunities that an ethos of controversies can create in a two-track approach to the development of legal norms. An ethos of controversies is developed in response to failures in consensus-thinking that arise when addressing complex issues with a strong moral impact, such as developments in biotechnology. This ethos focuses primarily on structuring decision-making around complex issues in situations when aiming for consensus is premature. The two-track approach consists of a legal track, in which legal decisions can be made, and a moral track, in which moral debate may continue even after a decision has been made. It is argued that an interplay between these two approaches ensures that norm development can continue whenever the context requires, while legal conflicts can also be brought to an end. To that extent, the tension between ending conflict and stimulating dynamics need not be as great as often assumed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Explanation of differences in the use of communicative approaches to law in this chapter in contrast to their use by other authors in this volume.

  2. 2.

    For a further analysis of the differences and similarities, see Van Klink and Van der Burg (both in this volume).

  3. 3.

    The explanation of these basic grounds builds on Chap. 3 of my dissertation (Poort 2013). For a more in-depth analysis of Fuller and Selznick, see Sect. 3.2 of this dissertation.

  4. 4.

    Van der Burg and Brom have acknowledged this criticism of their ideal-typical model of the interactive legislative approach. The ideal-typical model described by Van der Burg in this volume does no longer cohere, therefore, with the ideal-typical model criticised in my earlier work.

  5. 5.

    For a more in-depth analysis of the risks of consensus-thinking, see Poort (2012, 2013).

  6. 6.

    Here, a distinction is made between legal decision-making and legal norm development. Legal decision-making and lawmaking can address a current situation or conflict. Legal norm development does not necessarily end, however, when legal decisions have been made or regulations implemented. Regulations and legal decisions influence legal norm development and are strong directives towards a certain path of development. However, norm development continues, given that its context continues to develop (responsive character). See also Van der Burg (2014).

  7. 7.

    Zeegers does not make a fundamental distinction between decision-making and norm development. Both terms are therefore used to explain her argument.

  8. 8.

    This two-track approach is not necessarily exclusive and limited to these two tracks. The point made here is that, for the sake of norm development, the process should not be limited to a legal discourse, but should also be encouraged in other discourses. The moral discourse is most prominent in the case studies addressed in this research. However, other discourses may be relevant for norm development in other specific fields. In this paper, however, I have chosen to focus, for the sake of the argument, on a two-track approach. Elaborating on other potentially relevant tracks would never be comprehensive and would distract from the focus of the points I am seeking to make here.

  9. 9.

    I owe this point to Wibren Van der Burg, who commented on an earlier version of this chapter.

References

  • Ayres, Ian, and John Braithwaite. 1995. Responsive regulation. Transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, Julia. 1998. Regulation as facilitation. The Modern Law Review 61: 621–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castle, David, and Keith Culver. 2013. Getting to ‘No’. The method of contested exchange. Science and Public Policy 40: 34–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, Lon L. 1969. The morality of law (revised edition). New Haven: Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, Lon L. 2001. The principles of social order, selected essays of Lon L. Fuller. Edited, with an introduction by Kenneth I. Winston. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, John. 2005. Do laws have symbolic effects? In Social and symbolic effects of legislation under the rule of law, ed. Nicolle Zeegers, Willem Witteveen, and Bart van Klink, 147–161. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Three normative models of democracy. In Democracy and difference. Contesting the boundaries of the political, ed. Seyla Benhabib, 21–30. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hisschemöller, Matthijs and Rob, Hoppe. 1995. Coping with intractable controversies. The case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 8(4): 40–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honig, Bonnie. 1993. Political theory and the displacement of politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl, Hans. 2000. Communicatieve wetgeving en volkssoevereiniteit. In De overtuigende wetgever, ed. Bart van Klink and Willem Witteveen, 173–188. Deventer: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, Chantal. 1999. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research 66: 745–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poort, Lonneke. 2012. An ethos of controversies. A critical analysis of the interactive legislative approach. Legisprudence 1: 35–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poort, Lonneke. 2013. Consensus and controversies in animal biotechnology. An interactive legislative approach to animal biotechnology in Denmark, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, Nicholas. 1993. Pluralism. Against the demand for consensus. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, Philip. 1992. The moral commonwealth. Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamhuis, Jellienke. 2005. Communicative law. A quest for consensus. In Social and symbolic effects of legislation under the rule of law, ed. Nicolle Zeegers, Willem Witteveen, and Bart van Klink, 277–297. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, Wibren. 2009. Law and bioethics. In A companion to bioethics, ed. P. Singer and H. Kuhse, 49–67. Oxford: Blackwell Companion Guide.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, Wibren. 2014. The dynamics of law and morality. A pluralist account of legal interactionism. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, Wibren. 2016. The emerging interactionist paradigm and the ideals of democracy and rule of law. In Symbolic legislation theory and new developments in biolaw, ed. Bart Van Klink, Britta Van Beers, and Lonneke Poort, 37–53. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, Wibren and Frans W.A. Brom. 2000. Legislation on ethical issues. Towards an interactive paradigm. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 57–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Klink, Bart. 1998. De wet als symbool. Over wettelijke communicatie en de Wet gelijke behandeling van mannen en vrouwen bij de arbeid (diss. Tilburg). Deventer: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Klink, Bart. 2005. An effective-historical view on the symbolic working of law. In Social and symbolic effects of legislation under the rule of law, eds. Nicolle Zeegers, Willem Witteveen and Bart van Klink, 113–145. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Klink, Bart. 2014. Symboolwetgeving. De opkomst, ondergang en wederopstanding van een begrip. RegelMaat: Journal for Legislative Studies 29:5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Klink, Bart. 2016. Symbolic legislation. An essentially political concept. In Symbolic legislation theory and new developments in biolaw, ed. Bart van Klink, Britta van Beers, and Lonneke Poort, 19–35. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, Jeremy. 1999. Law and disagreement. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Westerman, Pauline. 2005. Some objections to an aspirational system of law. In Social and symbolic effects of legislation under the rule of law, ed. Nicolle Zeegers, Willem Witteveen, and Bart van Klink, 299–316. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witteveen, Willem, and Bart van Klink. 1999. Why is soft law really law? RegelMaat (Journal for Legislative Studies) 3: 126–140.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Theory and Methodology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Law, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

    Lonneke Poort

Authors
  1. Lonneke Poort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lonneke Poort .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Theory and Legal History, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Bart van Klink

  2. Department of Legal Theory and Legal History, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Britta van Beers

  3. Department of Sociology, Theory and Methodology, Erasmus University Rotterdam Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Lonneke Poort

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Poort, L. (2016). The Tension Between the Functions of Law: Ending Conflict Versus Dynamics. In: van Klink, B., van Beers, B., Poort, L. (eds) Symbolic Legislation Theory and Developments in Biolaw. Legisprudence Library, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33365-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33365-6_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33363-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33365-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation