Spatiality

Müller-Mall, Sabine

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36730-4_3

Spatiality

Sabine Müller-Mall²

Chapter
First Online: 01 January 2013

777 Accesses

Abstract

Presupposing a hybrid, relational and dynamic law, in this chapter we are on the lookout for a conceptual tool that is suited both for delivering a description of the whole of law and for paving the way for a method: a tool that allows us to position ourselves as observers at specific points within law. The tool to be proposed in this chapter is built on the concept of space. Of the various concepts of space, the one to be introduced is based on the idea of performative production of relative space. Transferred to the description of hybrid, relational, and dynamic law this concept proves to be fruitful concerning both aspects: the general conceptual description of contemporary law as well as the search for methods for taking concrete perspectives on law.

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

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
See above Chap. 2, Sect. 2.2.2.
2.
Of course, to this qualification of time as a concept one could object that there is quite a tradition in metaphysical investigations of time (see for a very good overview e.g. Callender, Craig (ed.) (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.), and I could open the discussion about the ontology of time here. But this would lead too far, since, as we will see in the following lines, the concept of time will not be the one we are looking for.
3.
See above Chap. 2, Sect. 2.2.3. and 2.3.2.
4.
See Chap. 2, Sect. 2.2.5.
5.
See concerning public legal norms e.g. Kelsen, Hans (1960). Reine Rechtslehre. 2^nd Edition. Wien: Deuticke, pp. 237-242.
6.
See for judicial globalization or ‘cross-fertilization’ Slaughter, Anne-Marie (2004). A New World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 65.
7.
The probably less controverse references in this context: Chalmers, Alan (2007). What is This Thing Called Science? St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press, pp. 19 and of course Brown, Harold (1979). Perception, Theory and Commitment. The New Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
It is not possible to explain this relationship more deeply in this short study, but I may refer to Augsberg, Ino (2009). Die Lesbarkeit des Rechts. Texttheoretische Lektionen für eine postmoderne juristische Methodenlehre. Weilerswist: Velbrück, pp. 95 and Müller-Mall, Sabine (2010). Interpretation als Rechtserzeugung, in: Groh, Thomas & Lorenz, Jörn (eds.). Interpretatio Mundi. Wie deuten die Wissenschaften ihre Welt?, pp. 235-251.
9.
See Chap. 2, Sect. 2.2.2.
10.
I consider a successful placing of an element of law as identical with a relationship established between this element and an intelligible reference frame.
11.
I have to add that even in such a well-arranged configuration the question occurs whether for description one takes a perspective of observer or of participant. In law, this question is often circumvented by qualifying an observer’s perspective as one of social science, while only the perspective of a participant would be an originally legal one. Quite clear concerning this differentiation e.g. Koller, Peter (2008). Der Begriff des Rechts und seine Konzeptionen, in: Brugger, Wilfried & Neumann, Ulfrid & Kirste, Stephan (eds). Rechtsphilosophie im 21. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, p. 157-180 (pp.176).
12.
Fischer-Lescano, Andreas & Teubner, Gunther (2004). Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unitiy in the Fragmentation of Global Law. Michigan Journal of International Law 25, 999-1046; Fischer-Lescano, Andreas & Teubner, Gunther (2006). Regime-Kollisionen. Zur Fragmentierung des globalen Rechts. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
13.
We will come back to this issue in Chap. 4, Sects. 4.1.2.2. and 4.2.3.2.
14.
I consider it important to choose a very classical example in view of the quite abstract reflections made here, just to the purpose of better comprehensibility. As we will see later on, such an example is not well suited for producing new insights or revolutionary discoveries, but it might be helpful to keep track of the way of legal investigation, in order to find new and revolutionary insights in subsequent studies.
15.
See of the extensive literature e.g.: Stolleis, Michael (2001). Public Law in Germany, 1800-1914. Oxford/New York: Berghahn, pp. 347; Bauer, Hartmut (1986). Geschichtliche Grundlagen der Lehre vom subjektiven öffentlichen Recht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot; Huber, Peter-Michael (1991). Konkurrenzschutz im Verwaltungsrecht. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Masing, Johannes (1997). Die Mobilisierung des Bürgers für die Durchsetzung des Rechts. Europäische Impulse für eine Revision der Lehre vom subjektiv-öffentlichen Recht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 56; Reiling, Michael (2004). Zu individuellen Rechten im deutschen und Gemeinschaftsrecht. Ein Vergleich ihrer Gründe, Ermittlung und Durchsetzung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 65; Caldwell, Peter C. (1997). Popular Sovereignty and the Crisis of German Constitutional Law. The Theory and Practice of Weimar Constitutionalism. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 34.
16.
See Gerber, Carl Friedrich von (1852). Über öffentliche Rechte. Tübingen: Laupp & Siebeck. See also Gozzi, Gustavo (1997). Rechtsstaat and Individual Rights in German Constitutional History, in: Costa, Pietro & Zolo, Danilo (eds.). The Rule of Law. History, Theory and Criticism. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer, pp. 237-259 (pp. 247).
17.
See Masing, Johannes (1997). Die Mobilisierung des Bürgers für die Durchsetzung des Rechts. Europäische Impulse für eine Revision der Lehre vom subjektiv-öffentlichen Recht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, p. 63.
18.
The original wording is: subjective public right as “Fähigkeit, Rechtsnormen im individuellen Interesse in Bewegung zu setzen”, cf. Jellinek, Georg (1892). System der subjektiven öffentlichen Rechte. Freiburg: Mohr, p. 48.
19.
Cf. Reiling, Michael (2004). Zu individuellen Rechten im deutschen und Gemeinschaftsrecht. Ein Vergleich ihrer Gründe, Ermittlung und Durchsetzung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, p. 71.
20.
See Jellinek, Georg (1892). System der subjektiven öffentlichen Rechte. Freiburg: Mohr, pp. 41; Bühler, Ottmar (1914). Die subjektiven öffentlichen Rechte und ihr Schutz in der deutschen Verwaltungsrechtsprechung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, pp. 92 and pp. 62: concerning the influence of civil law on the doctrine of subjective public law, see especially Masing, Johannes (1997). Die Mobilisierung des Bürgers für die Durchsetzung des Rechts. Europäische Impulse für eine Revision der Lehre vom subjektiv-öffentlichen Recht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 64.
21.
The famous formulation in its original wording is: “subjektives öffentliches Recht ist diejenige rechtliche Stellung des Untertanen zum Staate, in der er auf Grund eines Rechtsgeschäfts oder eines zwingenden, zum Schutz seiner Individualinteressen erlassenen Rechtssatzes, auf den er sich der Verwaltung gegenüber soll berufen können, vom Staat etwas verlangen kann oder ihm gegenüber etwas tun darf.” Bühler, Ottmar (1914). Die subjektiven öffentlichen Rechte und ihr Schutz in der deutschen Verwaltungsrechtsprechung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, p. 224.
22.
Cf. Stolleis, Michael (2004). Public Law in Germany, 1914-1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 388; Bauer, Hartmut (1986). Geschichtliche Grundlagen der Lehre vom subjektiven öffentlichen Recht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 102, 128; 4; Reiling, Michael (2004). Zu individuellen Rechten im deutschen und Gemeinschaftsrecht. Ein Vergleich ihrer Gründe, Ermittlung und Durchsetzung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 72.
23.
See Bachof, Otto (1951). Die verwaltungsgerichtliche Klage auf Vornahme einer Amtshandlung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p. 64.
24.
See Huber, Ernst Rudolf (1953). Wirtschaftsverwaltungsrecht. Vol. 1, 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p. 681.
25.
See in general concerning this issue: Reiling, Michael (2004). Zu individuellen Rechten im deutschen und Gemeinschaftsrecht. Ein Vergleich ihrer Gründe, Ermittlung und Durchsetzung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 73.
26.
For a distinction and exposition of the different levels of consideration, see at the beginning of this section.
27.
Distinguishing two systems e.g. Calliess, Christian (2006). Feinstaub im Rechtsschutz deutscher Verwaltungsgerichte. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, pp. 1-7 (pp.1); Masing, Johannes (1997). Die Mobilisierung des Bürgers für die Durchsetzung des Rechts. Europäische Impulse für eine Revision der Lehre vom subjektiv-öffentlichen Recht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 83.
28.
As Nettesheim does, who distinguishes basically a German, a French and an English system, cf. Nettesheim, Martin (2007). Subjektive Rechte im Unionsrecht, Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 132, pp. 333-392 (339).
29.
See e.g. Nettesheim, Martin (2007). Subjektive Rechte im Unionsrecht, Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 132, pp. 333-392 (pp. 339); Masing, Johannes (1997). Die Mobilisierung des Bürgers für die Durchsetzung des Rechts. Europäische Impulse für eine Revision der Lehre vom subjektiv-öffentlichen Recht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 83.
30.
See Danwitz, Thomas von (2008). Europäisches Verwaltungsrecht. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer, p. 24.
31.
See Danwitz, Thomas von (2008). Europäisches Verwaltungsrecht. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer, pp. 24
32.
See Nettesheim, Martin (2007). Subjektive Rechte im Unionsrecht, Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 132, pp. 333-392 (p. 340), referring to Galmot, Yves & Bonichot, Jean-Claude (1988). La Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes et la transposition des directives en droit national. Revue Francaise de Droit Administratif 4, pp. 1.
33.
Cf. Masing, Johannes (1997). Die Mobilisierung des Bürgers für die Durchsetzung des Rechts. Europäische Impulse für eine Revision der Lehre vom subjektiv-öffentlichen Recht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, p. 197; Danwitz, Thomas von (2004). Aarhus-Konvention: Umweltinformation, Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung, Zugang zu den Gerichten. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, pp. 272-282-(279).
34.
Laubadère, André de & Venezia, Jean-Claude & Gaudemet, Yves (1995). Droit administratif, 15th ed. Paris : LGDJ, pp. 105.
35.
Formulation in Chapus (1993), Droit administrative général, 7th ed. Paris , cited after Masing, Johannes (1997). Die Mobilisierung des Bürgers für die Durchsetzung des Rechts. Europäische Impulse für eine Revision der Lehre vom subjektiv-öffentlichen Recht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, p. 199.
36.
Cf. Danwitz, Thomas von (2008). Europäisches Verwaltungsrecht. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer, pp. 24, p. 65.
37.
Nettesheim, Martin (2007). Subjektive Rechte im Unionsrecht, Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 132, pp. 333-392 (340).
38.
See Wahl, Rainer (2010). Vorbemerkungen § 42 Abs. 2, in: Schoch, Friedrich & Schmidt-Aßmann, Eberhard &. Pietzner,Rainer. Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung. Kommentar. München: CH. Beck 20th ed. No. 94.
39.
Masing, Johannes (1997). Die Mobilisierung des Bürgers für die Durchsetzung des Rechts. Europäische Impulse für eine Revision der Lehre vom subjektiv-öffentlichen Recht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 218; Danwitz, Thomas von (1996). Verwaltungsrechtliches System und europäische Integration. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p. 225; see for a different evaluation: Reiling, Michael (2004). Zu individuellen Rechten im deutschen und Gemeinschaftsrecht. Ein Vergleich ihrer Gründe, Ermittlung und Durchsetzung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot,, pp. 444 Nettesheim, Martin (2007). Subjektive Rechte im Unionsrecht, Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 132, pp. 333-392 (pp. 339).
40.
ECJ (1963). Van Gend en Loos, Case 26/62 ECR 1963, p. 1 (26); see also Danwitz, Thomas von (2008). Europäisches Verwaltungsrecht. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer, p. 283.
41.
Cf. already the title of Masing’s study which so far is programmatic for this opinion: Masing, Johannes (1997). Die Mobilisierung des Bürgers für die Durchsetzung des Rechts. Europäische Impulse für eine Revision der Lehre vom subjektiv-öffentlichen Recht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. (The Mobilization of the Citizen for the Enforcement of Law; translation S.MM.).
42.
Cf. Danwitz, Thomas von (2008). Europäisches Verwaltungsrecht. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer, p.282; Schwarze, Jürgen (1999). Die Entwicklung der französischen Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit aus deutscher Sicht. Deutsche Verwaltungsblätter, pp. 261-269 (265).
43.
E.g. Reiling, Michael (2004). Zu individuellen Rechten im deutschen und Gemeinschaftsrecht. Ein Vergleich ihrer Gründe, Ermittlung und Durchsetzung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot p. 454.
44.
Art. 263 (4) TFEU: Any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the first and second paragraphs, institute proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures.
45.
See also the so-called “Plaumann Formula”, ECJ (1963). Plaumann. Case 25/62. ECR 1963, 95.
46.
E.g. BVerwGE 94, pp. 151; 101, pp. 157 (decisions of the Federal Administrative Court of Germany, in short: BVerwGE).
47.
See Marsch, Nikolaus (2011). Subjektivierung der gerichtlichen Verwaltungskontrolle in Frankreich. Baden-Baden: Nomos,
48.
Constating a deficit of theoretical investigation concerning the concept of subjective rights in Union law, Nettesheim, Martin (2007). Subjektive Rechte im Unionsrecht, Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 132, pp. 333-392 (339).
49.
For a more detailed examination of the judicial history of this directive in Germany, see below Chap. 4, Sect. 4.3.2.2.
50.
See as examples only Slaughter, Anne-Marie (2004). A New World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press (network approach) and Luhmann, Niklas (1995). Das Recht der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp (system approach), for further sources see above Chap. 2, Sect. 2.2.4.3.
51.
See for this consideration above Chap. 2, Sect. 2.2.4.4.
52.
Again, for more detailed considerations see above Chap. 2, Sect. 2.3.1.4 and 2.3.1.5. I would not say that systems theory in the luhmannian version in particular exposes this special condition of normativity in law. But this approach falls back upon an aporia (as Derrida calls it, see Derrida, Jacques (1992). Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority”, in: Cornell, Drucilla & Rosenfeld, Michel & Carlson, David Gray (eds.). Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, New York: Routledge pp. 3-67 (pp. 24).) or paradox (as Luhmann and calls it, cf. Luhmann, Niklas (1995). Das Recht der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, p. 308 and Luhmann, Niklas (1993), Die Paradoxie des Entscheidens, Verwaltungsarchiv 84, pp. 287-310.): basically, as they describe it, the relationship between norm and decision in law is paradoxical, because only a legal problem that is not decidable needs a judicial decision; the characteristic of being undecidable, then, is a condition for a decision. This description further leads to an approach that is centered around the situation of decision. The reason why this is not compatible with our present approach lies in the problematic use of the terms decision and decidability, or in general: normativity—because these approaches solve the problem that arises due to the (in my approach shared) concept of normativity on which the idea of law is based in a hardly convincing way. When they qualify an arrangement as undecidable, they understand by decision a conclusion mechanism: such a situation cannot be solved simply by applying a norm. But in saying that the paradoxical moment lies in the situation’s need of still being and becoming decided (which is only a result of being undecidable), they are applying the term ‘decidable’ in a different sense: a sense that transgresses the notion of the application of norms as simple subsuming towards a notion of ‘decision as creation’. In Derrida’s version, this observation is a deconstructive lecture of the legal decision moment, which only allows approaches as the one we are taking here. But in systems theory, this observation is formalized, and thus the different use of the same concepts contains a mistake that creates a far-reaching paradoxology which I am trying not to follow here.
53.
Bachmann-Medick, Doris (2006). Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Hamburg: Rowohlt, p. 287 (translation S. MM.)
54.
See below Sect. 3.2.
55.
To the similarities of court and theatre, only see e. g. Vismann, Cornelia (1999). “Rejouer les Crimes.” – Theater vs. Video. Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 11/2, 161-177 and Vismann, Cornelia (2011). Medien der Rechtsprechung. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer, pp. 19.
56.
Even though I am convinced that it must be analytically possible to analogize the application of concepts and the application of law—along the line of argument that legal concepts are also concepts. But probably the argument cannot be run as simply as the formulation sounds right now. This question has to be left for different investigations.
57.
Concerning the interesting and varied concept of analogy and its role in science, see e.g. Hallyn, Fernand (ed.) (2000). Metaphor and Analogy in the Sciences. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
58.
We will have a deeper look at the concepts of scale and proportionality below, see Chap. 4, Sect. 4.2.
59.
See already above Chap. 2, Sect. 2.2.2.
60.
Especially in German legal literature the terms ‘Verwaltungsrechtsraum’ (Space of Administrative Law) or ‘Verwaltungsraum’ (Space of Administration) are very common—see for example Debus, Alfred G. et. al. (eds.)(2011). Verwaltungsrechtsraum Europa. Baden-Baden: Nomos; Schmidt-Aßmann, Eberhard (1999). Strukturen des Europäischen Verwaltungsrechts: Einleitende Problemskizze, in: Schmidt-Aßmann, Eberhard & Hoffmann-Riem, Wolfgang (eds.). Strukturen des Europäischen Verwaltungsrechts. Baden-Baden: Nomos, p. 9-43 (12).
61.
See e. g. Weiler, Joseph (1999). Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Boundaries: on the Conflict of Standards and Values in the Protection of Human Rights in the European Legal Space, in: Weiler, Joseph. The Constitution of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 102-129; De Bellis, Maurizia (2011). Public Law and Private Regulators in the Global Legal Space. International Journal of Constitutional Law 9, pp. 425-448.
62.
See title V, art. 67 TEU.
63.
Referring to the European “Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice” e.g. Monar, Jörg (2009). Der Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts in: von Bogdandy, Armin & Bast, Jürgen (eds). Europäisches Verfassungsrecht. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. P. 749-798 (757).
64.
This qualification is borrowed from Dreier and Wittreck, cf. Dreier, Horst & Wittreck, Fabian (2009). Rechtswissenschaft, in: Günzel, Stephan (ed.). Raumwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, p. 338-353.
65.
Dreier, Horst & Wittreck, Fabian (2009). Rechtswissenschaft, in: Günzel, Stephan (ed.). Raumwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, p. 338-353 (338) (translation S. MM.).
66.
See below Sect. 3.2.2.
67.
See e.g. Erbsen, Allan (2011). Constitutional Spaces. Minnesota Law Review 95, 1168-1267; Blomley, Nicholas D. (1994). Law, Space, and the Geographies of Power. London: Guilford; Blomely, Nicholas D. & Delaney, David & Ford, Richard (eds.) (2001). The Legal Geographies Reader. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; Holder, Jane & Harrison, Carolyn (eds.)(2003). Law and Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Pottage, Alain (1994). The Measure of Land. Modern Law Review 57/3, 361-384; Cooper, Davina (1998). Governing out of Order: Space, Law and the Politics of Belonging. London: Rivers Oram; Massey, Doreen. (1994). Space, Place and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell; Butler, Chris (2003). Law and the Social Production of Space. Thesis, Griffith University Queensland (Australia).
68.
See e.g. Cohen, Julie E. (2007). Cyberspace as/ and Space. Columbia Law Review 107, 210-256.
69.
See e.g. McGhee, Derek & Moran, Leslie (1998). Perverting London: the cartographic practices of law. Law and Critique 9/2, 207-224; Twining, William (1999). Mapping Law. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 50/1, 12-49; Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas (2001). Mapping Utopias: A Voyage to Placenessless. Law and Critique 12, 135-157; Patterson, Dennis & Teubner, Gunther (1998). Changing Maps: Empirical Legal Autopoiesis. Social and Legal Studies 7/4, 451-486; Grabham, Emily. (2006). Taxonomies of Inequality: Lawyers, Maps and the Challenge of Hybridity. Social and Legal Studies 15/1, 5-23; Economides, Kim & Blacksell, Mark & Watkins, Charles (1986). The spatial analysis of legal systems: towards a geography of law? Journal of Law and Society 13/2, 161-181; Chatterjee, Bela (2006). Text and terrain: Mapping Sexuality and Law. Law and Critique 17, 293-323.
70.
The notion of contingency in the sense applied here means: possible, but not necessary.
71.
See Bachmann-Medick, Doris (2006). Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Hamburg: Rowohlt, pp. 286.
72.
Some exemplary literature about the spatial turn (out of real floods of studies on the topic): Hubbard, Phil & Kitchin, Rob (eds.) (2011). Key Thinkers on Space and Place. 2^nd edition. London: Sage; Crang, Mike & Thrift, Nigel (eds.) (2000). Thinking Space. London, New York: Routledge; Ward, Barney & Arias, Santa (eds.) (2008). The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Routledge; Döring, Jörg & Thielmann, Tristan (2008). Spatial Turn. Das Raumparadigma in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript.
73.
Lefebvre, Henri (1991 (orig. 1974)). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford, p. 1.
74.
Lefebvre, Henri (1991 (orig. 1974)). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford, p. 95.
75.
Of course in philosophy and even physics, but also in sociology and cultural studies there had been turns towards the concept of a relative and/or socially constructed space before (see e.g. Leibniz in Clarke, Samuel (1717). A collection of papers which passed between the late learned Mr. Leibniz and Dr. Clarke in the years 1715/1716 relating to the principles of natural philosophy and religion. London: Knapton; Kant, Immanuel (1770). Von dem Raume, in: Schriften zur Metaphysik und Logik I. (Werkausgabe, Bd. 5. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp), p. 56-69; Nietzsche, Friedrich (1967, ed. and tr. by Kaufmann, Walter). The Will to Power. Random House: New York, p. 293, cited after Lefebvre, Henri (1991 (orig. 1974)). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford, p. 22; Einstein, Albert (1930). Raum, Äther und Feld in der Physik. Forum Philosophicum I, pp. 173-180; Durkheim, Émile (1969 (orig. 1897)). Note sur la morphologie sociale, in: Durkheim, Èmile (ed.). Journal sociologique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 181-182; Simmel, Georg (1903). Über räumliche Projektionen sozialer Formen, in: Aufsätze und Abhandlungen 1901-1908. Gesamtausgabe, vol. 7. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, p. 201-220.).
76.
E.g. in Durkheim’s study, who already distinguished physical space from social space and concentrated on the latter, see Durkheim, Émile (1969 (orig. 1897)). Note sur la morphologie sociale, in: Journal sociologique. Presses Universitaires de France: Paris, pp. 181-182.
77.
See Dünne, Jörg (2006). Einleitung, in: Dünne, Jörg & Günzel, Stephan (eds.). Raumtheorie. Grundlagentexte aus Philosophie und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 289-302 (289).
78.
Mostly referring to Soja, Edward (1989). Postmodern Geographies. The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London/New York: Verso.
79.
As Soja himself dates the turning point, alluding to early works of “postmodern critical human geography”, see Soja, Edward (1989). Postmodern Geographies. The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London/New York: Verso, pp. 12.
80.
Soja, Edward (1996). Thirdspace. Journeys to Los Angeles and other Real-and-Imagined Places. London/New York: Verso, cover text.
81.
Foucault originally gave this lecture in 1967, but it was only published in 1984 (translated to English in 1986): Foucault, Michel (1984). Des espaces autres. Architecture, mouvement, continuité 5, p. 46-49 and Foucault, Michel (1986). Of Other Spaces. Diacritics 16, p. 22-27.
82.
Foucault, Michel (1986). Of Other Spaces. Diacritics 16, pp. 22-27 (pp.22)
83.
Soja, Edward (1989). Postmodern Geographies. The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London/New York: Verso, p. 16.
84.
See for the present-day significance e.g. Bachmann-Medick, Doris (2006). Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Hamburg: Rowohlt; Crang, Mike & Thrift, Nigel (eds.) (2000). Thinking Space. London, New York: Routledge; Döring, Jörg & Thielmann, Tristan (2008). Spatial Turn. Das Raumparadigma in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript; Elden, Stuart (2001). Politics, Philosophy, Geography: Henri Lefebvre in Recent Anglo-American Scholarship. Antipode 33/5, p. 809 - 825; Günzel, Stephan (ed., 2007). Topologie. Zur Raumbeschreibung in den Kultur- und Medienwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript; Günzel, Stephan (ed., 2009). Raumwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; Law, John (2002). Objects and Spaces. Theory Culture Society 19, p. 91 - 105; Löw, Martina (2001). Raumsoziologie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; Warf, Barney & Arias, Santa (eds.) (2008). The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
85.
Löw, Martina (2001). Raumsoziologie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, p. 10 (tr. S. MM.)
86.
Lefebvre, Henri (1974). La production de l’espace. Anthropos: Paris. In English: Lefebvre, Henri (1991, 2011). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford.
87.
Soja, Edward (1989). Postmodern Geographies. The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London/New York: Verso; Soja, Edward (1996). Thirdspace. Journeys to Los Angeles and other Real-and-Imagined Places. London/New York: Verso.
88.
Harvey, David (1989). The Condition of Postmodernity. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.
89.
Cf. Dünne, Jörg (2006). Einleitung, in: Dünne, Jörg & Günzel, Stephan (eds.). Raumtheorie. Grundlagentexte aus Philosophie und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 289-302 (297).
90.
Lefebvre, Henri (1991, 2011). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford, p. 30.
91.
Lefebvre, Henri (1991, 2011). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford, p. 30.
92.
See Soja, Edward (2008). New Twists on the Spatial Turn, in: Döring, Jörg & Thielmann, Tristan. Spatial Turn. Das Raumparadigma in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 241-262 (245).
93.
Lefebvre, Henri (1991, 2011). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford, pp. 218.
94.
Löw, Martina (2008). The Constitution of Space. The Structuration of Spaces Through the Simultaneity of Effect and Perception. European Journal of Social Theory 11/1, 25-49 (27).
95.
It was especially Edward Soja who took up the triadic conception, see Soja, Edward (1996). Thirdspace. Journeys to Los Angeles and other Real-and-Imagined Places. London/New York: Verso.
96.
See below, Sect. 3.3.
97.
Lefebvre, Henri (1991, 2011). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford, p. 38: “The spatial practice of a society secretes that society’s space; it propounds and presupposes it, in a dialectical interaction; it produces it slowly and surely as it masters and appropriates it. From the analytic standpoint, the spatial practice of a society is revealed through the deciphering of its space.” See also Soja, Edward (1996). Thirdspace. Journeys to Los Angeles and other Real-and-Imagined Places. London/New York: Verso, p. 74-78, calling this space ‘Firstspace’.
98.
Lefebvre, Henri (1991, 2011). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford, pp. 38: “conceptualized space, the space of scientists, planners, urbanists, technocratic subdividers and social engineers, as of a certain type of artist with a scientific bent—all of whom identify what is lived and what is perceived with what is conceived. (…) This is the dominant space in any society (or mode of production).” See also Soja, Edward (1996). Thirdspace. Journeys to Los Angeles and other Real-and-Imagined Places. London/New York: Verso, p. 78-81, calling this space ‘Secondspace’.
99.
Lefebvre, Henri (1991, 2011). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford, p. 39: “space as directly lived through its associated images and symbols, and hence the space of ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’, but also of some artists and perhaps of those, such as a few writers and philosophers, who describe and aspire to do no more than describe. This is the dominated—and hence passively experienced—space which the imagination seeks to change and appropriate. It overlays physical space, making symbolic use of its objects. Thus representational spaces may be said, though again with certain exceptions, to tend towards more or less coherent systems of non-verbal symbols and signs.” See also Soja, Edward (1996). Thirdspace. Journeys to Los Angeles and other Real-and-Imagined Places. London/New York: Verso, p. 53-82.
100.
See Soja, Edward (2008). New Twists on the Spatial Turn, in: Döring, Jörg & Thielmann, Tristan. Spatial Turn. Das Raumparadigma in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript, p. 241-262 (250).
101.
Löw, Martina (2008). The Constitution of Space. The Structuration of Spaces Through the Simultaneity of Effect and Perception. European Journal of Social Theory 11/1, 25-49 (28).
102.
Similarly Soja, Edward (2008). New Twists on the Spatial Turn, in: Döring, Jörg & Thielmann, Tristan. Spatial Turn. Das Raumparadigma in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript, p. 241-262 (251).
103.
Löw, Martina (2008). The Constitution of Space. The Structuration of Spaces Through the Simultaneity of Effect and Perception. European Journal of Social Theory 11/1, 25-49 (28).
104.
Löw, Martina (2008). The Constitution of Space. The Structuration of Spaces Through the Simultaneity of Effect and Perception. European Journal of Social Theory 11/1, 25-49 (28).
105.
See Lefebvre, Henri (1991, 2011). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford, p. 39.
106.
See Lefebvre, Henri (1991, 2011). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford, p. 40.
107.
See Lefebvre, Henri (1991, 2011). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford, p. 39.
108.
See Bachmann-Medick, Doris (2006). Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Hamburg: Rowohlt, p. 292.
109.
See Schmid, Christian (2003). Raum und Regulation. Henri Lefebvre und der Regulationsansatz, in: Brand, Ulrich & Raza, Werner (eds.). Fit für den Postfordismus. Münster: Dampfboot, pp. 217-242 (233).
110.
Similarly, Siegert, Bernhard (2005). Repräsentationen diskursiver Räume – Einleitung, in: Böhme, Hartmut (ed.). Topographien der Literatur. DFG-Symposion 2004. Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler, pp. 3-11.
111.
Lefebvre, Henri (1991, 2011). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford, p. 30.
112.
See above Chap. 2.
113.
Lefebvre, Henri (1991, 2011). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford, p. 230.
114.
Löw, Martina (2001). Raumsoziologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, p. 17. Concerning the distinction between absolute and relative spaces in geography, see Smith, Neil (2008). Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space. University of Georgia Press: Athens.
115.
Löw, Martina (2001). Raumsoziologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, p. 19.
116.
Among the numerous interesting examinations are e.g. the one by Whittaker (Whittaker, Sir Edmund (1949). From Euclid to Eddington. A Study if Conceptions of the External World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)or the one by Jammer (Jammer, Max (1969). Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics. Cambridge/Mass.: Harvard University Press.).
117.
See e.g. Leibniz in Clarke, Samuel (1717). A collection of papers which passed between the late learned Mr. Leibniz and Dr. Clarke in the years 1715/1716 relating to the principles of natural philosophy and religion. London: Knapton (referring to this debate, see Ballard, Kaith (1960). Leibniz’s Theory of Space and Time. Journal of the History of Idea 21, p. 49-65; Erlichson, Herman (1967). The Leibniz-Clarke Controversy: Absolute Versus Relative Space and Time. American Journal of Physics 35, p. 89-98.); Kant, Immanuel (1770). Von dem Raume, in: Schriften zur Metaphysik und Logik I. (Werkausgabe, Bd. 5. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp), p. 56-69; Nietzsche, Friedrich (1967, ed. and tr. by Kaufmann, Walter). The Will to Power. Random House: New York, p. 293, cited after Lefebvre, Henri (1991 (orig. 1974)). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford, p. 22; Einstein, Albert (1930). Raum, Äther und Feld in der Physik. Forum Philosophicum I, p. 173-180; Durkheim, Émile (1969 (orig. 1897)). Note sur la morphologie sociale, in: Durkheim, Èmile (ed.). Journal sociologique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 181-182; Simmel, Georg (1903). Über räumliche Projektionen sozialer Formen, in: Aufsätze und Abhandlungen 1901-1908. Gesamtausgabe, vol. 7. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, p. 201-220.
118.
Löw, Martina (2001). Raumsoziologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
119.
De Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press
120.
See below, Sect. 3.3.
121.
E.g. De Certeau, Michel (1987). La fable mystique. Gallimard: Paris.
122.
See for biographical information Crang, Mike (2011). Michel de Certeau, in: Hubbard, Phil & Kitchin, Rob (eds.). Key Thinkers on Space and Place. 2^nd edition. London: Sage, pp. 106-112 (106).
123.
Central works include de Certeau, Michel (1980). On the oppositional practices of everyday life. Social Text 1, pp. 3-43; de Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press; de Certeau, Michel (1986). Heterologies: Discourses on the Other. Manchester University Press: Manchester.
124.
See originally de Certeau, Michel (1980). L’Invention du Quotidien. 1. Arts de faire. Paris: Gallimard.
125.
See Dünne, Jörg (2006). Einleitung, in: Dünne, Jörg & Günzel, Stephan (eds.). Raumtheorie. Grundlagentexte aus Philosophie und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 289-302 (299).
126.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1976). Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell: Oxford, §§ 116, 48. See also de Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, p. 9.
127.
De Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press p. 9.
128.
De Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, p. 9.
129.
Citation in: De Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, p. 9.
130.
See above, Chap. 2, Sect. 2.3.1.
131.
De Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, p. 9.
132.
See only the famous passage of the chapter “Walking in the City”: “Seeing Manhattan from the 110^th floor of the World Trade Center. Beneath the haze stirred up by the winds, the urban island, a sea in the middle of the sea, lifts up the skyscrapers over Wall Street, sinks down at Greenwich, then rises again to the crests of Midtown, quietly passes over Central Park and finally undulates off into the distance beyond Harlem. A wave of verticals. Its agitation is momentarily arrested by vision. The gigantic mass is immobilized before eyes. It is transformed into a texturology in which extremes coinicide (….). Unlike Rome, New York has never learned the art of growing old by playing on all its pasts. Its present invents itself, from hour to hour, in the act of throwing away its previous accomplishments and challenging the future. (…) The spectator can read in it a universe that is constantly exploding.(…) To what erotics of knowledge does the ecstasy of reading such a cosmos belong? Having taken a voluptuous pleasure in it, I wonder what is the source of this pleasure of “seeing the whole”, of looking down on, totalizing the most immoderate of human texts.(…)”; de Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 91.
133.
De Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, p. 117.
134.
Dünne, Jörg (2006). Einleitung, in: Dünne, Jörg & Günzel, Stephan (eds.). Raumtheorie. Grundlagentexte aus Philosophie und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 289-302 (300).
135.
De Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, p. 117.
136.
De Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, p. 117.
137.
De Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, p. 117.
138.
See for a spatial (sociological) study that is explicitly based on this dichotomy Löw, Martina (2001). Raumsoziologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, and Löw, Martina (2008). The Constitution of Space. The Structuration of Spaces Through the Simultaneity of Effect and Perception. European Journal of Social Theory 11/1, 25-49.
139.
See Chap. 2, Sect. 2.3.1.
140.
See below Chap. 4.
141.
See above Chap. 2.
142.
See above, Chap. 2, Sect. 2.3.1.
143.
See above Chap. 2, Sect. 2.3.1.
144.
See above Chap. 2.
145.
See below Sect. 3.3.2. and Chap. 4.
146.
See above Chap. 2, Sect. 2.1.5.
147.
See again above Chap. 2, Sect. 2.1.5.
148.
For studies in cartography see e.g. Jacob, Christian (1996). Toward a Cultural History of Cartography: Imago Mundi 48, pp. 191-198; Cosgrove, Denis (2001). Appolo’s Eye: A Cartographic Genealogy of the Earth in the Western Imagination. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; Harley, J. B. (2001). The New Nature of Maps: Essays in the History of Cartography. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
149.
Günzel, Stephan (2007). Raum – Topographie – Topologie, in: Günzel, Stephan (ed.). Topologie. Zur Raumbeschreibung in den Kultur- und Medienwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 14-29 (14).
150.
Günzel, Stephan (2007). Raum – Topographie – Topologie, in: Günzel, Stephan (ed.). Topologie. Zur Raumbeschreibung in den Kultur- und Medienwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 14-29 (14).
151.
See also above Sect. 3.2.1.
152.
Günzel, Stephan (2007). Raum – Topographie – Topologie, in: Günzel, Stephan (ed.). Topologie. Zur Raumbeschreibung in den Kultur- und Medienwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 14-29 (21).
153.
Günzel, Stephan (2007). Raum – Topographie – Topologie, in: Günzel, Stephan (ed.). Topologie. Zur Raumbeschreibung in den Kultur- und Medienwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 14-29 (21).
154.
As an almost classical example, see only Lewin, Kurt (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Row,
155.
See e.g.; Katz, Daniel M. & Stafford, Derek K. & Provins, Eric (2008). Social Architecture, Judicial Peer Effects and the “Evolution” of the Law: Toward a Positive Theory of Judicial Social Structure. Georgia State University Law Review 24/4, 975-999 (985); Meyerson, Michael I. (2002). Political Numeracy: Mathematical Perspectives on Our Chaotic Constitution. New York:Norton; Meyerson, Michael I. (2002). Mathematics and the Legal Imagination. A Response to Paul Edelman. Constitutional Commentary 19, 477-481; Tribe, Laurence H. (1989). The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics. Harvard Law Review 103, 1-39.
156.
See e.g. Serres: „Une paresse relative aux mathématiques induit à penser que l’espace, en géometrie, se lie à une métrique ou même à la mesure en général. Bergson et Heidegger répètent à loisir la même bévue et y entraînent leurs obligés, sans observer qu’autour d’eux les topologues, et, comme d’habitude, avant les savants, des artistes comme Maupassant, surent peindre le voisinage et ses proximités sans nul besoin de la distance ni de quantité pur la mesurer. […] La topologie épouse l’espace, autrement, et mieux. Pour ce faire, elle use du fermé (dans), de l’ouvert (hors), des intervalles (entre), de l’orientation et de la direction (vers, devant, derrière), du voisinage et de l’adhérence (près, sur, ceontre, suivant, touchant), du plongement (parmi), de la dimension… et ainsi de suite, toutes le réalités sans mesure et avec relations.“, Serres, Michel (1994). Atlas. Paris: Éditions Julliard, p. 71. I owe Benjamin Wihstutz for the hint to this beautiful passage to, see Wihstutz, Benjamin (2012). Der andere Raum. Politiken sozialer Grenzverhandlung im Gegenwartstheater. Zürich/Berlin: Diaphanes, p.63. Der andere Raum is a great example of a recourse to the mathematical concept of topology in the humanities (concerning this topic, see especially pp. 61).
157.
See Crilly, Tony (1999). The Emergence of Topological Dimension Theory, in: James, I. M. (ed.). History of Topology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1-24 (10ff.); Heuser, Marie-Luise (2007). Die Anfänge der Topologie in Mathematik und Naturphilosophie, in: Günzel, Stephan (ed.). Topologie. Zur Raumbeschreibung in den Kultur- und Medienwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 183-200 (183).
158.
Hilbert, David & Cohn-Vossen, Stephan (2011, orig. 1932). Anschauliche Geometrie. Springer: Heidelberg/Berlin, p. 254.
159.
See Leibniz, Gottfried W. (1693). De analysi situs, in: Leibniz, Gottfried W. (1858, ed. By Gerhardt, Carl Immanuel). Mathematische Schriften. Hildesheim: Olms, pp. 178-183 and Leibniz in Clarke, Samuel (1717). A collection of papers which passed between the late learned Mr. Leibniz and Dr. Clarke in the years 1715/1716 relating to the principles of natural philosophy and religion. London: Knapton. See also Heuser, Marie-Luise (2007). Die Anfänge der Topologie in Mathematik und Naturphilosophie, in: Günzel, Stephan (ed.). Topologie. Zur Raumbeschreibung in den Kultur- und Medienwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 183-200 (pp. 185) and Freudenthal, Hans (1972). Leibniz und die Analysis situs. Studia Leibnitiana 4, 61-69.
160.
“In der Gegenwart gehören unter allen Zweigen der Mathematik die topologischen Forschungen zu den fruchtbarsten und erfolgreichsten.” Hilbert, David & Cohn-Vossen, Stephan (2011, orig. 1932). Anschauliche Geometrie. Springer: Heidelberg/Berlin, p. 254.
161.
Klein, Felix (1872). Vergleichende Betrachtungen über neuere geometrische Forschungen. Deichert: Erlangen.
162.
Heuser, Marie-Luise (2007). Die Anfänge der Topologie in Mathematik und Naturphilosophie, in: Günzel, Stephan (ed.). Topologie. Zur Raumbeschreibung in den Kultur- und Medienwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 183-200 (pp. 197, tr. S.MM.).
163.
“Es gibt nun räumliche Transformationen, welche die geometrischen Eigenschaften räumlicher Gebilde überhaupt ungeändert lassen. Geometrische Eigenschaften sind nämlich ihrem Begriffe nach unabhängig von der Lage, die das zu untersuchende Gebilde im Raume einnimmt, von seiner absoluten Größe, endlich auch von dem Sinne, in welchem seine Theile geordnet sind. Die Eigenschaften eines räumlichen Gebildes bleiben also ungeändert durch alle Bewegungen des Raumes, durch seine Aehnlichkeitstransformationen, durch den Process der Spiegelung, sowie durch alle Transformationen, die sich aus diesen zusammensetzen.“ Klein, Felix (1872). Vergleichende Betrachtungen über neuere geometrische Forschungen. Deichert: Erlangen, p. 6.
164.
“Wir denken von den Transformationen immer die Gesammtheit der räumlichen Gebilde gleichzeitig betroffen und reden deshalb schlechthin von Transformationen des Raumes.“ Klein, Felix (1872). Vergleichende Betrachtungen über neuere geometrische Forschungen. Deichert: Erlangen, p. 5, note 2.
165.
See above Sect. 3.3.2.
166.
See above Chap. 2, Sect. 2.3.

References

Augsberg, Ino (2009). Die Lesbarkeit des Rechts. Texttheoretische Lektionen für eine postmoderne juristische Methodenlehre. Weilerswist: Velbrück.
Google Scholar
Bachmann-Medick, Doris (2006). Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Hamburg: Rowohlt.
Google Scholar
Bachof, Otto (1951). Die verwaltungsgerichtliche Klage auf Vornahme einer Amtshandlung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Google Scholar
Ballard, Kaith (1960). Leibniz’s Theory of Space and Time. Journal of the History of Idea 21, p. 49-65.
Article Google Scholar
Bauer, Hartmut (1986). Geschichtliche Grundlagen der Lehre vom subjektiven öffentlichen Recht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Google Scholar
Blomley, Nicholas D. (1994). Law, Space, and the Geographies of Power. London: Guilford.
Google Scholar
Blomely, Nicholas D. & Delaney, David & Ford, Richard (eds.) (2001). The Legal Geographies Reader. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Bogdandy, Armin von & Bast, Jürgen (eds)(2009). Europäisches Verfassungsrecht. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Google Scholar
Böhme, Hartmut (ed.)(2005). Topographien der Literatur. DFG-Symposion 2004. Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler.
Google Scholar
Brand, Ulrich & Raza, Werner (eds.)(2003). Fit für den Postfordismus. Münster: Dampfboot.
Google Scholar
Brown, Harold (1979). Perception, Theory and Commitment. The New Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Brugger, Wilfried & Neumann, Ulfrid & Kirste, Stephan (eds)(2008). Rechtsphilosophie im 21. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Google Scholar
Bühler, Ottmar (1914). Die subjektiven öffentlichen Rechte und ihr Schutz in der deutschen Verwaltungsrechtsprechung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Google Scholar
Butler, Chris (2003). Law and the Social Production of Space. Thesis, Griffith University Queensland (Australia).
Google Scholar
Caldwell, Peter C. (1997). Popular Sovereignty and the Crisis of German Constitutional Law. The Theory and Practice of Weimar Constitutionalism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Google Scholar
Calliess, Christian (2006). Feinstaub im Rechtsschutz deutscher Verwaltungsgerichte. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, pp. 1-7.
Google Scholar
Chalmers, Alan (2007). What is This Thing Called Science? St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.
Google Scholar
Chatterjee, Bela (2006). Text and terrain: Mapping Sexuality and Law. Law and Critique 17, 293-323.
Google Scholar
Clarke, Samuel (1717). A collection of papers which passed between the late learned Mr. Leibniz and Dr. Clarke in the years 1715/1716 relating to the principles of natural philosophy and religion. London: Knapton.
Google Scholar
Cohen, Julie E. (2007). Cyberspace as/ and Space. Columbia Law Review 107, 210-256.
Google Scholar
Cooper, Davina (1998). Governing out of Order: Space, Law and the Politics of Belonging. London: Rivers Oram.
Google Scholar
Cosgrove, Denis (2001). Appolo’s Eye: A Cartographic Genealogy of the Earth in the Western Imagination. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Google Scholar
Costa, Pietro & Zolo, Danilo (eds.)(1997). The Rule of Law. History, Theory and Criticism. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.
Google Scholar
Crang, Mike & Thrift, Nigel (eds.) (2000). Thinking Space. London, New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Crang, Mike (2011). Michel de Certeau, in: Hubbard, Phil & Kitchin, Rob (eds.). Key Thinkers on Space and Place. 2^nd edition. London: Sage, p. 106-112.
Google Scholar
Cornell, Drucilla & Rosenfeld, Michel & Carlson, David Gray (eds.)(1992). Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Crilly, Tony (1999). The Emergence of Topological Dimension Theory, in: James, I. M. (ed.). History of Topology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1-24.
Chapter Google Scholar
Danwitz, Thomas von (2008). Europäisches Verwaltungsrecht. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.
Google Scholar
Danwitz, Thomas von (2004). Aarhus-Konvention: Umweltinformation, Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung, Zugang zu den Gerichten. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, pp. 272-282.
Google Scholar
Danwitz, Thomas von (1996). Verwaltungsrechtliches System und europäische Integration. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Google Scholar
De Bellis, Maurizia (2011). Public Law and Private Regulators in the Global Legal Space. International Journal of Constitutional Law 9, pp. 425-448.
Google Scholar
De Certeau, Michel (1980). On the oppositional practices of everyday life. Social Text 1, 3-43.
Google Scholar
De Certeau, Michel (1980). L’Invention du Quotidien. 1. Arts de faire. Paris: Gallimard.
Google Scholar
De Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Google Scholar
De Certeau, Michel (1986). Heterologies: Discourses on the Other. Manchester University Press: Manchester.
Google Scholar
De Certeau, Michel (1987). La fable mystique. Gallimard: Paris.
Google Scholar
Debus, Alfred et. al. (eds.)(2011). Verwaltungsrechtsraum Europa. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques (1992). Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority”, in: Cornell, Drucilla & Rosenfeld, Michel & Carlson, David Gray (eds.). Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, New York: Routledge, pp. 3-67.
Google Scholar
Döring, Jörg & Thielmann, Tristan (2008). Spatial Turn. Das Raumparadigma in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Google Scholar
Dreier, Horst & Wittreck, Fabian (2009). Rechtswissenschaft, in: Günzel, Stephan (ed.). Raumwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 338-353.
Google Scholar
Dünne, Jörg (2006). Einleitung, in: Dünne, Jörg & Günzel, Stephan (eds.). Raumtheorie. Grundlagentexte aus Philosophie und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, p. 289-302.
Google Scholar
Dünne, Jörg & Günzel, Stephan (eds.)(2006). Raumtheorie. Grundlagentexte aus Philosophie und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Google Scholar
Durkheim, Émile (1969 , orig. 1897). Note sur la morphologie sociale, in: Durkheim, Èmile (ed.). Journal sociologique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 181-182.
Google Scholar
Durkheim, Èmile (ed.) (1969, orig. 1897). Journal sociologique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Google Scholar
Economides, Kim & Blacksell, Mark & Watkins, Charles (1986). The spatial analysis of legal systems: towards a geography of law? Journal of Law and Society 13/2, pp. 161-181.
Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert (1930). Raum, Äther und Feld in der Physik. Forum Philosophicum I, pp. 173-180.
Google Scholar
Elden, Stuart (2001). Politics, Philosophy, Geography: Henri Lefebvre in Recent Anglo-American Scholarship. Antipode 33/5, pp. 809 – 825.
Google Scholar
Erbsen, Allan (2011). Constitutional Spaces. Minnesota Law Review 95, pp. 1168-1267.
Google Scholar
Erlichson, Herman (1967). The Leibniz-Clarke Controversy: Absolute Versus Relative Space and Time. American Journal of Physics 35, pp. 89-98.
Article Google Scholar
Fischer-Lescano, Andreas & Teubner, Gunther (2004). Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unitiy in the Fragmentation of Global Law. Michigan Journal of International Law 25, pp. 999-1046.
Google Scholar
Fischer-Lescano, Andreas & Teubner, Gunther (2006). Regime-Kollisionen. Zur Fragmentierung des globalen Rechts. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel (1984). Des espaces autres. Architecture, mouvement, continuité 5, pp. 46-49.
Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel (1986). Of Other Spaces. Diacritics 16, pp. 22-27.
Article Google Scholar
Freudenthal, Hans (1972). Leibniz und die Analysis situs. Studia Leibnitiana 4, pp. 61-69.
Google Scholar
Galmot, Yves & Bonichot, Jean-Claude (1988). La Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes et la transposition des directives en droit national. Revue Francaise de Droit Administratif 4, pp. 1.
Google Scholar
Gerber, Carl Friedrich von (1852). Über öffentliche Rechte. Tübingen: Laupp & Siebeck.
Google Scholar
Gozzi, Gustavo (1997). Rechtsstaat and Individual Rights in German Constitutional History, in: Costa, Pietro & Zolo, Danilo (eds.). The Rule of Law. History, Theory and Criticism. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer, pp. 237-259.
Google Scholar
Grabham, Emily (2006). Taxonomies of Inequality: Lawyers, Maps and the Challenge of Hybridity. Social and Legal Studies 15/1, pp. 5-23.
Google Scholar
Groh, Thomas & Lorenz, Jörn (eds.)(2010). Interpretatio Mundi. Wie deuten die Wissenschaften ihre Welt? Dresden: Thelem.
Google Scholar
Günzel, Stephan (2006). Einleitung, in: Dünne, Jörg & Günzel, Stephan (eds.). Raumtheorie. Grundlagentexte aus Philosophie und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 19 – 43.
Google Scholar
Günzel, Stephan (2007). Raum – Topographie – Topologie, in: Günzel, Stephan (ed.). Topologie. Zur Raumbeschreibung in den Kultur- und Medienwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 14-29.
Google Scholar
Günzel, Stephan (ed.)(2007). Topologie. Zur Raumbeschreibung in den Kultur- und Medienwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Google Scholar
Günzel, Stephan (ed.) (2009). Raumwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Google Scholar
Harley, J. B. (2001). The New Nature of Maps: Essays in the History of Cartography. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Google Scholar
Harvey, David (1989). The Condition of Postmodernity. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.
Google Scholar
Heuser, Marie-Luise (2007). Die Anfänge der Topologie in Mathematik und Naturphilosophie, in: Günzel, Stephan (ed.). Topologie. Zur Raumbeschreibung in den Kultur- und Medienwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 183-200.
Google Scholar
Hilbert, David & Cohn-Vossen, Stephan (2011, orig. 1932). Anschauliche Geometrie. Springer: Heidelberg/Berlin.
Google Scholar
Holder, Jane & Harrison, Carolyn (eds.)(2003). Law and Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Hubbard, Phil & Kitchin, Rob (eds.) (2011). Key Thinkers on Space and Place. 2^nd edition. London: Sage.
Google Scholar
Huber, Ernst Rudolf (1953). Wirtschaftsverwaltungsrecht. Vol. 1, 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Google Scholar
Huber, Peter-Michael (1991). Konkurrenzschutz im Verwaltungsrecht. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Google Scholar
Jacob, Christian (1996). Toward a Cultural History of Cartography: Imago Mundi 48, pp. 191-198.
Google Scholar
Jammer, Max (1969). Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics. Cambridge/Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Jellinek, Georg (1892). System der subjektiven öffentlichen Rechte. Freiburg: Mohr.
Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1770). Von dem Raume, in: Schriften zur Metaphysik und Logik I. (Werkausgabe, Bd. 5. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp), pp. 56-69.
Google Scholar
Katz, Daniel M. & Stafford, Derek K. & Provins, Eric (2008). Social Architecture, Judicial Peer Effects and the “Evolution” of the Law: Toward a Positive Theory of Judicial Social Structure. Georgia State University Law Review 24/4, pp. 975-999.
Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans (1960). Reine Rechtslehre. 2^nd Edition. Wien: Deuticke.
Google Scholar
Klein, Felix (1872). Vergleichende Betrachtungen über neuere geometrische Forschungen. Deichert: Erlangen.
Google Scholar
Koller, Peter (2008). Der Begriff des Rechts und seine Konzeptionen, in: Brugger, Wilfried & Neumann, Ulfrid & Kirste, Stephan (eds). Rechtsphilosophie im 21. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 157-180.
Google Scholar
Law, John (2002). Objects and Spaces. Theory Culture Society 19, pp. 91 – 105.
Article Google Scholar
Laubadère, André de & Venezia, Jean-Claude & Gaudemet, Yves (1995). Droit administratif, 15th ed. Paris: LGDJ.
Google Scholar
Lefebvre, Henri (1991 (orig. 1974)). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford.
Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried W. (1693). De analysi situs, in: Leibniz, Gottfried W. (1858, ed. By Gerhardt, Carl Immanuel). Mathematische Schriften. Hildesheim: Olms, pp. 178-183.
Google Scholar
Lewin, Kurt (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Row.
Google Scholar
Löw, Martina (2001). Raumsoziologie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Google Scholar
Löw, Martina (2008). The Constitution of Space. The Structuration of Spaces Through the Simultaneity of Effect and Perception. European Journal of Social Theory 11/1, pp. 25-49.
Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1993), Die Paradoxie des Entscheidens, Verwaltungsarchiv 84, pp. 287-310.
Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas (1995). Das Recht der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Google Scholar
Marsch, Nikolaus (2011). Subjektivierung der gerichtlichen Verwaltungskontrolle in Frankreich. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Book Google Scholar
Masing, Johannes (1997). Die Mobilisierung des Bürgers für die Durchsetzung des Rechts. Europäische Impulse für eine Revision der Lehre vom subjektiv-öffentlichen Recht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Google Scholar
Massey, Doreen. (1994). Space, Place and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar
McGhee, Derek & Moran, Leslie (1998). Perverting London: the cartographic practices of law. Law and Critique 9/2, pp. 207-224.
Google Scholar
Medick, Doris (2006). Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Hamburg: Rowohlt.
Google Scholar
Meyerson, Michael I. (2002). Mathematics and the Legal Imagination. A Response to Paul Edelman. Constitutional Commentary 19, pp. 477-481.
Google Scholar
Meyerson, Michael I. (2002). Political Numeracy: Mathematical Perspectives on Our Chaotic Constitution. New York: Norton.
Google Scholar
Monar, Jörg (2009). Der Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts in: von Bogdandy, Armin & Bast, Jürgen (eds). Europäisches Verfassungsrecht. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, p. 749 - 798.
Google Scholar
Müller-Mall, Sabine (2010). Interpretation als Rechtserzeugung, in: Groh, Thomas & Lorenz, Jörn (eds.). Interpretatio Mundi. Wie deuten die Wissenschaften ihre Welt? Dresden: Thelem, pp.235-251.
Google Scholar
Nettesheim, Martin (2007). Subjektive Rechte im Unionsrecht, Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 132, pp. 333-392.
Article Google Scholar
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1967, ed. and tr. by Kaufmann, Walter). The Will to Power. Random House: New York, cited after Lefebvre, Henri (1991 (orig. 1974)). The Production of Space. Blackwell: Oxford, p. 22.
Google Scholar
Patterson, Dennis & Teubner, Gunther (1998). Changing Maps: Empirical Legal Autopoiesis. Social and Legal Studies 7/4, pp. 451-486.
Google Scholar
Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas (2001). Mapping Utopias: A Voyage to Placenessless. Law and Critique 12, pp. 135-157.
Article Google Scholar
Pottage, Alain. (1994). The Measure of Land. Modern Law Review 57/3, pp. 361-384.
Google Scholar
Reiling, Michael (2004). Zu individuellen Rechten im deutschen und Gemeinschaftsrecht. Ein Vergleich ihrer Gründe, Ermittlung und Durchsetzung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Google Scholar
Schmid, Christian (2003). Raum und Regulation. Henri Lefebvre und der Regulationsansatz, in: Brand, Ulrich & Raza, Werner (eds.). Fit für den Postfordismus. Münster: Dampfboot, pp. 217-242.
Google Scholar
Schmidt-Aßmann, Eberhard (1999). Strukturen des Europäischen Verwaltungsrechts: Einleitende Problemskizze, in: Schmidt-Aßmann, Eberhard & Hoffmann-Riem, Wolfgang (eds.). Strukturen des Europäischen Verwaltungsrechts. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 9-43.
Google Scholar
Schmidt-Aßmann, Eberhard & Hoffmann-Riem, Wolfgang (eds.)(1999). Strukturen des Europäischen Verwaltungsrechts. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Google Scholar
Schoch, Friedrich & Schmidt-Aßmann, Eberhard &. Pietzner, Rainer (2010). Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung. Kommentar. München: CH. Beck.
Google Scholar
Schwarze, Jürgen (1999). Die Entwicklung der französischen Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit aus deutscher Sicht. Deutsche Verwaltungsblätter, pp. 261-269.
Google Scholar
Serres, Michel (1994). Atlas. Paris: Éditions Julliard.
Google Scholar
Siegert, Bernhard (2005). Repräsentationen diskursiver Räume – Einleitung, in: Böhme, Hartmut (ed.). Topographien der Literatur. DFG-Symposion 2004. Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler, pp. 3-11.
Google Scholar
Simmel, Georg (1903). Über räumliche Projektionen sozialer Formen, in: Aufsätze und Abhandlungen 1901-1908. Gesamtausgabe, vol. 7. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 201-220.
Google Scholar
Slaughter, Anne-Marie (2004). A New World Order. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Google Scholar
Smith, Neil (2008). Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space. University of Georgia Press: Athens.
Google Scholar
Soja, Edward (1989). Postmodern Geographies. The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London/New York: Verso.
Google Scholar
Soja, Edward (1996). Thirdspace. Journeys to Los Angeles and other Real-and-Imagined Places. London/New York: Verso.
Google Scholar
Soja, Edward (2008). New Twists on the Spatial Turn, in: Döring, Jörg & Thielmann, Tristan. Spatial Turn. Das Raumparadigma in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften. Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 241-262.
Google Scholar
Stolleis, Michael (2001). Public Law in Germany, 1800-1914. Oxford/New York: Berghahn.
Google Scholar
Stolleis, Michael (2004). Public Law in Germany, 1914-1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Tribe, Laurence H. (1989). The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics. Harvard Law Review 103, pp. 1-39.
Article Google Scholar
Twining, William (1999). Mapping Law. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 50/1, pp. 12-49.
Google Scholar
Vismann, Cornelia (1999). “Rejouer les Crimes.” – Theater vs. Video. Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 11/2, pp. 161-177.
Google Scholar
Vismann, Cornelia (2011). Medien der Rechtsprechung. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer.
Google Scholar
Wahl, Rainer (2010). Vorbemerkungen § 42 Abs. 2, in: Schoch, Friedrich & Schmidt-Aßmann, Eberhard &. Pietzner, Rainer. Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung. Kommentar. München: CH. Beck. 20th ed.
Google Scholar
Ward, Barney & Arias, Santa (eds.) (2008). The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Weiler, Joseph (1999). The Constitution of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Weiler, Joseph (1999). Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Boundaries: on the Conflict of Standards and Values in the Protection of Human Rights in the European Legal Space, in: Weiler, Joseph. The Constitution of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 102-129.
Google Scholar
Weiler, Joseph (1999). The Constitution of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Whittaker, Sir Edmund (1949). From Euclid to Eddington. A Study of Conceptions of the External World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Wihstutz, Benjamin (2012). Der andere Raum. Politiken sozialer Grenzverhandlung im Gegenwartstheater. Zürich/Berlin: Diaphanes.
Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1976). Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell: Oxford.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Sabine Müller-Mall

Authors

Sabine Müller-Mall
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Müller-Mall, S. (2013). Spatiality. In: Legal Spaces. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36730-4_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36730-4_3
Published: 01 March 2013
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-36729-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-36730-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics