Social Construction and System in Legal Theory: A Response to Professor Preuss

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 516-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl E. Klare
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Construction ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
The United States ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Fundamental Challenge ◽  
Theory Of Law ◽  
Current Emphasis

Preuss' paper significantly advances the critical theory of law. As a side benefit, he provides English-speakers with an excellent introduction to the work of two leading West German participants in the debate, Jürgen Habermas and Gunther Teubner. Preuss' paper reveals considerable common ground between critical legal theorists in Germany and the United States, but also important differences of perspective and concern. I suspect that many American legal critics will think that Preuss' criticisms of Habermas and Teubner do not go far enough, that his criticisms raise a fundamental challenge to the current emphasis on structure and system in the German debate. In any event, Preuss' paper suggests the usefulness of a greater German “reception” of the American emphasis on agency and social construction. No doubt American legal criticism would likewise be enriched by entering into a more sustained dialogue with structuralist and systems theory.

Kelsen's Theory of Law

1937 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Janzen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Popular Sovereignty ◽  
The Political ◽  
General Will ◽  
Hans Kelsen ◽  
Last Stage ◽  
Theory Of Law

Professor Hans Kelsen is the leading exponent of the “pure” theory of law, which is attracting a great deal of attention abroad but as yet has received scant notice in the United States. His theory marks the culmination of the tendency toward a strictly legal theory, represented in the writings of K. F. von Gerber, Paul Laband, and Georg Jellinek. This movement aims to eliminate all purely metaphysical postulates—such as the natural law concepts—from legal theory, as well as to free it from the political tint which it so often manifests. It also endeavors to separate the validity of law from dependence on any personal authority.This attempt to “depersonalize” law is the last stage of a development that began with the passing of absolutism. At that time, ideas of a “general will” and of popular sovereignty—attended by a demand for “a government of laws and not of men” and by the introduction of the principle of separation of powers—made their appearance, only to be supplanted, more recently, by the concept of the Rechtsstaat.

Markets, Technological Change and Economic Growth (The Quaid-i-Azam Lecture)

1994 ◽  
Vol 33 (4I) ◽  
pp. 327-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard G. Lipsey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Economic Growth ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
The United States ◽  
Industrial Countries ◽  
Canadian Institute ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
Short Time

I am honoured to be invited to give this lecture before so distinguished an audience of development economists. For the last 21/2 years I have been director of a project financed by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and composed of a group of scholars from Canada, the United States, and Israel.I Our brief is to study the determinants of long term economic growth. Although our primary focus is on advanced industrial countries such as my own, some of us have come to the conclusion that there is more common ground between developed and developing countries than we might have first thought. I am, however, no expert on development economics so I must let you decide how much of what I say is applicable to economies such as your own. Today, I will discuss some of the grand themes that have arisen in my studies with our group. In the short time available, I can only allude to how these themes are rooted in our more detailed studies. In doing this, I must hasten to add that I speak for myself alone; our group has no corporate view other than the sum of our individual, and very individualistic, views.

The Riddle of a Common History

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauricio Tenorio-Trillo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
The United States ◽  
History Textbooks ◽  
Recent History ◽  
History Textbook ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Us ◽  
Constant Part ◽  
Intrinsic Component

By identifying two general issues in recent history textbook controversies worldwide (oblivion and inclusion), this article examines understandings of the United States in Mexico's history textbooks (especially those of 1992) as a means to test the limits of historical imagining between U. S. and Mexican historiographies. Drawing lessons from recent European and Indian historiographical debates, the article argues that many of the historical clashes between the nationalist historiographies of Mexico and the United States could be taught as series of unsolved enigmas, ironies, and contradictions in the midst of a central enigma: the persistence of two nationalist historiographies incapable of contemplating their common ground. The article maintains that lo mexicano has been a constant part of the past and present of the US, and lo gringo an intrinsic component of Mexico's history. The di erences in their historical tracks have been made into monumental ontological oppositions, which are in fact two tracks—often overlapping—of the same and shared con ictual and complex experience.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Valls
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Social Construction ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Racial Inequality ◽  
The United States ◽  
Racial Justice ◽  
Color Blind ◽  
American Society ◽  
Liberal Political Theory

The persistence of racial inequality in the United States raises deep and complex questions of racial justice. Some observers argue that public policy must be “color-blind,” while others argue that policies that take race into account should be defended on grounds of diversity or integration. This chapter begins to sketch an alternative to both of these, one that supports strong efforts to address racial inequality but that focuses on the conditions necessary for the liberty and equality of all. It argues that while race is a social construction, it remains deeply embedded in American society. A conception of racial justice is needed, one that is grounded on the premises provided by liberal political theory.

Assessment and Critical Pedagogy

2019 ◽  
pp. 306-324
Author(s):  
Frank Abrahams
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Critical Theory ◽  
Critical Pedagogy ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Teacher Performance ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
The United States ◽  
Summative Assessments ◽  
The World ◽  
Integrative Assessment

This chapter aligns the tenets of critical pedagogy with current practices of assessment in the United States. The author posits that critical pedagogy is an appropriate lens through which to view assessment, and argues against the hegemonic practices that support marginalization of students. Grounded in critical theory and based on Marxist ideals, the content supports the notion of teaching and learning as a partnership where the desire to empower and transform the learner, and open possibilities for the learner to view the world and themselves in that world, are primary goals. Political mandates to evaluate teacher performance and student learning are presented and discussed. In addition to the formative and summative assessments that teachers routinely do to students, the author suggests integrative assessment, where students with the teacher reflect together on the learning experience and its outcomes. The chapter includes specific examples from the author’s own teaching that operationalize the ideas presented.

scholarly journals National Interests and Common Ground in the US Immigration Debate: How to Legalize the US Immigration System and Permanently Reduce Its Undocumented Population

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Kerwin ◽  
Robert Warren
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
Illegal Migration ◽  
National Interests ◽  
The Us ◽  
Immigration Debate ◽  
Legal Immigration ◽  
Us Immigration

The conventional wisdom holds that the only point of consensus in the fractious US immigration debate is that the system is broken. Yet, the US public has consistently expressed a desire for a legal and orderly immigration system that serves compelling national interests. This paper describes how to create such a system. It focuses on the cornerstone of immigration reform,1 the legal immigration system,2 and addresses the widespread belief that broad reform will incentivize illegal migration and ultimately lead to another large undocumented population. The paper begins with an analysis of presidential signing statements on seminal immigration legislation over nearly a century. These statements reveal broad consensus on the interests and values that the United States seeks to advance through its immigration and refugee policies. They constitute additional common ground in the immigration debate. To serve these interests, immigration and refugee considerations must be “mainstreamed” into other policy processes. In addition, its policies will be more successful if they are seen to benefit or, at least, not to discriminate against migrant-sending states. Not surprisingly, the US immigration system does not reflect the vast, mostly unanticipated changes in the nation and the world since Congress last meaningfully reformed this system (27 years ago) and last overhauled the law (52 years ago). The paper does not detail the well-documented ways that US immigration laws fall short of serving the nation's economic, family, humanitarian, and rule of law objectives. Nor does it propose specific changes in categories and levels of admission. Rather, it describes how a legal immigration system might be broadly structured to deliver on its promises. In particular, it makes the case that Congress should create a flexible system that serves compelling national interests, allows for real time adjustments in admission based on evidence and independent analysis, and vests the executive with appropriate discretion in administering the law. The paper also argues that the United States should anticipate and accommodate the needs of persons compelled to migrate by its military, trade, development, and other commitments. In addition, the US immigration system needs to be able to distinguish between undocumented immigrants, and refugees and asylum seekers, and to treat these two populations differently. The paper assumes that there will be continued bipartisan support for immigration enforcement. However, even with a strong enforcement apparatus in place and an adaptable, coherent, evidence-based legal immigration system that closely aligns with US interests, some (reduced) level of illegal migration will persist. The paper offers a sweeping, historical analysis of how this population emerged, why it has grown and contracted, and how estimates of its size have been politically exploited. Legalization is often viewed as the third rail of immigration reform. Yet, Congress has regularly legalized discrete undocumented populations, and the combination of a well-structured legalization program, strengthened legal immigration system, and strong enforcement policies can prevent the reemergence of a large-scale undocumented population. In contrast, the immense US enforcement apparatus will work at cross-purposes to US interests and values, absent broader reform. The paper ends with a series of recommendations to reform the legal immigration system, downsize the current undocumented population, and ensure its permanent reduction. It proposes that the United States “reissue” (or reuse) the visas of persons who emigrate, as a way to promote legal immigration reform without significantly increasing annual visa numbers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document