Volume 18, Issue 2

According to Max Weber the development of law plays an intrinsic role particularly concerning the emergence of modern civilization and the arrangement of its societal forms. To be able to understand the performance of law Weber constructs a fourfold typology, central to the analyses within his sociology of law. Herein the fundamental element of formation is to be revealed as the principle of rationalization. Thus, central to this paper lies the attempt to exact a philological exposition of Weber’s term of juridical rationality. With this approach - framed by a sketch of the ideal-typical method and Weber’s characteristic interest in knowledge as well as an outline of the perspectives indicative to his diagnosis of the development of formal rationality of law - the author endeavours to add a modest contribution to a better understanding of Max Weber’s work.

The broadcasting authorities of the German states (or Länder), called Landesmedienanstalten, can be regarded as the organizational result of partial privatizing and deregulation by opening broadcasting to the private sector. They stand for a concept of „regulatory self-regulation“. Taking as an example the issue of merger control and reflecting at the same time on the recent discussion of the amendment of § 21 Interstate Treaty 1987 the noticeable deficiencies of this regulatory concept show up. Separation of powers, symbolic politics, regulatory lag, factual deregulation dominate the picture. Nevertheless, apart from these deficiencies a positive effect, which might be called „regulatory fruitification“ can be observed, thus illustrating that regulatory and commercial concepts are not necessarily contradictory. Accordingly and congruent to their selfesteem the Landesmedienanstalten focus on cooperation as a method of resolving regulatory conflicts and their professional ability seems to broaden. By pointing to their own deficiencies, by initiating questions of amendment and by looking for practical alternatives when having to cope with new situations the Landesmedienanstalten practice a policy of publicity: a strategy to face the strain between regulation and cautinary approach.

In criminal law and sociology alike, proceedings in criminal court are considered to be the central stage of the criminal process, although for very different reasons. From the viewpoint of law, the rules governing court proceedings best express a commitment to the ideals of a legal system that respects citizens’ rights to self-determination and protection from state power. Sociologists, in contrast, maintain that criminal courts are sites of degradation and humiliation, with court rituals and language serving to suppress precisely those rights of participation in court communication and interaction that are thought to be the hallmark of modern criminal procedures. Observational data on juvenile courts yield a picture that departs in important ways from both the legal and the sociological models. Defendants indeed can and do voice their objections to the accusations raised against them (as the legal model has it), but these objections are largely disregarded by the judges, mostly on the grounds of witness testimony. Thus, while communication appears to be taken seriously; actually only lip service is paid to the ideal of court proceedings as discourse and dialogue. Both the legal and the sociological view appear to overestimate the significance of court proceedings, because the outcome of cases that com to court is largely pre-determined by the evidence prepared by the prosecution.

Over the past decades courts have been flooded with large amounts of legal procedures. Especially in labor courts ideas for a reduction, a simplification, or an increase of the speed of the procedures have been missing for over 20 years. Only innovations and a radical realization can bring about chances of success for a possible relief. One solution to this problem might be a settlement outside the courtroom - namely the creation of a company agreement center (Betriebliche Einigungsstelle BEST) that would replace the conciliation hearings that have been conducted so far. The perspectives are: a reduction of the number of proceedings, a decrease in personnel and material expenses and an increase of peace within the company.

This paper summarises the research findings of an implementation evaluation of a program of Differential Case Management (DCM) that was introduced into the Supreme Court of New South Wales in January 1994. It provides an account of the program background and development, a description of its key features and whether, during the first year of operation, the program was implemented as intended by the Court. It was found that while the program design included features fundamental to both successful case management and delay reduction, the program had not been implemented entirely as intended by the Court. It was also found that even though some features were implemented as intended, the design of the program itself had the potential to undermine its success. These findings have implications for the future success of the program in achieving its goals.