|
29.Id. at 185
30.Id. at 159-226
31.Cf. Stjepan G. Mestrovic, The Coming Fin de Siecle: An Application of Durkheim’s Sociology to Modernity and post-modernity, London & New York: Routledge, 1991, p. 29.
32.Niklas Luhmann, A Sociological Theory of Law, London: Routledge&Kegan Paul, 1985, pp.199, 203-205.
33.Cf. Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, UK: Manchester University press, 1984, pp. 46, 97.
34.Niklas Luhmann, A Sociological Theory of Law, London: Routledge&Kegan Paul, 1985, pp. 200-201.
35.Cf. Jean-Francois Lyotard, Supra, at 101, note 215.
36.对卢曼的批评也存在，例见奥特弗利德·赫费：《政治的正义性》，上海译文出版社，1998，第145－158页；阿图尔·考夫曼：《后现代法哲学》，法律出版社，2000，第40－67页。
37．Jean-Francois Lyotard, supra, at 65-66
38.参见阿图尔·考夫曼：《后现代法哲学》，法律出版社，2000，第35－40页。
39．参见盛宁：《人文困惑与反思：西方后现代主义思潮批判》，三联书店，1997， 第111－114页。
40.Cf. Eva M.Knodt, “Foreword”, in Niklas Luhmann, Social Systems. Stanford:Stanford University Press, 1995, pp.xiv-xv.
41.卢曼的著作中并没有现代社会与后现代社会的严格区分，提到的一般多是“现代社会”。但是，在关于卢曼的评论著作中，很多人都直接用了“后现代社会”、“后工业社会”、“晚期工业社会”等字眼。这里，基于卢曼在80年代以后的新趋向，我们也称“后现代社会”。
42.Niklas Luhmann, Essays on Self-reference, New York:Columbia University Press, 1990, p. 125.
43.Id. at 178-9. See also Niklas Luhmann, A Sociological Theory of Law, London: Routledge&Kegan Paul, 1985, pp. 255-262
44.Niklas Luhmann, Observations on Modernity, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998, p. ix, 18.
45.Id. at 70-71
46.Id. at 67
47.Id. at iv.
48.Niklas Luhmann, Essays on Self-reference, New York: Columbia University Press, 1990, p. 187.
49.Id. at 145
50.Cf. William M.Evan, Social Structure and Law, Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1990, p. 39.
51.Id. at 40
52.Id.
53.Niklas Lumann, “The Unity of Legal System,” supra, at 20.
54.Cf. Gerald Turkel, Law and Society: Critical Approaches, Needham Heights: Allyn&bacon, 1996. p.133-135.
55.Niklas Luhmann, “Closeness and Openness: On Reality in the world of law”, in gunther Teubner(ed), autopoietic law—a new approach to law and society, belin:walter de Gruyter, 1987, p 336.
56．Gunther teubner(ed.), autopoietic law—a new approach to law and society, berlin:walter de gruyter, 1987, p.2
57.Niklas lumann, “the unity of legal system,” supra, at 21.
58.Id. at 14.
59．卢曼这样界定法律的自我塑成：法律系统通过其要素的运作产生和界定其要素（亦即法律相关事件和判决）的动作统一性，并以此方式为系统提供统一性。
60.Niklas Lumann, “The Unity of Legal System,” supra, at 23
61.Niklas Luhmann, “the self-reproduction of law and its limits.” In Essays on Self-reference, new york: Columbia university press, 1990, p.228
62.Niklas Luhmann, “closeness and openness: on reality in the world of law,” supra, at 345.
63.Id at 335
64.niklas luhmann, “the self-reproduction of law and its limits,” supra, at 233
65.niklas lumann, “the unity of legal system,” supra, at 24; see also niklas luhmann, “the self-reproduction of law and its limits,” supra, at 234-238.
66.Niklas Luhmann, “the self-reproduction of law and its limits.” Supra, at 229.
67.卢曼的法律与社会理论也遭到了诸多批评：如，其理论勉强适用于审判活动，而与立法创制不符；法律只具有相对独立性；法律在认知上不是开放的；合法/不合法这样的二元图绘连权利、义务、允许等规范术语都覆盖不了……
68．图依布纳（gunther teubner）认为，自我塑成是“对法律的独立自治的更加缴进和精确的界定”，是“独立自治在功能上的更高水平”。Cf gunther teubner(ed) autopoietic law ---a new approach to law and society, berlin: walter de gruyter, 1987, p. 206
69.roger cotterrell, law’s community, new york: oxford university press, 1995, p.289-290
70.niklas luhmann, a sociological theory of law, London:routledge&kegan paul, 1985,p.174.
71.Id at 187
72.1970年代早期，卢曼与哈贝马斯有一场为世人广泛关注的争论。一如他们在1971年共同出版的《社会理论还是社会工艺学：系统研究完成了些什么？》一书的标题所示，在这场争论中，法兰克福和比勒弗尔德构成了两极，表现出新左派与“反启蒙”（counter-Enlightenment）的新保守倾向之间的对立。哈贝马斯坚持维护启蒙传统，指责卢曼的技术功能主义消弱了批判的可能性和解放的政治；而卢曼则批评哈贝马斯的共识取向的话语伦理学是对高度分化的后工业社会中所出现的复杂问题的一种毫无希望的不当回应。此外一种资产阶级意识形态观点而被消除。Cf. Eva M.knodt, “Foreword”, in Niklas Luhmann, Social systems. Stanford:Stanford university press, 1995, pp.xiv
|
