Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:44:31.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Symposium Introduction: Complicating Law's Legitimation Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium: Law, Democracy, and Society
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2000 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, David. 1996. Liberty without Equality: The Property-Rights Connection in a “Negative Citizenship” Regime. Law and Social Inquiry 21:165.Google Scholar
Ayres, Ian, and Braithwaite, John. 1991. Tripartism: Regulatory Capture and Empowerment. Law and Social Inquiry 16:435–96.Google Scholar
Brigham, John, and Gordon, Diane. 1996. Law in Politics: Struggles over Property and Public Space on New York City's Lower East Side. Law and Social Inquiry 21:265–83.Google Scholar
Engel, David. 1980. Legal Pluralism in an American Community: Perspectives on a Civil Trial Court. American Bar Foundation Research Journal 1980:425454.Google Scholar
Espeland, Wendy. 2000. Bureaucratizing Democracy, Democratizing Bureaucracy. Law and Social Inquiry 25:10771109.Google Scholar
Gilboy, Janet. 1981. The Social Organization of Legal Services to Indigent Defendants. American Bar Foundation Research Journal 1981:10231048.Google Scholar
Halliday, Terence. 1982. The Idiom of Legalism in Bar Politics: Lawyers, McCarthyism, and the Civil Rights Era. American Bar Foundation Research Journal 1982:911988.Google Scholar
Halliday, Terence C, and Cappell, Charles. 1979. Indicators of Democracy in Professional Associations: Elite Recruitment, Turnover, and Decision Making in a Metropolitan Bar Association. American Bar Foundation Research Journal 1979:697767.Google Scholar
Law and Social Inquiry (LSI). 1995a. Lawyering in Repressive States: A Symposium. Law and Social Inquiry 20:339599.Google Scholar
Law and Social Inquiry (LSI). 1995b. Law and Lustration: Righting the Wrongs of the Past. Law and Social Inquiry 20:1273.Google Scholar
Law and Social Inquiry (LSI). 1990a. Debate: Marxism and the Rule of Law. Law and Social Inquiry 15:633730.Google Scholar
Law and Social Inquiry (LSI). 1990b. Symposium: Perestroika in Soviet Legal Institutions. Law and Social Inquiry 15:419556.Google Scholar
Ledford, Kenneth. 2000. Judicial Independence and Political Representation: Prussian Judges as Parliamentary Deputies, 1848–1913. Law and Social Inquiry 25:10491075.Google Scholar
Madison, James. 1961. The Federalist Papers No. 10.Google Scholar
Michels, Robert. 1951. Political Parties. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rheinstein, Max, ed. 1954. Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Rosen, Robert Eli. 1989. Participation, Due Process and Responsive Administration: Handler's The Condition of Discretion. Law and Social Inquiry 14:323359.Google Scholar
Rosner, Lydia. 1986. The Soviet Way of Crime: Beating the System in the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin and Garvey.Google Scholar
Savelsberg, Joachim. 2000. Contradictions, Law, and State Socialism. Law and Social Inquiry 25:10211048.Google Scholar
Simon, Jonathan. 2000. Megan's Law: Governing through Crime in a Democratic Society. Law and Social Inquiry 25:000-000.Google Scholar
Somers, Margaret. 1994. Rights, Rationality, and Membership: Rethinking the Making and Meaning of Citizenship. Law and Social Inquiry 19:63112.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom. 2000. Multiculturalism and the Willingness of Citizens to Defer to Law and Legal Authorities. Law and Social Inquiry 25:9831019.Google Scholar