Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T18:42:10.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Predictability of Nonlegalistic Adjudication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Robert L. Bonn
Robert L. Bonn*
Affiliation:
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A number of writers have observed that legalism is a social phenomenon which is found only in certain kinds of legal systems and then only in certain historical periods. Perhaps it was Weber who first gave the concept a theoretical importance by associating a legalistic or “formally rational” legal system with the development of capitalism. Later writers such as Selznick have seen legalism as a complex ideal embracing certain kinds of standards to which legal systems might aspire. (Selznick, 1961). Most recently, Friedman has commented on the decline of legalism (Friedman, 1966). While the contributions of these writers are useful in elaborating the meaning of the concept of legalism, the phenomenon itself has received virtually no empirical analysis. It is the purpose of this paper to show that one possible component of legalism, viz., predictability, is by no means unique to legalism and that a nonlegalistic adjudicatory system can be as predictable if not more predictable than a legalistic system would be.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , May 1972 , pp. 563 - 578
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

AUTHOR'S NOTE: The materials presented in this article are drawn from the author's doctoral dissertation, “Commercial Arbitration; A Study in the Regulation of Interorganizational Conflict” (New York University, 1970: I would like to acknowledge the support and encouragement of Professor Erwin O. Smigel, New York University, who served as principal thesis advisor.

References

BONN, Robert L. (1970) Commercial Arbitration; A Study in the Regulation of Interorganizational Conflict. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation at New York University.Google Scholar
COULSON, Robert (1967) “Arbitration as a Collection Tool,” 71 Commercial Law Journal (no pagination given).Google Scholar
POMKE, Martin (1965) Commercial Arbitration. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
POMKE, Martin (1968) The Law and Practice of Commercial Arbitration. Mundelein, Illinois: Callaghan and Company.Google Scholar
EVAN, William M. (1962) “Public and Private Legal Systems,” in William M., EVAN (ed.) Law and Sociology. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
FRIEDMAN, Lawrence M. (1966) “On Legalistic Reasoning — A Footnote to Weber,” 1966 Wisconsin Law Review 148.Google Scholar
Harvard Law Review [Note] 1948 “Predictability of Results in Commercial Arbitration,” 61 Harvard Law Review 1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LAZARUS, Steven et al. (1965) Resolving Business Disputes. New York: American Management Association.Google Scholar
MENTSCHIKOFF, Soia (1952) “The Significance of Arbitration — a Preliminary Inquiry,” 17 Law and Contemporary Problems 698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MENTSCHIKOFF, Soia (1961) “Commercial Arbitration,” 61 Columbia Law Review 846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SELZNICK, Philip (1961) “Sociology and Natural Law,” 6 Natural Law Forum 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SELZNICK, Philip (1963-64) “Legal Institutions and Social Controls,” 17 Vanderbilt Law Review 79.Google Scholar
TAEUSCH, Carl F. (1934) “Extrajudicial Settlement of Controversies; the Business Man's Opinion: Trial at Law v. Non Judicial Settlement,” 83 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 147.Google Scholar
WEBER, Max (1966) On Law in Economy and Society. Ed. by Max Rheinstein. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar