Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Democracy, Courts and the Information Order

  • Gillian K. Hadfield (a1) and Dan Ryan (a2)
Abstract

Conventional wisdom about civil litigation, both among scholars and political actors, holds that abuse of the legal process is common, that there is too much litigation, that it is “all about the money”, and that “a bad settlement is better than a good trial”. This constellation of attitudes that emphasize the economic function of law suggests that courts are an expensive conflict resolution mechanism of last resort and that their use would be minimized in a healthy market-based democracy. In this paper we apply a new sociological framework to understand the meaning and function of civil litigation in a democratic society. We focus in particular on the democratic function of the informational characteristics of litigation that require substantial disclosure and engagement between plaintiff, defendant and third parties. Instead we examine the role courts play in the maintenance and attainment of a social information order – norms and legal rules governing the sharing and withholding of information that depend on and constitute particular status relationships between actors (Ryan 2006). Using interviews and surveys of family members of victims of 9/11 we develop a theory of the lived experience of entitlement to information in Anglo-American legal settings with suggestions of how these ideas might translate to civil law systems.

La sagesse commune, partagée par les intellectuels comme les politiques croit à l’abus de procédures judiciaires en matière civile, pense qu’il s’agit toujours d’argent et qu’un mauvais arrangement vaut mieux qu’un bon jugement. Cet ensemble d’attitudes avec accent mis sur la fonction économique de la loi pousse à dire que le recours à la justice est une façon coûteuse de régler les conflits dont une saine démocratie libérale devrait minorer l’usage. L’article propose une lecture sociologique nouvelle de la signification et de la fonction d’un procès civil. Attention est attirée notamment sur l’apport démocratique de l’information dévoilée qui impose un engagement substantiel du plaignant du défendeur et des parties tierces au procès. Examen est fait du rôle des tribunaux dans l’entretien et la production d’un ordre social de l’information – normes et règles légales aidant. La base empirique vient d’interviews et enquêtes auprès de victimes du 11 septembre 20011. Une théorisation de l’expérience vivante des tribunaux anglo-saxons invite à suggérer que certaines idées pourraient être adoptées dans d’autres systèmes judiciaires.

Zivile Rechtsstreitigkeiten werden vom Volksmund, und hier sowohl bei Intellektuellen als auch bei Politikern, wie folgt eingestuft: der Mißbrauch des legalen Prozesses ist die Regel, es gibt zu viele Rechtsstreitigkeiten, es ,,dreht sich alles nur um das Geld“ und ein ,,schlechter Ausgleich ist besser als eine gute Verhandlung“. Diese Einstellungen, die die wirtschaftliche Aufgabe des Rechts betonen, wecken den Eindruck, dass eine gerichtliche Konfliktlösung nur im Notfall angestrebt, da kostenaufwending, und in einer gesunden, marktwirtschaftlichen Demokratie auf ein Minimum reduziert werden sollte. Der neue soziologische Interpretationsansatz dieses Beitrags rückt Bedeutung und Aufgabe des Zivilprozesses in ein anderes Licht. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit wird hierbei der demokratischen Aufgabe des informativen Charakters von Rechtsstreitigkeiten geschenkt, die alle Beteiligten - Kläger, Verteidiger und Dritte – herausfordert. Desweiteren wird untersucht, welche Rolle Gerichte bei der Auf- und Erarbeitung von sozialen Information spielen – Normen und gesetzliche Regeln bestimmen den Informationsaustausch oder -vorenthalt, der wiederum von den Beziehungen unter den Beteiligten abhängt bzw. von ihnen beeinflusst wird (Ryan 2006). Aufbauend auf Interviews und Studien von Familien, die Opfer des 11. September geworden sind, wird eine Theorie erlebter Erfahrungen von Rechtsanspruch an Informationen im anglo-amerikanischen System entwickelt, gekoppelt mit Vorschlägen für eine Übernahme in das zivile Rechtssystem.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Anderson, Elizabeth S., 1999. “What Is the Point of Equality?”, Ethics, 109 (2), pp. 287-337 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/233897. Accessed: 09/12/2012 21:42)
Baumgartner, Mary P., 1985. ‘‘Law and the Middle Class: Evidence from a Suburban Town’’ Law and Human Behavior, 9, pp. 3-24.
Beitz, Charles R., 1989. Political Equality: An Essay in Democratic Theory (Princeton, Princeton University Press)
Carvajal, Doreen and Vogel, Carol, 2011. “Venerable Art Dealer Is Enmeshed in LawsuitsNew York Times April 19. [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/business/28insure.html accessed 1 December 2012]
Curran, Barbara A., 1977. The Legal Needs of the Public: The Final Report of a National Survey (Chicago, American Bar Foundation).
Dahl, Robert A., 2005. “What Political Institutions Does Large-Scale Democracy Require?Political Science Quarterly, 120 (2), pp. 187-197 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20202514. Accessed: 16/11/2012).
de Tocqueville, Alexis, 1875. Democracy in America.
Feinberg, Kenneth R., 2005. What is Life Worth? The Unprecedented Effort to Compensate the Victims of 9/11 (New York, Public Affairs).
Fiss, Owen M., 1984. “Against Settlement”, Yale Law Journal, 93, pp. 1073-1090.
Genn, Hazel, 1995. ‘‘Access to Just Settlements: The Case of Medical Negligence’’ in Zuckerman, Adrian and Cranston, Ross, Reform of Civil Procedure: Essays on ‘‘Access to Justice’’ (Oxford, Clarendon Press).
Goldberg, John C. P., 2005. “The Constitutional Status of Tort Law: Due Process and the Right to a Law for the Redress of Wrongs”, Yale Law Journal, 115, 524-627.
Hadfield, Gillian K., 2005. “The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund: ‘An Unprecedented Experiment in American Democracy’”, The Future of Terrorism Risk Insurance (Chicago, Defense Research Institute).
Hadfield, Gillian K., 2008a. “Framing the Choice Between Cash and the Courthouse: Experiences with the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund”, Law and Society Review, 42, pp. 645-682.
Hadfield, Gillian K., 2008b. “The levers of legal design: Institutional determinants of the quality of law”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 36, pp. 43-73.
Hazard, Geoffrey C. Jr., 1998. “From Whom No Secrets are Hid”,Texas Law Review, 76, pp. 1665-1694.
Kötz, Hein, 2003. “Civil Justice Systems in Europe and the United States”, Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, 13, pp. 61-77.
Kumar, Anita, 2008. “Judge Agrees to Va. Tech Payout :Some Families Remain Unhappy With State, School”, Washington Post, June 18, p. B01.
Luban, David, 1995. “Settlements and the Erosion of the Public Realm”, Georgetown Law Journal, 83, pp. 2619-2662.
Mather, Lynn and Yngvesson, Barbara, 1980-81. ‘‘Language, Audience and the Transformation of Dispute’’, Law & Society Review, 15, pp. 775-882.
Mayhew, Leon and Reiss, Albert J. Jr., 1969. ‘‘The Social Organization of Legal Contacts’’ 34 American Sociological Review, 34, pp. 309-318.
Merry, Sally Engle, 1986. ‘‘Everyday Understandings of Law in Working-Class America’’, American Ethnologist, 13, pp. 253-270.
Merryman, John and Perez-Perdomo, Rogelio, 2007. The Civil Law Tradition, An Introduction to the Legal Systems of Europe and Latin America. (Stanford, Stanford University Press).
Miller, Richard E. and Sarat, Austin, 1980-81. ‘‘Grievances, Claims and Disputes: Assessing the Adversary Culture’’, Law & Society Review, 15, pp. 525-566.
New York Times, 2007. “Murdered Reporter’s Family Settles Lawsuit” March 9 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/us/09david.html).
Post, Robert C., 2005. “Democracy and Equality”, Law, Culture and the Humanities, I, pp. 142-153.
Pre Trial Chamber Public Decision on Appeal against Provisional Detention Order of Nuon Chea, March 20, 2008 athttp://www.eccc.gov.kh/english/cabinet/courtDoc/54/PTC_decision_on_nuon_chea_appeal_C11_54_EN.pdf. (“Decision on Nuon Chea Detention Appeal”).
Püschel, Flavia Portella, 2012. “The Communicative Function of Civil Liability: Evidence from a Case of Impunity”, paper presented at International Junior Faculty Forum Harvard Law School and Stanford Law School.
Rachels, James, 1975. “Why Privacy is Important”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 4, pp. 323-333.
Relis, Tamara, 2007. “It’s Not About the Money!: A Theory on Misconceptions of Plaintiffs’ Litigation Aims”, University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 68 (2).
Resnik, Judith, 2000. “Trial as Error, Litigation as Injury: Transforming the Meaning of Article III”, Harvard Law Review, 113, pp. 924-1035.
Ryan, Dan, 2006. “Getting the Word Out: Notes on the Social Organization of NotificationSociological Theory, 24 (3), pp. 228-254.
Schlanger, Margo, 2003. “Inmate Litigation”, Harvard Law Review, 116, pp. 1555-1701.
Silbey, Susan S., 2005. ‘‘After Legal Consciousness’’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, pp. 323-368.
Solomon, Jason M., 2011. “Civil Recourse as Social Equality”, Florida State University Law Review, 39, pp. 243-272.
Steinberg, Jacques, 2007. “CBS Is Sued by Rather Over Ouster”, New York Times, September 20 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/business/media/20cbs.html Accessed 2 December 2012).
Stürner, Rolf, 2001. “Transnational Civil Procedure: Discovery and Sanctions Against Non-Compliance”, Uniform Law Review, 6, p. 886.
Tyler, Tom R., 1990. Why People Obey the Law (New Haven, Yale University Press).
Tyler, Tom R., 2006. Why People Obey the Law (Princeton, Princeton University Press).
Tyler, Tom R. and AllanLind, E. Lind, E., 1992. “A relational model of authority in groups”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, pp. 115-191.
Tyler, Tom R. and Huo, Yuen J., 2002. Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts (New York Russell-Sage Foundation.)
Treaster, Joseph B., 2007. “Settlement Approved in Suit Against Italian Insurer”, New York Times, February 28 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/business/28insure.html accessed 1 December 2012)
Trubek, David M., et al. . 1983. Civil Litigation Research Project Final Report (Madison, University of Wisconsin Law School).
Zipursky, Benjamin C. 1998. “Rights, wrongs and recourse in the law of torts”, Vanderbilt Law Review, 51, pp. 1-100.
Zipursky, Benjamin C. 2003. “Civil Recourse, Not Corrective Justice”, Georgetown Law Journal, 91, pp. 695-756.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie
  • ISSN: 0003-9756
  • EISSN: 1474-0583
  • URL: /core/journals/european-journal-of-sociology-archives-europeennes-de-sociologie
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 7
Total number of PDF views: 21 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 105 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 17th July 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.