1 “Rousseau hat, glaube ich, gesagt: Ein Kind, das bloß seine Eltern kennt, kennt auch die nicht recht. Dieser Gedanke lässt sich [auf] viele andere Kenntnisse, ja auf alle anwenden, die nicht ganz reiner Natur sind: Wer nichts als Chemie versteht, versteht auch die nicht recht.”Google Scholar

2 See, Excellence Initiative by the German Federal and State Governments, Proposal for an Institutional Strategy to Promote Top-level Research, Interdisciplinary Research University of Bremen, University of Bremen, April 2006, 31-45, especially 33-35. In the grant proposal an “incubator”—called Bremen Exploratorium of the Social Sciences (BESS)—for the wider social sciences is proposed. BESS serves as a reform instrument for research policy. Six kinds of reform measures are outlined for BESS, in one instance impacting on the law faculty.Google Scholar

3 Schwarzwälder, Herbert, Das Große Bremen-Lexikon (2002), 282. On Göttingen's central pioneering role vis à vis the older central and east European universities see infra (note 4) vol. II.Google Scholar

4 For a general discussion see, Walter Rüegg, general ed., A History of the University in Europe, vol. II: A History of the University in Early Modern Europe (1600-1800) (Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., 1996) and vol. III: Universities in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (1800-1945) (Walter Rüegg, ed., 2004). With respect to Bremen's Gymnasium Illustre in early modern Europe see, Willem Frijhoff, Patterns, in: vol. II supra, 43, 68-69: it was one of the many establishments “which by reason of their organization and the quality of their teaching could claim university status, but had not obtained all its privileges, especially that of awarding degrees”. On its Calvinist pedigree see Notker Hammerstein, Relations with Authority, in: ibid., 113, 117–118. “This religious derivation implied being denied the right to confer degrees by the emperor—which, ironically, pushed these schools onto a track heading toward interdisciplinarity and permanent education reform (Frijhoff, ibid., 50). Bremen's rise after the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) is marked by its belonging to one of the “two favorite circuits –Google Scholar

Altdorf, Strasburg, Basle, and Heidelberg, Herborn, Bremen – … discernible in the Kavalierstour followed by students from central and Eastern Europe, especially the Protestant nobility” (Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, Mobility, in: ibid., 416, 435).Google Scholar

5 See, Rüegg, Walter, Themes in: ibid., Vol. III supra (note 4), 3, 4–6.Google Scholar

6 This name was revived in 2001 by the International University Bremen, a private university founded with seed money from the state, see http://www.iu-bremen.de/.Google Scholar

7 The University of Cologne referred to its 617th anniversary in 2005, despite a similar hiatus. It was closed by the French in 1794 and reopened in 1919 (see http://www.uni-koeln.de/uni/aktuell_rede_unitag05-rektor.html).Google Scholar

8 Published in Vol. 35 Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court [Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts] 79 (1973).Google Scholar

9 The funding is in the range of € 130 million for the University of Bremen over the next five years, with some € 80 million for the “institutional strategy” (supra, note 2). See at http://www.dfg.de/en/news/press_releases/2006/press_release_2006_03.html! (July 25, 2006) for the general German-wide funding strategy.Google Scholar

10 Cf. BESS Measure 2: Intradisciplinary Challenge Grants. The Example of “Rebuilding the Pillars of Law?”, a paper in which the proposal reported here is outlined in more detail for the on-site inspection of a group of referees. The five-year grant for the “institutional strategy” also allows for seed money to be allotted to new chairs. The three overarching areas of research outlined in this essay thus are, at the same time, also first attempts at descriptions of three additional chairs to be funded at Bremen's Law School.Google Scholar

11 Group leaders include lawyers Josef Falke, Christian Joerges, and Gerd Winter, and legal sociologist Volmar Gessner from the law school faculty, and political scientist Bernhard Zangl. TranState is a DFG Collaborative Research Center (Sfb 597): for information about its mission and ongoing projects see http://www.state.uni-bremen.de. For an analysis of results from the Center's first few years see Stephan Leibfried and Michael Zürn, eds., Transformations of the State? (2005).Google Scholar

12 The term “intra-disciplinary” was coined by Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, Zur Situation der rechtswissenschaftlichen Forschung, 50 Juristenzeitung 1 (1995), at 2.Google Scholar

13 One should also explore, as was suggested by Gerd Winter, whether the increasing interface between law and the natural sciences shouldn't be included as another important, pillar-dissolving research topic to be developed.Google Scholar

14 See, e.g., Zumbansen, Peer, Ordnungsmuster im modernen Wohlfahrtsstaat. Lernerfahrungen zwischen Staat, Gesellschaft und Vertrag (2000). One could go back at least to Martin Bullinger, Öffentliches Recht und Privatrecht (1968) for a public law source pointing out that the public/private law divide is now counterproductive to a good curricular organization. For an early private (economic) law perspective on that theme see Heinz-Dieter Assmann, Gert Brüggemeier, Dieter Hart, and Christian Joerges, Wirtschaftsrecht als Kritik des Privatrechts: Beiträge zur Privat- und Wirtschaftsrechtstheorie (1980).Google Scholar

15 Zumbansen, Hereto Peer and Calliess, Gralf-Peter, Rough Consensus, Running Code: A Theory of Transnational Private Law, TranState Working Paper 2006—forthcoming.Google Scholar

16 Hub: MZES, Mannheim, Germany, at: http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/projekte/connex.Google Scholar

17 Hub: EUI, Florence, at: http:// www.eu-newgov.org/.Google Scholar

18 See, however, the very comprehensive study by Gerald Spindler, Unternehmensorganisationspflichten – Zivilrechtliche und Öffentlich-Rechtliche Regulierungskonzepte (2001), analyzing both public and private organization duties; see also the contributions to the seminal volume: Contract and Organisation: Legal Analysis in the Light of Economic and Social Theory (Terence Daintith and Gunther Teubner, eds., 1986)Google Scholar

19 See only, Stolleis, Michael, Öffentliches Recht und Privatrecht im Prozeß der Entstehung des modernen Staates, in: Öffentliches Recht und Privatrecht als wechselseitige Auffangordnungen 41 (Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem and Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, eds., 1996).Google Scholar

20 For a conventional account, Walter Krebs, Verwaltungsorganisationsrecht, in: Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland III (Josef Isensee and Paul Kirchhof, eds., 1987), § 69, 567–621.Google Scholar

21 Schmidt, Karsten, Gesellschaftsrecht (4th ed. 2002); see the excellent introduction in Friedrich Kübler and Heinz-Dieter Assmann, Gesellschaftsrecht (6th ed., 2006), 1-21.Google Scholar

22 See only Deakin, Simon and Wilkinson, Frank, The Law of the Labour Market. Industrialization, Employment and Legal Evolution (2005), ch. 4.Google Scholar

23 Illuminating: Thomas Vesting, The Autonomy of Law and the Formation of Network Standards, 5 German L. J. 639 (2004).Google Scholar

24 Kennedy, Duncan, The Stages of the Decline of the Public/Private Distinction, 130 U. Pa L Rev 1349 (1982); on new public management see Christopher Hood, The New Public Management in the “1980s”: Variations on a Theme, 20 Accounting, Organizations and Society 93 (1995); Lester M. Salamon, The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action: An Introduction, 28 Fordh. Urb. L. J. 1611 (2001); for Germany, see Gunnar Folke Schuppert, Verwaltungswissenschaft (2000).Google Scholar

25 Gunnar Folke Schuppert, ed., Governance-Forschung. Vergewisserung über Stand und Entwicklungslinien (2005); Christoph Möllers, European Governance – Meaning and Value of a Concept, 43 Common Market L. Rev. 313 (2006).Google Scholar

26 For the U.S. discussion, see now the comprehensive overview by Orly Lobel, The Renew Deal. The Fall of Regulation and the Rise of Governance, 89 Minn. L. Rev. 342 (2004); very illuminating already the early study by Jody Freeman, Collaborative Governance in the Administrative State, 45 UCLA L. Rev. 1 (1997); for the German discussion see: Christoph Möllers, Theorie, Praxis und Interdisziplinarität in der Verwaltungsrechtswissenschaft, 93 Verwaltungs-Archiv 22 (2002); see also Thomas Vesting, Nachbarwissenschaftlich informierte und reflektierte Verwaltungsrechtswissenschaft – “Verkehrsregeln” und “Verkehrs-ströme”, in: Methoden der Verwaltungsrechtswissenschaft 253 (Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem and Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, eds., 2004). Interdisciplinary research on theses issues is gaining ground; see recently Herwig C.H. Hofmann and Alexander H. Türk, eds., EU Administrative Governance (2006).Google Scholar

27 For an application of this approach to the study of law in an era of globalisation, see Paul Schiff Berman, From International Law to Globalization and Law, 43 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 485 (2005).Google Scholar

28 The origins of this discussion reach back to Gunter Teubner, Organisationsdemokratie und Verbandsverfassung. Rechtsmodelle für politisch relevante Verbände (1978); see also the contributions by Trute, Damm and Ladeur in: Öffentliches Recht und Privatrecht als wechselseitige Auffangordnungen (Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem and Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, eds., 1996).Google Scholar

29 Vesting, Thomas, Die Staatsrechtslehre und die Veränderung ihres Gegenstandes: Konsequenzen von Europäisierung und Internationalisierung, in: 63 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer (VVDStRL) 41 (2004).Google Scholar

30 Sue Arrowsmith, ed., see, Regulating Public Procurement Law (2000).Google Scholar

31 Zumbansen and Calliess, supra, note 15.Google Scholar

32 E.g. Gavin W. Anderson, Constitutional Rights After Globalization (2005).Google Scholar

33 Cutler, A. Claire, Private Power and Public Authority: Transnational Merchant Law in the Global Economy (2003); Peer Zumbansen, Sustaining Paradox Boundaries. Perspectives on the Internal Affairs in Domestic and International Law, 15 Eur. J. Int'l L. 197 (2004); Robert Wai, Transnational Private Law and Private Ordering in a Contested Global Society, 46 Harv. Int'l L. J. 471 (2005).Google Scholar

34 E.g., Aurelia Colombi Ciacchi, The Constitutionalisation of European Contract Law: Judicial Convergence and Social Justice, 13 European Rev. of Private Law (2006)—forthcoming; Christoph Schmid, The ECJ as a Constitutional and a Private Law Court. A Methodological Comparison, ZERP Discussion Paper 4/2006.Google Scholar

35 See only, Merkt, Hanno, Unternehmenspublizität: Offenlegung von Unrernehmensdaten als Korrelat der Marktteilnahme (2001).Google Scholar

36 John-Koch, Monika, Organisationsrechtliche Aspekte der Aufgabenwahrnehmung im modernen Staat (2005).Google Scholar

37 This is due to the institutional stability of court procedures in comparison to other forms; see Mauro Cappelletti with the collaboration of Paul J. Kollmer and Joanne M. Olson, eds., The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective (1989).Google Scholar

38 Nörr, Knut Wolfgang, Iudicium est actus trium personarum. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Zivilprozessrechts in Europa (1993)Google Scholar

39 Zumbansen and Calliess, supra, note 15.Google Scholar

40 Stein, Ursula, Lex mercatoria: Realität und Theorie (1995); Gunther Teubner, Global Bukowina': Legal Pluralism in the World Society, in: Global Law Without A State 3 (id., ed., 1997) [orig. published in German as: Globale Bukowina. Zur Emergenz eines transnationalen Rechtspluralismus, Rechtshistorisches Journal 255 (1996)]; Gralf-Peter Calliess, Lex Mercatoria: A Reflexive Law Guide to an autonomous legal system, 2 German L. J. No. 17 (2001), at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=109.Google Scholar

41 Nichols, Phillip M., GATT Doctrine, 36 Va. J. Int'l L. 379 (1996).Google Scholar

42 See, e.g., Revesz, Richard, Specialized Courts and the Administrative Law System, 138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1111 (1990).Google Scholar

43 E.g., Gilles, Peter, Transnationales Prozessrecht: Deutsche Landesberichte zur Weltkonferenz für Prozessrecht in Taormina, Sizilien (1995).Google Scholar

44 See, for WTO dispute settlement procedures, e.g., Robert Howse, Adjudicative Legitimacy and Treaty Interpretation in International Trade Law: The Early Years of WTO Jurisprudence, in: The EU, the WTO and the NAFTA: Towards a Common Law of International Trade? 35 (Joseph H.H. Weiler, ed., 2000) (Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law, Vol. 9, No. 1); generally Christopher J. Peters, Adjudication as Representation, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 312 (1997).Google Scholar

45 Adams, Michael, Ökonomische Analyse des Zivilprozesses (1981); compare the Common Law Perspective presented in Robert Cooter and Thomas Ulen, The Economic Efficiency of the Common Law Process, in: Law and Economics 477 (id., eds., 4^th. ed., 2003).Google Scholar

46 Scott, Craig and Wai, Robert, Transnational Governance of Corporate Conduct through the Migration of Human Rights Norms: The Potential of Transnational “Private” Litigation, in: Transnational Governance and Constitutionalism 287 (Christian Joerges, Inger-Johanne Sand, and Gunther Teubner, eds., 2004).Google Scholar

47 Cf. Böse, Martin, Strafen und Sanktionen im europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht (1996) (Studien zum internationalen Wirtschaftsrecht und Atomenergierecht, vol. 94); and now ID., Wirtschaftsaufsicht und Strafverfolgung: die verfahrensübergreifende Verwendung von Informationen und die Grund- und Verfahrensrechte des Einzelnen (2005) (Jus publicum, vol. 127); see also the contributions in: John A.E. Vervaele, ed., Compliance and Enforcement of European Community Law (1999).Google Scholar

48 E.g., Fleury, Roland, Das Vorsorgeprinzip im Umweltrecht (1995); Karl-Heinz Ladeur, Das Umweltrecht der Wissensgesellschaft (1995); ID., Postmoderne Rechtstheorie: Selbstreferenz – Selbstorganisation – Prozeduralisierung (2nd ed., 1995), last chapter.Google Scholar

49 See fundamentally, Luhmann, Niklas, Risk. A Sociological Theory (1993).Google Scholar

50 Our proposal differs from the US-reforms in the last decades, which focussed on Critical Legal Studies, Feminist Theory, Race Theory etc., thus augmenting “normal” law schools with some critical, secondary elements. We focus instead on changes in or around the core of legal research and education itself. On the US development see the new expanded version of the pamphlet by Duncan Kennedy, Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy: A Polemic against the System (1983): Duncan Kennedy, Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy: A Polemic against the System. A Critical Edition, with commentaries by Paul Carrington, Peter Gabel, Angela Harris, Donna Maeda, and Janet Halley (2004); down the same line but directed more at scholarship than legal education: Arthur Austin, The Empire Strikes Back: Outsiders and the Struggle over Legal Education (1998); for a more traditional plea for a “rounder” legal education, be it in clinical education or policy needs, see Barry Boyer and Roger C. Cramton, American Legal Education: An Agenda for Research and Reform, 59 Cornell L. Rev. 221 (1974) plus the ‘daddy’ of legal education reform: David Haber and Julius Cohen, eds., The Law School of Tomorrow: The Projection of an Idea (1968).Google Scholar

51 Stinchcombe, Arthur L., Information and Organizations (1990).Google Scholar

52 March, James G., Schulz, Martin, and Zhou, Xueguang, The Dynamics of Rules: Change in Written Organizational Codes (2000)Google Scholar

53 Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell, eds., The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (reprint 2002); see now: Paul DiMaggio, ed., The Twenty-first Century Firm: Changing Economic Organization in International Perspective (2001).Google Scholar

54 One example for this kind of research is Neil K. Komesar, Imperfect Alternatives: Choosing Institutions in Law, Economics, and Public Policy (1977); Miguel Poiares Maduro, We the Court: the European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution. a critical reading of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (1999) (relying on Komesar).Google Scholar

55 See, Klaus F. Röhl and Stefan Machura, eds., Procedural Justice (1997).Google Scholar

56 Helga Nowotny, Hans-Heinrich Trute, Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, Dominique Pestre, and Helmut Schulze-Fielitz, The Public Nature of Science under Assault: Politics, Markets, Science and the Law (2005).Google Scholar

57 Jasanoff, Sheila, Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America (1996).Google Scholar

58 E.g., Latour, Bruno, La fabrique du droit: une anthroplologie du Conseil d'État (1994).Google Scholar

59 But see, for an antidote Christian Joerges, Karl-Heinz Ladeur, and Ellen Vos, eds., Integrating Scientific Expertise into Regulatory Decision-Making: National Traditions and European Innovations (1997).Google Scholar

60 Richter, Rudolf and Furobotn, Erik, Neue Institutionenökonomik: Eine Einführung und kritische Würdigung (2^nd ed., 1999); ID., Institutions and Economic Theory, The Contribution of the New Institutional Economics (1999); Anne van Aaken, “Rational Choice” in der Rechtswissenschaft. Zum Stellenwert der ökonomischen Theorie im Recht (2003).Google Scholar

61 Posner, Richard A., Economic Analysis of Law (1972), 6^th ed., 2003 Google Scholar

62 For recent contributions, see Sunstein, Cass R., Behavioral Law and Economics (2000); Christine Jolls, Cass Sunstein, and Richard Thaler, A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics, 50 Stanford Law Review 1471 (1998)Google Scholar

63 Richter and Furobotn, supra (note 60), at 93.Google Scholar

64 E.g., Scharpf, Fritz W., Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? (1999); Christoph Schmid, Multi-level Constitutionalism and Constitutional Conflicts, unpubl. Ph.D. thesis (Florence: European University Institute 2001).Google Scholar

65 E.g., Governance: Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. Eine Einführung (Arthur Benz, ed., 2004).Google Scholar

66 E.g., Hooghe, Liesbet and Marx, Gary, Multilevel Governance and European Integration (2000), in particular chapter 1 on theory; Markus Jachtenfuchs and Beate Kohler-Koch, Regieren und Institutionenbildung, in: Europäische Integration 11 (Id., eds., 2nd ed., 2003).Google Scholar

67 Morgan, Glyn, The Idea of a European Superstate. Public Justification and European Integration (2005). In contrast to the two empirical positions referred to above Morgan's argument is an expressly normative one.Google Scholar

68 See, Sassen, Saskia, Globalization or denationalization?, 10 Rev. Int'l Pol. Econ. 1 (2003); Vivien A. Schmidt, The Futures of European Capitalism (2002).Google Scholar

69 For the area of Public Law see Christoph Möllers and Andreas Voßkuhle, Die deutsche Staatsrechtswissenschaft im Zusammenhang der internationalisierten Wissenschaften – Beobachtungen, Vermutungen, Thesen, 36 Die Verwaltung 321 (2003). At the top twenty law schools in the U.S, based in a diverse group of public, private and Ivy League universities, the strictures of the exam structure also reign, but the breadth of inquiry is not restricted by a three-pillar structure or by the adherence to legal dogma that constrains German scholars. Law journals—characterized by more “outreach” to other disciplines and often edited by the best students from each cohort—play a bigger role in legal education in the U.S., and there is generally less emphasis on the production of oversimplified and formulaic textbooks. Case books produced by the top academics tend to be less free-ranging than their articles, but the better ones do include a good measure of research material from economics and, to a lesser extent, from political science and sociology.Google Scholar

70 Gesetz zur Reform der Juristenausbildung (Reform Act on Legal Education) of July 11, 2002 (BGBl. I 2002, 2592).Google Scholar

71 The final grade of the first law exam depends to thirty percent on the grades attained in the faculty's focal areas (Schwerpunktbereichsprüfung).Google Scholar

72 Today this pattern could obtain for the seventy percent of the first law exam which is, as a “staatliche Pflichtfachprüfung”, out of a German law faculty's direct reach.Google Scholar

73 At the top twenty U.S. law schools the university exams and the bar exam refer to different universes, with the university exams stressing principled approaches and scholarly values while the bar exam always emphasizes the “nuts and bolts” issues of state law. And, while the quality of the legal education—and of the grade—may matter to career choices, to enter the profession at any level requires that you simply pass your bar exam. For a still valid German look at US legal education see Walter Otto Weyrauch, Hierarchie der Ausbildungsstätten: Rechtsstudium und Recht in den Vereinigten Staaten. Ein vergleichender Beitrag zur deutschen Ausbildungsreform (1976).Google Scholar