Putting Deficient Rechtsstaat on the Research Agenda: Reflections on Diminished Subtypes

in Comparative Sociology
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Abstract

This article proposes a typology of diminished subtypes of Rechtsstaat. Building on a historical overview of the different constitutional traditions in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany, an ideal type of Rechtsstaat is identified. This definition provides the foundation for the creation of subtypes, which are structured into two categories. First, four diminished subtypes of Rechtsstaat are defined: inconsistent, arbitrary, partly-implemented, and excluded. Second, three different causes for the deficiencies are identified: lack of capacities (LoC Type), powerful interests supporting alternative rules (PIAR Type), and high acceptance of alternative norm systems (HAAS Type). The latter two types of causes, PIAR and HAAS, are largely ignored in legal reform strategies and yet – according to our approach in this article – they are more prevalent empirically than the first type.

Putting Deficient Rechtsstaat on the Research Agenda: Reflections on Diminished Subtypes

in Comparative Sociology

Sections

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 23 23 7
Full Text Views 46 46 31
PDF Downloads 7 7 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0