Politics and law as regulatory correlates of power
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33975/riuq.vol34nS2.949Keywords:
power, politics, regulation, efficiency, legitimationAbstract
The current article attempts to denote the relationship between the regulatory purpose of politics and law, which form coherent power as a dialectical unity of political power interested in the legal legitimation of its status and legal power, appealing to the power represented by the state, on the one hand, and their denial of each other as the embodiment of the paradigms of efficiency (politics) and legitimation (law), on the other hand. To meet that aim, general scientific (dialectical, comparative, historical-genetic, structural-functional), and also specific scientific (specific-sociological, formal-logical, historical-legal, comparative jurisprudence) methods are taken into consideration. Given the results of the study, the efficiency paradigm is determined by the factor of result, and the legitimation paradigm is determined by the factor of process. The interaction of these paradigms gives rise to an antinomic contradiction, which is an attributive characteristic of the political and legal regulation of social processes.
Downloads
References
Andrias, K., & Sachs, B. I. (2020). Constructing countervailing power: law and organizing in an era of political inequality. Yale LJ, 130, 546.
Butko, L. V., Markhgeym, M. V., Novikova, A. E., Pozharova, L. A., & Tonkov, E. E. (2017). Personal Dignity in the European Legal Culture. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 6(4), 296-303.
Dahl, R. (2017). Power as the Control of Behavior. In Leadership Perspectives (pp. 221-242). Routledge.
Doshi, R., Kelley, J. G., & Simmons, B. A. (2019). The power of ranking: The ease of doing business indicator and global regulatory behavior. International Organization, 73(3), 611-643.
Fremeth, A. R., Holburn, G. L., & Piazza, A. (2022). Activist Protest Spillovers into the Regulatory Domain: theory and evidence from the US nuclear power generation industry. Organization Science, 33(3), 1163-1187.
Habermas, J., Derrida, J., & Borradori, G. (2003). Philosophy in a time of terror: Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. University of Chicago Press.
Hobson, J. M., & Seabrooke, L. (2001). Reimagining Weber: Constructing international society and the social balance of power. European journal of international relations, 7(2), 239-274.
Kalch, A., Bilandzic, H., Sappler, A., & Stellinger, S. (2021). Am I responsible? The joint effect of individual responsibility attributions and descriptive normative climate messages on climate mitigation intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78, 101711.
Onafuwa, D. (2018). Allies and decoloniality: A review of the intersectional perspectives on design, politics, and power symposium. Design and Culture, 10(1), 7-15.
Parrillo, N. R. (2020). A Critical Assessment of the Originalist Case Against Administrative Regulatory Power: New Evidence from the Federal Tax on Private Real Estate in the 1790s. Yale LJ, 130, 1288.
Sani, H. B. A. (2020). State law and legal pluralism: towards an appraisal. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 52(1), 82-109.
Sellers, J. S., & Scharff, E. A. (2020). Preempting politics: State power and local democracy. Stan. L. Rev., 72, 1361.
Srivastava, S., Singh, S. K., Kumar, M., & Muhammad, T. (2021). Distinguishing between household headship with and without power and its association with subjective well-being among older adults: an analytical cross-sectional study in India. BMC geriatrics, 21(1), 1-12.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Revista de Investigaciones Universidad del Quindío
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
