differently in all systems through the application of the system code. Thus, the
effects would be different and incommensurable between the systems.
Justification is something that the legal system understands conceptually. The
justification we talk about in relation to dispute resolution technology is most
definitely something specifically legal, although other systems might have their
own concept functionally similar to justification. With private enforcement, the
legal system faces an operation that belongs to it but also contains elements that
it cannot understand. Justification remains within law but draws strength from
other systems to comprehend dispute resolution and the use of ICT.
This means that justification is produced internally within the legal system by
operations that also belong to other subsystems. Although the other side of the
coupling partakes in the autopoiesis of these other systems, justification remains
within the legal system. In other words, the structural couplings are reciprocal by
definition. The concrete application of a structural coupling is that an operation
can be interpreted simultaneously by two different social systems in accordance
with each system’s own unique code. All social systems need a narrative of their
rationality, an origin myth or a reason for their existence, they need to state and
renew the reason why the system/environment difference was established in the
first place. These narratives are not the exclusive right of the legal system. In
the legal system this narrative takes the form of justification. In other systems the
narrative dresses up differently. However, the narrative must always abide by the
rationality of the system itself.
From the perspective of the legal system, justification is a result of the
operation of the structural coupling. For the other system at the other end of
the coupling, the narrative does not necessarily result from the coupling itself.
Still, the structural coupling is reciprocal. The operation through which the legal
system uses structural couplings as sources of justification are interpreted by the
referenced systems in accordance with their own code, as operations belonging
inside them. The operation that produces a source of justification for the legal
system is not necessarily the source of the narrative to the other. In any case the
operation has effects on both systems and as a by-product the legal system creates
justification at the same time. Law’s justification is not left solely inside the legal
system but is translated through the structural coupling to the language of the
other system. The ‘receiving’ system does not need to understand the shared
operation as justification, or even as an origin narrative, but in order for there to
be a coupling it needs to understand the operation as relevant inside itself.
By describing justification as the result of structural couplings I expand the
concept of structural couplings. As methods of creating justification within
the legal system, operations shared through structural couplings serve a central
role for the legal system. This conceptualisation is more abstract than Luhmann’s
impression of structural couplings. Luhmann, in fact, describes structural couplings briefly and mostly in concrete terms and examples. Here, I am referring to
a level of structural couplings different from a simple contract, which can be read
by both the legal and economic systems. Here, the structural coupling is given
more strength. I am referring to structural couplings in the sense of shared values
102 Three quests for justification
effects would be different and incommensurable between the systems.
Justification is something that the legal system understands conceptually. The
justification we talk about in relation to dispute resolution technology is most
definitely something specifically legal, although other systems might have their
own concept functionally similar to justification. With private enforcement, the
legal system faces an operation that belongs to it but also contains elements that
it cannot understand. Justification remains within law but draws strength from
other systems to comprehend dispute resolution and the use of ICT.
This means that justification is produced internally within the legal system by
operations that also belong to other subsystems. Although the other side of the
coupling partakes in the autopoiesis of these other systems, justification remains
within the legal system. In other words, the structural couplings are reciprocal by
definition. The concrete application of a structural coupling is that an operation
can be interpreted simultaneously by two different social systems in accordance
with each system’s own unique code. All social systems need a narrative of their
rationality, an origin myth or a reason for their existence, they need to state and
renew the reason why the system/environment difference was established in the
first place. These narratives are not the exclusive right of the legal system. In
the legal system this narrative takes the form of justification. In other systems the
narrative dresses up differently. However, the narrative must always abide by the
rationality of the system itself.
From the perspective of the legal system, justification is a result of the
operation of the structural coupling. For the other system at the other end of
the coupling, the narrative does not necessarily result from the coupling itself.
Still, the structural coupling is reciprocal. The operation through which the legal
system uses structural couplings as sources of justification are interpreted by the
referenced systems in accordance with their own code, as operations belonging
inside them. The operation that produces a source of justification for the legal
system is not necessarily the source of the narrative to the other. In any case the
operation has effects on both systems and as a by-product the legal system creates
justification at the same time. Law’s justification is not left solely inside the legal
system but is translated through the structural coupling to the language of the
other system. The ‘receiving’ system does not need to understand the shared
operation as justification, or even as an origin narrative, but in order for there to
be a coupling it needs to understand the operation as relevant inside itself.
By describing justification as the result of structural couplings I expand the
concept of structural couplings. As methods of creating justification within
the legal system, operations shared through structural couplings serve a central
role for the legal system. This conceptualisation is more abstract than Luhmann’s
impression of structural couplings. Luhmann, in fact, describes structural couplings briefly and mostly in concrete terms and examples. Here, I am referring to
a level of structural couplings different from a simple contract, which can be read
by both the legal and economic systems. Here, the structural coupling is given
more strength. I am referring to structural couplings in the sense of shared values
102 Three quests for justification