Legal Ideology and the Commons: Why are Jurists Falling Behind?

  • Filippo Valguarnera University of Gothenburg, The Faculty of Law
Keywords: commons, law, paradigm shift, legal change

Abstract

The last quarter of a century has featured a surge in interest and studies on the commons, spearheaded, of course, by the efforts of Elinor Ostrom. These efforts have problematized the once well-established paradigm of the tragedy of the commons most clearly described by Garrett Hardin in 1968. One could say that the commons, thus, have become a fundamental field of study in most social sciences. This is not the case in the field of legal scholarship (with one noticeable exception that I will discuss later), which leads me to the overarching issue of this essay, namely the difficult relationship between jurists and the commons. The phrase “difficult relationship” does not refer to an explicit antagonism, but to something even worse: complete indifference and a scandalous lack of knowledge. While my main purpose is to try to explain this sorry state of affairs, I also hope to make a more general point on the nature of law and legal change. In this sense, the commons can be considered a case-study in legal theory. The main issue of this paper is to tackle following subquestions. What is the status of commons in the Western European legal discourse? Why do most legal scholars pay such a poor attention to the growing literature on the commons in other disciplines? What factors contribute to this peculiar case of cultural deafness? What promise of improvement does the future hold?

References

Bengtsson, Bertil (2011), “Nordmalingdomen-en kort kommentar”, Svensk Juristtidning (5–6): 527–533.
Blackstone, William (1765–1769), Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book II, 1st ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wright, Elizabeth Cox (1928), “Common Law in the Thirteenth-Century English Royal Forest”, Speculum 3 (2): 166–191.
Demsetz, Harold (1967), “Toward a Theory of Property Rights”, The American Economic Review 57 (2).
Ewald, William (1995), “Comparative Jurisprudence (II): The Logic of Legal Transplants”, The American Journal of Comparative Law 43 (4): 489–510.
Glavå, Mats, and Ulf Petrusson (2002), “Illusionen om rätten!”, in Bjarte Askeland and Jan Fridthjof Bernt (eds.), Erkjennelse og engasjement – Minneseminar for David Roland Doublet (1954–2000), Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Hägerström, Axel (1927), Der römische Obligationsbegriff im Lichte der allgemeinen römischen Rechtsanschauung, Bd. 1, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells.
Kelley, Donald R., and Bonnie G. Smith (1984), “What was Property? Legal Dimensions of the Social Question in France (1789–1848)”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 128 (3): 200–230.
Lévy, Jean-Philippe, and André Castaldo (2010), Histoire du droit civil, 2nd ed., Paris: Dalloz.
Locke, John (1986), Two Treatises of Government, London: Everyman’s Library.
Lundstedt, Anders Vilhelm (1944), Grundlinjer i skadeståndsrätten, Senare delen, Bd. 1, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells.
Lundstedt, Anders Vilhelm (1956), Legal Thinking Revised – My Views on Law, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Mattei, Ugo, Edoardo Reviglio, and Stefano Rodotà (2010), I beni pubblici – Dal governo democratico dell’economia alla riforma del codice civile, Roma: Scienze e Lettere.
Mingay, Gordon E. (1997), Parliamentary Enclosure in England, London: Longman.
More, Thomas (1751), Utopia: Containing an Impartial History of the Manners, Customs, Polity, Government, &C, of That Island, Oxford, Printed for J. Newbery at the Bible and Sun in St. Paul’s Church Yard.
Neeson, Jeanette M. (1996), Commoners: Common Right, Enclosure and Social Change in England, 1700–1820, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor, Thomas Dietz, Nives Dolsak, Paul C. Stern, Susan Stonich, and Elke U. Weber (eds.) (2002), The Drama of the Commons, Washington: National Academy Press.
Pugliatti, Salvatore (1964), La proprietà nel nuovo diritto, Milano: Giuffrè.
Quesnay, François (1888), “Maximes générales du gouvernement économique d’un royaume agricole”, in Oncken, August (ed.) (1969), OEuvres économiques et philosophiques de F. Quesnay, New York: B. Franklin.
Rose, Carol M. (1998), “Canons of Property Talk, or, Blackstone’s Anxiety”, The Yale Law Journal 108 (3): 601–632.
Samuels, Warren J. (1961), “The Physiocratic Theory of Property and State”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 75: 96–111.
Sandell, Klas (2011), “Allemansrätten och dess framtid – Några samhällsvetenskapliga perspektiv”, in Klas Sandell & Margaretha Svenning (eds.), Allemansrätten och dess framtid, Report of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, nr. 6470.
von Savigny, Friedrich Carl (1828), Vom Beruf unserer Zeit für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft, Heidelberg: Mohr.
Shoard, Marion (1999), A Right to Roam, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scrutton, Thomas Edward (2003), Commons and Common Fields, Batoche Books.
Teubner, Gunther (1988), “Introduction to Autopoietic Law”, in Gunther Teubner (ed.), Autopoietic Law: A New Approach to Law and Society, Berlin: de Gruyter.
Teubner, Gunther (1993), Law as an Autopoietic System, Oxford: Blackwell.
Teubner, Gunther (1998), “Legal Irritants: Good Faith in British Law or How Unifying Law Ends up in New Divergences”, The Modern Law Review 61 (1): 11–32.
Teubner, Gunther (2007), “In the Blind Spot: The Hybridization of Contracting”, Theoretical Inquiries in Law 8 (1): 51–71.
Unger, Roberto Mangabeira (1996), What Should Legal Analysis Become?, London: Verso.
Vivier, Nadine (1998), Propriété collective et identité communale, Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne.
Watson, Alan (1985), The Evolution of Law, Oxford: Blackwell.
Watson, Alan (2001), Society and Legal Change, 2nd ed., Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Published
2018-06-27