1 Compare, for example, the contributions in The Global Transformations Reader (David Held & Anthony McGrew eds., 2d ed. 2003).Google Scholar

2 See, e.g., Hilgendorf, Eric, Zur Lage der juristischen Grundlagenforschung in Deutschland heute, in Rechtsphilosophie im 21. Jahrhundert 111, 125 (Winfried Brugger et al. eds., 2008).Google Scholar

3 Michelman, Frank I., W(h)ither the Constitution?, 21 Cardozo L. Rev. 1063, 1065 (2000).Google Scholar

4 See Habermas, Jürgen, On the Internal Relation between the Rule of Law and Democracy, in The Inclusion of the Other 253 (Ciaran Cronin & Pablo De Greif eds., 1998).Google Scholar

5 See Luhmann, Niklas, Politische Verfassungen im Kontext des Gesellschaftssystems, 12 Der Staat 1, 4 (1973).Google Scholar

6 See Hilgendorf, , supra note 2, at 120; Christoph Möllers, Globalisierte Jurisprudenz, in Globalisierung als Problem von Gerechtigkeit und Steuerungsfähigkeit des Rechts 41, 44 (Michael Anderheiden et al. eds., 2001).Google Scholar

7 See for this genuinely German concept Hilgendorf, supra note 2, at 111.Google Scholar

8 See, e.g., Bogdandy, Armin von, Auswertung der rechtswissenschaftlichen Projekte, 1 Forschungsberichte aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung 19, 19 (2005); Ruffert, Matthias, Die Globalisierung als Herausforderung an das Öffentliche Recht 68 (2004).Google Scholar

9 See, e.g., von Bogdandy, supra note 8, at 20; Ruffert, supra note 8, at 19–22 (giving an overview about discussion of globalization in German legal scholarship).Google Scholar

10 See, for example, in American legal scholarship Robert Post, The Challenge of Globalization to American Public Law Scholarship, 2 Theoretical Inquiries in L. 323 (2001); in German legal scholarship Nolte, Georg, Das Verfassungsrecht vor den Herausforderungen der Globalisierung, 67 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 129 (2008); Poscher, Ralf, Das Verfassungsrecht vor den Herausforderungen der Globalisierung, 67 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 160 (2008); Ruffert, , supra note 8; Peter-Tobias Stoll, Das Verfassungsrecht vor den Herausforderungen der Globalisierung, 122 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 1064 (2007); Herausforderungen der Globalisierung (Klaus J. Hopt et al. eds., 2003).Google Scholar

11 See Ladeur's self-assessment in Karl-Heinz Ladeur, Der Staat gegen die Gesellschaft, at V (2006) [hereinafter Ladeur, Staat].Google Scholar

12 See Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Globalization and the Conversion of Democracy to Polycentric Networks: Can Democracy Survive the End of the Nation-State? (EUI Working Paper Law No. 4, 2003), reprinted in Public Governance in the Age of Globalization 89 (id. ed., 2004) [hereinafter Ladeur, Democracy]. The paper was originally presented in a conference at the European University Institute in Florence in March 2001.Google Scholar

13 See Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Globalization and Public Governance – A Contradiction?, in Public Governance in the Age of Globalization 1, 1 (id. ed., 2004) [hereinafter Ladeur, Globalization].Google Scholar

14 Ladeur, , Democracy, supra note 12, at 98.Google Scholar

15 Ladeur, , Globalization, supra note 13, at 6.Google Scholar

16 See Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Towards a Legal Theory of Supranationality – The Viability of the Network Concept, 3 Eur. L.J. 33, 48 (1997) (“(unorthodox) interpretation of systems theory”) [hereinafter Ladeur, Supranationality]; id., Die rechtswissenschaftliche Methodendiskussion und die Bewältigung des gesellschaftlichen Wandels, 64 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 60, 62 (“systems theoretical observation of liberal law”) (my translation) [hereinafter Ladeur, Methodendiskussion]. Ladeur's theory is mainly inspired by Niklas Luhmann and Friedrich A. von Hayek.Google Scholar

17 Thus Ladeur explicitly opposes Habermas, Jürgen, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (William Rehg trans., 1996). See Karl-Heinz Ladeur, Discursive Ethics as Constitutional Theory: Neglecting the Creative Role of Economic Liberties?, 13 Ratio Juris 95 (2000); id., Can Habermas’ Discursive Ethics Support a Theory of the Constitution? (EUI Working Paper Law No. 4, 1999).Google Scholar

18 See Noam, Eli M., Interconnecting the Network of Networks (2001).Google Scholar

19 Ladeur, , Democracy, supra note 12, at 99, 113. On the value of the network concept see id., Supranationality, supra note 16, at 47–48 (“The interest in using the concept lies in the complementarity and interdependence of the components and a synergy effect which produces new options which are accessible through the network as such, and are not the mere product of actors bargaining with each other. The network is constructed by a process which is based not on a pre-determined construction plan, but one which ‘writes’ itself through application by continually recombining the individual ‘nodes’ and their relationships. At the same time, the ‘nodes’ take part (as stabilisers) in the construction of the overall network, transforming it into a product of emergent new properties not attributable to the individual contributions, but only through them taking shape as a unit.”) (footnotes omitted). See also id., Towards a Legal Concept of the Network in European Standard-Setting, in EU Committees: Social Regulation, Law and Politics 151 (Christian Joerges & Ellen Vos eds., 1999).Google Scholar

20 See Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Die Akzeptanz von Ungewißheit – Ein Schritt auf dem Weg zu einem “ökologischen” Rechtskonzept, in Recht als Instrument der Politik 60 (Rüdiger Voigt ed., 1986); id., Das Umweltrecht der Wissensgesellschaft 22–68 (1995) [hereinafter Ladeur, Umweltrecht]; Karl-Heinz Ladeur, Postmoderne Rechtstheorie 191–200 (2d ed. 1995) [hereinafter Ladeur, Rechtstheorie].Google Scholar

21 Ladeur, , Supranationality, supra note 16, at 49. This is a reminiscence of Niklas Luhmann, Political Theory in the Welfare State 31 (John Bednarz trans., 1990) (“a society without an apex or center”).Google Scholar

22 Ladeur, , Globalization, supra note 13, at 5. The term is borrowed from Edward F. McClennen, Rationality and Dynamic Choice (1990).Google Scholar

23 See Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Negative Freiheitsrechte und gesellschaftliche Selbstorganisation 171–250 (2000) [hereinafter Ladeur, Freiheitsrechte].Google Scholar

24 See Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Das selbstreferenzielle Kamel: Die Emergenz des modernen autonomen Rechts, 21 Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 177, 182 (2000) [hereinafter Ladeur, Emergenz].Google Scholar

25 Ladeur, , Democracy, supra note 12, at 106 (footnote omitted).Google Scholar

26 Id. The concept goes back to John Dewey, Democracy and Education (1916).Google Scholar

27 See Ladeur, , Staat, supra note 11, at 4.Google Scholar

28 Ladeur, , Der “Eigenwert” des Rechts – die Selbstorganisationsfähigkeit der Gesellschaft und die relationale Rationalität des Rechts, in Die Zukunft des Rechts 31, 40 (Christian J. Meier-Schatz ed., 1999) [hereinafter Ladeur, Eigenwert]. The concept regained popularity in the 1990s through Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital, 6 J. Democracy 65 (1995).Google Scholar

29 See Ladeur, , Emergenz, supra note 24, at 186; id., Eigenwert, supra note 28, at 45.Google Scholar

30 See Ladeur, , Eigenwert, supra note 28, at 43. Moreover this understanding of law emphasizes the blurring between norms and their application. See id., Rechtstheorie, supra note 20, at 195; id., Methodendiskussion, supra note 16, at 85; id., Supranationality, supra note 16, at 45.Google Scholar

31 Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Kritik der Abwägung in der Grundrechtsdogmatik 33 (2004) (my translation) [hereinafter Ladeur, Abwägung].Google Scholar

32 Id. (my translation).Google Scholar

33 For Ladeur's concept of “transnational” law see Ladeur, Globalization, supra note 13, at 2 (“‘Transnational', in this sense, means processes which develop beyond the impact of the well known international government-based treaties.”). For an affirmation of its legal quality see id., Democracy, supra note 12, at 92–93 (“Whether the self-organized production of binding effects is to be seen as ‘law’ in the traditional sense, or as mere de facto coercion, is a question of mainly theoretical importance. The functional equivalent compels an affirmative answer (particularly because it is only then that productive questions about co-operation and relations between self-created … law and national law may be asked).”) (footnote omitted).Google Scholar

34 For recent accounts see, for example, Ly, Filip De, Lex Mercatoria (New Law Merchant): Globalisation and International Self-Regulation, in Rules and Networks 159 (Richard P. Appelbaum et al. eds., 2001); Sweet, Alec Stone, The New Lex Mercatoria and Transnational Governance, 13 J. Eur. Pub. Pol'y 627 (2006); Zumbansen, Peer, Lex mercatoria: Zum Geltungsanspruch transnationalen Rechts, 67 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 637 (2003).Google Scholar

35 Ladeur, , Globalization, supra note 13, at 7.Google Scholar

36 See Ladeur, , Emergenz, supra note 24, at 178.Google Scholar

37 See Ladeur, , Methodendiskussion, supra note 16, at 82. See also Christian Joerges, Constitutionalism and Transnational Governance: Exploring a Magic Triangle, in Transnational Governance and Constitutionalism 339, 374 (id. et al. eds., 2004) (“Legitimacy can, therefore, be understood as resulting from a ‘discovery procedure of practice’ in which claims to legitimacy are raised and substantiated, tried out and contrasted with practical experience, discussed and eventually revised in that light.”)Google Scholar

38 Ladeur, , Abwägung, supra note 31, at 76 (my translation).Google Scholar

39 This is the function of law according to Luhmann. See Luhmann, Niklas, Law as a Social System 142–72 (Fatima Kastner et al. eds., Klaus A. Ziegert trans., 2004).Google Scholar

40 See Ladeur, , Eigenwert, supra note 28, at 40–41.Google Scholar

41 See Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Lernfähigkeit des Rechts und Lernfähigkeit durch Recht, in Postinterventionistisches Recht 141 (Axel Görlitz & Rüdiger Voigt eds., 1990).Google Scholar

42 Perschbacher, Rex R. & Bassett, Debra Lyn, The End of Law, 84 B.U. L. Rev. 1 (2004).Google Scholar

43 See also Amstutz, Marc & Karavas, Vaios, Rechtsmutation: Zu Genese und Evolution des Rechts im transnationalen Raum, 8 Rechtsgeschichte 14 (2006).Google Scholar

44 See Luhmann, Niklas, Die Weltgesellschaft, 57 Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 1, 26 (1971).Google Scholar

45 For an opposing view see Habermas, supra note 4.Google Scholar

46 Ladeur, , Freiheitsrechte, supra note 23. See also Thomas Vesting, Subjektive Freiheitsrechte als Elemente von Selbstorganisations- und Selbstregulierungsprozessen in der liberalen Gesellschaft, in Regulierte Selbstregulierung als Steuerungskonzept des Gewährleistungsstaates 21 (Wilfried Berg et al. eds., 2001).Google Scholar

47 Ladeur, , Eigenwert, supra note 28, at 37 (my translation). This is emphasized especially regarding the right of property. See Ladeur, Abwägung, supra note 31, at 24 (alleging that the right of property, even more than other liberties, is characterized by a reflexive form geared to producing new property which is also beneficial to others as employees, buyers, founders of new businesses, etc.)Google Scholar

48 Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Helmut Ridders Konzeption der Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit in der Demokratie, 32 Kritische Justiz 281, 290 (1999) [hereinafter Ladeur, Meinungsfreiheit]. Ladeur adopts the concept of Helmut Ridder, Die soziale Ordnung des Grundgesetzes 85–93 (1975).Google Scholar

49 See id. Google Scholar

50 Luhmann, Niklas, Grundrechte als Institution (1965). See also Helmut Willke, Stand und Kritik der neueren Grundrechtstheorie: Schritte zu einer normativen Systemtheorie (1975).Google Scholar

51 Teubner, Gunther, Contracting Worlds: The Many Autonomies of Private Law, 9 Soc. & Legal Stud. 399, 412–14 (2000) [hereinafter Teubner, Contracting Worlds]; id., Societal Constitutionalism: Alternatives to State-Centred Constitutional Theory?, in Transnational Governance and Constitutionalism 3, 24–27 (Christian Joerges et al. eds., 2004) [hereinafter Teubner, Societal Constitutionalism]; id., The Anonymous Matrix: Human Rights Violations by “Private” Transnational Actors, 69 Mod. L. Rev. 327 (2006). See also Christoph Beat Graber & Gunther Teubner, Art and Money: Constitutional Rights in the Private Sphere?, 18 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 61 (1998).Google Scholar

52 See Luhmann, , supra note 50, at 23.Google Scholar

53 See Teubner, , Contracting Worlds, supra note 51, at 410.Google Scholar

54 Ladeur explicitly points at this resembling conception of constitutional rights. See Ladeur, , Meinungsfreiheit, supra note 48, at 290–91 n.47.Google Scholar

55 Ladeur, , Democracy, supra note 12, at 107 (footnote omitted). See also id., Eigenwert, supra note 28, at 40.Google Scholar

56 See Luhmann, Niklas, Komplexität und Demokratie, 10 Politische Vierteljahresschrift 314, 319–20 (1969).Google Scholar

57 See Ladeur, , Democracy, supra note 12, at 104.Google Scholar

58 See Ladeur, , Eigenwert, supra note 28, at 47; id., Democracy, supra note 12, at 105.Google Scholar

59 Ladeur, , Abwägung, supra note 31, at 60.Google Scholar

60 For the “transsubjective,” or “impersonal,” dimension of constitutional rights see supra, text accompanying notes 46–54.Google Scholar

61 See Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Die objektiv-rechtliche Dimension der wirtschaftlichen Grundrechte, 61 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 1, 9 (2007). See also id., Abwägung, supra note 31, at 58–70.Google Scholar

62 For the concept of “proceduralization” see generally Karl-Heinz Ladeur, Proceduralization and its Use in Postmodern Legal Theory (EUI Working Paper Law No. 5, 1996); Wiethölter, Rudolf, Materialization and Proceduralization in Modern Law, in Dilemmas of Law in the Welfare State 221 (Gunther Teubner ed., 1986); Calliess, Gralf-Peter, Prozedurales Recht (1999).Google Scholar

63 Ladeur, , Supranationality, supra note 16, at 50.Google Scholar

64 See Ladeur, , Methodendiskussion, supra note 16, at 89–90. See also id., Eigenwert, supra note 28, at 44 (“setting indirect incentives”); id. at 51 (“supplying new options, installing mechanisms of self-reflexion”); id., Abwägung, supra note 31, at 65 (“productive irritations”) (my translations).Google Scholar

65 Ladeur, , Meinungsfreiheit, supra note 48, at 290. For the concept of “collision rules” see generally Gunther Teubner, Law as an Autopoietic System 100–22 (Zenon Bankowski ed., Anne Bankowska & Ruth Adler trans., 1993); Fischer-Lescano, Andreas & Teubner, Gunther, Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law, 25 Mich. J. Int'l L. 999, 1021–23 (2004); Wiethölter, Rudolf, Begriffs- oder Interessenjurisprudenz – falsche Fronten im IPR und Wirtschaftsverfassungsrecht: Bemerkungen zur selbstgerechten Kollisionsnorm, in Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung im Ausgang des 20. Jahrhunderts 213 (Alexander Lüderitz & Jochen Schröder eds., 1977); Joerges, Christian, Europarecht als ein Kollisionsrecht neuen Typs, in Umweltrecht und Umweltwissenschaft 719 (Martin Führ et al. eds., 2007).Google Scholar

66 See Ladeur, , Democracy, supra note 12 at 116 (“Globalization is only one phenomenon of transformation of the state, and it is hitherto not very important.”)Google Scholar

67 See generally Alston, Philip, The Myopia of Handmaidens: International Lawyers and Globalization, 8 Eur. J. Int'l L. 435 (1997); Berman, Paul Schiff, From International Law to Law and Globalization, 43 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 485 (2005); Zumbansen, Peer, Die vergangene Zukunft des Völkerrechts, 34 Kritische Justiz 46 (2001).Google Scholar

68 See generally Dickinson, Laura A., Public Law Values in a Privatized World, 32 Yale J. Int'l L. 384 (2006); Freeman, Jody, The Private Role in Public Governance, 75 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 543 (2000); id., Extending Public Law Norms Through Privatization, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1285 (2003).Google Scholar

69 See generally Amstutz, Marc, Die Verfassung von Vertragsverbindungen, in Die vernetzte Wirtschaft: Netzwerke als Rechtsproblem 45 (id. ed., 2004); Teubner, Gunther, Coincidentia Oppositorum: Hybrid Networks Beyond Contract and Organization, in Essays in Honor of Lawrence Friedman (Robert Gordon & Morton Horwitz eds., forthcoming).Google Scholar

70 See Ladeur, , Globalization, supra note 13, at 17.Google Scholar

71 Ladeur, , Democracy, supra note 12, at 99, 113. See also Jochen von Bernstorff, The Structural Limitations of Network Governance: ICANN as a Case in Point, in Transnational Governance and Constitutionalism 257, 277 (Christian Joerges et al. eds., 2004) (“The network concept is based on the liberal assumption of the autonomy of actors. Communal goals are to be achieved by the network through the simple informal linkage between actors from diverse sub-systems of society. The emerging plurality of social rationalities – ensured by a decentralised connection of autonomous private actors – is supposed to entrench a more sensitive form of regulation. Since a general and substantive ‘common good’ is difficult to identify in a post-modern globalised world, the network approach seeks to replace it by specific regulatory decisions that encapsulate the various ‘relevant’ rationalities of societal sub-systems.”)Google Scholar

72 Ladeur, , Democracy, supra note 12, at 117.Google Scholar

73 Id. at 113.Google Scholar

74 Id. at 114.Google Scholar

75 Id. Google Scholar

76 Id. Google Scholar

77 See id. at 114, 117.Google Scholar

78 Id. at 114.Google Scholar

79 See Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, Legal Questions of Excluding Participants from Internet Discussion Groups: On the Guaranteeing of Freedom of Communication through “Network-Adapted” Private Law, 9 German L.J. 965 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80 Ladeur, , Globalization, supra note 13, at 19 (footnote omitted).Google Scholar

81 Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, “We, the European People …” – Relâche?, 14 Eur. L.J. 147, 167 (2008) [hereinafter Ladeur, European People].Google Scholar

82 Ladeur, , Supranationality, supra note 16, at 35.Google Scholar

83 See Ladeur, , Supranationality, supra note 16, at 43–54; id., European People, supra note 81, at 163–67.Google Scholar

84 Ladeur, , European People, supra note 81, at 165.Google Scholar

85 See id. Google Scholar

86 See Ladeur, , Supranationality, supra note 16, at 46.Google Scholar

87 See Ladeur, , European People, supra note 81, at 166.Google Scholar

88 See id. at 167.Google Scholar

89 Ladeur, , Democracy, supra note 12, at 106.Google Scholar

90 Ladeur, , Globalization, supra note 13, at 16.Google Scholar

91 Ladeur, , European People, supra note 81, at 164 (footnote omitted). See also id., Democracy, supra note 12, at 118 (“In the long term, responsibility will be concentrated neither at the level of domestic governments, nor at the supra-national level of international organization alone; it will instead rest with public-private networks of decision-makers and groups that overlap at national, transnational and international levels.”) (footnote omitted).Google Scholar

92 See generally Froomkin, A. Michael, Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA and the Constitution, 50 Duke L.J. 17 (2000); Hofmann, Jeanette, (Trans-)Formations of Civil Society in Global Governance Contexts – Two Case Studies on the Problem of Self-Organization, in Global Governance and the Role of Non-State Actors 179 (Gunnar Folke Schuppert ed., 2006); Hutter, Michael, Global Regulation of the Internet Domain Name System: Five Lessons from the ICANN Case, in Innovationsoffene Regulierung des Internet 39 (Karl-Heinz Ladeur ed., 2003). But see von Bernstorff, supra note 71, at 277 (arguing that ICANN serves as an example of the limits of societal self-regulation and deformalized governance structures).Google Scholar

93 Michaels, Ralf & Jansen, Nils, Private Law Beyond the State? Europeanization, Globalization, Privatization, 54 Am. J. Comp. L. 843, 867 (2006).Google Scholar

94 See Teubner, Gunther, The Two Faces of Janus: Rethinking Legal Pluralism, 13 Cardozo L. Rev. 1443, 1461 (1992); Fischer-Lescano, Andreas & Teubner, Gunther, Regime-Kollisionen 64 (2006).Google Scholar

95 See Fischer-Lescano & Teubner, , supra note 94, at 63.Google Scholar

96 Peters, Anne, The Globalization of State Constitutions, in New Perspectives on the Divide Between National and International Law 251, 273 (Janne Nijman & André Nollkaemper eds., 2007). See also Fischer Lescano & Teubner, supra note 94, at 64.Google Scholar

97 Günther, Klaus, Rechtspluralismus und universaler Code der Legalität: Globalisierung als rechtstheoretisches Problem, in Die Öffentlichkeit der Vernunft und die Vernunft der Öffentlichkeit 539, 565 (Lutz Wingert & id. eds., 2001). See also Fischer Lescano & Teubner, supra note 94, at 64.Google Scholar

98 See Peters, Anne, Privatisierung, Globalisierung und die Resistenz des Verfassungsstaates, in Staats- und Verfassungstheorie im Spannungsfeld der Disziplinen 100, 135 (Philippe Mastronardi & Denis Taubert eds., 2006).Google Scholar

99 Lepsius, Oliver, Steuerungsdiskussion, Systemtheorie und Parlamentarismuskritik 23 (1999) (my translation).Google Scholar

100 Id. at 27.Google Scholar

101 Habermas, Jürgen, A Political Constitution for the Pluralist World Society?, 34 J. Chinese Phil. 331 (2007).Google Scholar

102 Ladeur, , Globalization, supra note 13, at 11.Google Scholar

103 Id. Google Scholar

104 Id. at 12.Google Scholar

105 See Peer Zumbansen, Book Review, 68 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 404, 414 (2004) (reviewing Karl-Heinz Ladeur, Negative Freiheitsrechte und gesellschaftliche Selbstorganisation (2000)).Google Scholar

106 Lepsius, Oliver, Die erkenntnistheoretische Notwendigkeit des Parlamentarismus, in Demokratie und Freiheit 123 (Martin Bertschi et al. eds., 1999).Google Scholar

107 Id. at 146–64. See also Lepsius, supra note 99, at 21–34.Google Scholar

108 Günther, Klaus, Legal Pluralism or Uniform Concept of Law? Globalisation as a Problem of Legal Theory, 5 No Foundations 5, 19 (2008).Google Scholar

109 See Günther, Klaus, (Zivil-)Recht: Kann das Zivilrecht im Zuge der Globalisierung das öffentliche Recht ersetzen?, in Rechtsverfassungsrecht 295, 310 (Christian Joerges & Gunther Teubner eds., 2003). See also von Bernstorff, supra note 71, at 277 (“However, this ideal of an ‘a-centric’ realisation of the common good … cannot escape the fundamental decision about who is a ‘relevant’ actor, or which are the ‘relevant’ societal rationalities in a certain field of regulatory policy, and about how these diverging societal interests should be balanced.”)Google Scholar

110 Lepsius, , supra note 106.Google Scholar

111 But see Falk, Richard & Strauss, Andrew, Toward Global Parliament, 80 Foreign Aff. 212 (2001).Google Scholar

112 See generally Fukuyama, Francis, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (1995); Luhmann, Niklas, Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität (4th ed. 2000); Peyrefitte, Alain, La société de confiance (1995).Google Scholar

113 See supra text accompanying notes 21–27.Google Scholar

114 Ladeur, , Globalization, supra note 13, at 19.Google Scholar

115 See supra text accompanying notes 60–65. For a similar project, though based on republican and discourse theoretical premises, see Oliver Gerstenberg, Private Law, Constitutionalism and the Limits of the Judicial Role, in Torture as Tort: Comparative Perspectives on the Development of Transnational Human Rights Litigation 687, 702 (Craig Scott ed., 2001) (“radical horizontalisation” of constitutional rights).Google Scholar

116 Ladeur, Karl-Heinz & Viellechner, Lars, Die transnationale Expansion staatlicher Grundrechte, 46 Archiv des Völkerrechts 42 (2008).Google Scholar

117 For further elaboration see Viellechner, Lars, Können Netzwerke die Demokratie ersetzen?, in Netzwerke 36, 48–56 (Sigrid Boysen et al. eds., 2007); Ladeur, & Viellechner, , supra note 116, at 62–72.Google Scholar

118 The seminal case is Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 7, 198 (1958) (Lüth). See also Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 39, 1 (1975) (Abortion I). For a comparative perspective see Rainer Wahl, Die objektiv-rechtliche Dimension der Grundrechte im internationalen Vergleich, in 1 Handbuch der Grundrechte in Deutschland und Europa 745 (Detlef Merten & Hans-Jürgen Papier eds., 2004).Google Scholar

119 Fabio, Udo Di, Das Recht offener Staaten (1998); Hobe, Stephan, Der offene Verfassungsstaat zwischen Souveränität und Interdependenz (1998).Google Scholar

120 Grimm, Dieter, Rückkehr zum liberalen Grundrechtsverständnis?, in Die Zukunft der Verfassung 221, 240 (3d. ed. 2002) (my translation). See also Willke, supra note 50, at 235 (“fundamental rights as dynamic and innovative system”) (my translation); Gerstenberg, Oliver, What Constitutions Can Do (but Courts Sometimes Don't): Property, Speech, and the Influence of Constitutional Norms on Private Law, 17 Can. J. L. & Jurisprudence 61, 78 n.71 (2004) (“constitutional and human rights norms as context-sensitive pacemakers of reform”).Google Scholar

121 See, e.g., Ackerman, Bruce, The Rise of World Constitutionalism, 83 Va. L. Rev. 771 (1997).Google Scholar

122 Slaughter, Anne-Marie, International Law in a World of Liberal States, 6 Eur. J. Int'l L. 503 (1995) [hereinafter Slaughter, Liberal States]; id., A Liberal Theory of International Law, 94 Am. Soc'y Int'l L. Proc. 240 (2000); Moravcsik, Andrew, Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics, 51 Int'l Org. 513 (1997).Google Scholar

123 Slaughter, , Liberal States, supra note 122, at 520.Google Scholar

124 Fischer-Lescano & Teubner, Gunther, supra note 65, at 1034.Google Scholar

125 See Tushnet, Mark, The Relationship between Judicial Review of Legislation and the Interpretation of Non-Constitutional Law, with Reference to Third Party Effect, in The Constitution in Private Relations: Expanding Constitutionalism 167, 169 (András Sajó & Renáta Uitz eds., 2005).Google Scholar

126 Berman, Paul Schiff, Cyberspace and the State Action Debate: The Cultural Value of Applying Constitutional Norms to “Private Regulation”, 71 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1263, 1307 (2000). See also Jennifer Arnette-Mitchell, State Action Debate Reborn Again: Why the Constitution Should Act as a Checking Mechanism for ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, 27 Hamline J. Publ. L. & Pol'y 307 (2006); Nunziato, Dawn C., Freedom of Expression, Democratic Norms, and Internet Governance, 52 Emory L.J. 187 (2003).Google Scholar

127 Berman, , supra note 126, at 1269, 1290.Google Scholar

128 Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et l'Antisemitisme, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001); 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006).Google Scholar

129 Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Global Government Networks, Global Information Agencies, and Disaggregated Democracy, 24 Mich. J. Int'l L. 1041 (2003); id., Governing the Global Economy through Government Networks, in The Role of Law in International Politics 177 (Michael Byers ed., 2000).Google Scholar

130 See Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A New World Order 11, 17 (2004) (“I outline what is, in part, and what could be.”).Google Scholar

131 Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A Global Community of Courts, 44 Harv. Int'l L.J. 191 (2003); id., Judicial Globalization, 40 Va. J. Int'l L. 1103 (2000); id., A Typology of Transjudicial Communication, 29 U. Rich. L. Rev. 99 (1994). See also Bryde, Brun-Otto, The Constitutional Judge and the International Constitutionalist Dialogue, 80 Tul. L. Rev. 203 (2005); Choudhry, Sujit, Globalization in Search of Justification: Toward a Theory of Comparative Constitutional Interpretation, 74 Ind. L.J. 819 (1999); Burke-White, William, A Community of Courts, 24 Mich. J. Int'l L. 1 (2002); Martinez, Jenny S., Towards an International Judicial System, 56 Stan. L. Rev. 429 (2003).Google Scholar

132 Slaughter, , supra note 130, at 87 (footnote omitted).Google Scholar

133 Berman, Paul Schiff, Conflict of Laws, Globalization, and Cosmopolitan Pluralism, 51 Wayne L. Rev. 1105, 1118 (2005). See also id., Towards a Cosmopolitan Vision of Conflict of Laws: Redefining Governmental Interests in a Global Era, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1819 (2005); id., The Globalization of Jurisdiction, 151 U. Pa. L. Rev. 311 (2002).Google Scholar

134 For recent pointed statements see Kahn, Paul W., Speaking Law to Power: Popular Sovereignty, Human Rights, and the New International Order, 1 Chi. J. Int'l L. 1 (2000); Rubenfeld, Jed, Unilateralism and Constitutionalism, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1971 (2004). For a comparative assessment of this claim see Lars Viellechner, Amerikanischer Unilateralismus als Verfassungsfrage?, 45 Der Staat 1 (2006).Google Scholar

135 Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).Google Scholar

136 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).Google Scholar

137 These decisions have prompted many comments in American legal scholarship. See, e.g., Steven G. Calabresi & Stephanie Dotson Zimdahl, The Supreme Court and Foreign Sources of Law: Two Hundred Years of Practice and the Juvenile Death Penalty Decision, 47 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 743 (2005); Cleveland, Sarah H., Our International Constitution, 31 Yale J. Int'l L. 1 (2006); Jackson, Vicky, Constitutional Comparisons: Convergence, Resistence, Engagement, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 109 (2005); Jacobsohn, Gary Jeffrey, The Permeability of Constitutional Borders, 82 Tex. L. Rev. 1763 (2004); Levinson, Sanford, Looking Abroad When Interpreting the U.S. Constitution: Some Reflections, 39 Tex. Int'l L.J. 353 (2004); Tushnet, Mark, When is Knowing Less Better Than Knowing More? Unpacking the Controversy over Supreme Court Reference to Non-U.S. Law, 90 Minn. L. Rev. 1275 (2006); Waldron, Jeremy, Foreign Law and Modern Ius Gentium, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 129 (2005).Google Scholar

138 Koh, Harold Hongju, Transnational Legal Process, 75 Neb. L. Rev. 181 (1996).Google Scholar

139 Koh, Harold Hongju, How Is International Human Rights Law Enforced?, 74 Ind. L.J. 1397, 1399 (1999) (emphasis omitted).Google Scholar

140 See Ladeur, , Methodendiskussion, supra note 16, at 89. See also supra text accompanying notes 62–65.Google Scholar

141 Gerstenberg, , supra note 115, at 700 (emphasis omitted).Google Scholar

142 Fischer-Lescano & Teubner, , supra note 65, at 1039.Google Scholar

143 See id. at 1044.Google Scholar

144 Ladeur, , Abwägung, supra note 31, at 42 (my translation).Google Scholar

145 Ladeur, , Umweltrecht, supra note 20, at 37 (my translation). For further discussion of this leitmotif in Ladeur's research agenda see Augsberg & Gostomzyk & Viellechner, supra note †.Google Scholar