1. Jellinek, Georg, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1895; New York: Henry Holt. 1901).Google Scholar The first English translation appeared in 1901 and is the principal edition used in this study; the French edition appeared in 1902. See also Boutmy, Emile, “La Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen et M. Jellinek,” Annales des sciences politiques 17 (1902): 415–43Google Scholar; Jellinek, Georg, “La Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen et M. Boutmy,” repr. in his Ausgewählte Schriften und Reden, ed. Jellinek, Walter (Aalen: Scientia Verlag, [1911] 1970), 2:65–81.Google Scholar

2. Ignatieff, Michael, Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), 29Google Scholar, also 48, 64, 78ff.

3. Ibid., 82–92.

4. Schmale, Wolfgang, “Georg Jellinek et la Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme de 1789,” in Mélanges offerts à Claude Petitfrère: Regards sur les sociétés modernes (XVIe-XVIIe siècle), ed. Turrel, D. (Tours: CEHVI, Publication de l'Université de Tours, 1997), 303–11Google Scholar, esp. 304. See Jellinek, Georg, Allgemeine Staatslehre, 3rd ed. (Berlin: Julius Springer Verlag, [1900] 1921), esp. 416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Jellinek, Georg, Die Erklärung der Menschen—und Bürgerrechte: Ein Beitrag zur modernen Verfassungsgeschichte, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1904), vii–viii.Google Scholar

6. See Krieger, Leonard, The German Idea of Freedom (Boston: Beacon, 1959)Google Scholar; cf. Anderson, Margaret Lavinia, “Reply to Volker Berghahn,” Central European History 35 (2002): 83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who offers a stimulating critique of historiographical debates about a German Sonderweg in the light of her own recent research.

7. Schmale, “Georg Jellinek,” 306; Stolleis, Michael, “Georg Jellineks Beitrag zur Entwicklung der Menschen—und Bürgerrechte,” in Georg Jellinek—Beiträge zu Leben und Werk, ed. Paulson, Stanley and Schulte, Martin (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2000), 109.Google Scholar

8. Stolleis, Michael, Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland, vol. 2, 1800–1914 (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1992), 450–55.Google Scholar

9. Pitkin, Hanna, “Are Freedom and Liberty Twins?” Political Theory 16 (1988): 528–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar, notes that the Indo-European origins of “liberty” are Greek and Latin, mediated later through French, while “freedom” is more Germanic and Anglo-Saxon. The distinction remains controversial etymologically, conceptually, and politically.

10. Hewitson, Mark, National Identity and Political Thought in Germany: Wilhelmine Depictions of the French Third Republic, 1890–1914 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. chaps. 2–3; Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, “The German Type of Constitutional Monarchy in the Nineteenth Century,” in his State, Society and Liberty, ed. and trans. Underwood, J. A. (Leamington Spa: Berg, 1991), 87–114Google Scholar, provides a good discussion of the conceptual affinities between the idea of the Rechtsstaat and modern liberalism.

11. See Iggers, Georg G., The German Conception of History: The National Tradition of Historical Thought from Herder to the Present, rev. ed. (Hanover, N.H.: Wesleyan University Press, [1968] 1988)Google Scholar; Isbell, John Clairborne, The Birth of European Romanticism: Truth and Propaganda in Staël's “De l'Allemagne,” 1810–1813 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 124ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vick, Brian, Defining Germany: The 1848 Frankfurt Parliamentarians and National Identity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002)Google Scholar, esp. chap. 1.

12. In a debate about the possibilities of parliamentarization in Germany initiated in the Viennese Neue Freie Presse in 1907 by Gustav Schmoller, Schmoller defended the German Beamtenstaat as superior in form to any parliamentary system. Jellinek wrote a critical reply (as had Alfred Weber, who pleaded for the introduction of a parliamentary system) that brought elements of the two sides together. He concluded that a federal structure and a parliamentary system of government, as things stood with a weak Bundesrat in Germany, were completely incompatible. See Christoph Schönberger, “Ein Liberaler zwischen Staatswille und Volkswille,” in Jellinek—Beiträge zu Leben und Werk, 21.

13. On the general philosophical problems with the idea of “influence” in the history of ideas, see Skinner, Quentin, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” repr. in his Visions of Politics, vol. 1, Regarding Method (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 57–89Google Scholar; also Kelley, Donald R., The Descent of Ideas: The History of Intellectual History (Aldershot: Ashgate. 2002).Google Scholar

14. Jellinek. Declaration of the Rights of Man, 44.

15. Ibid., 11.

16. Ibid., esp. 18–21, 27–42. On p. 20, he wrote that “the French Declaration of Rights is for the most part copied from the American declarations or ‘bills of rights.’” In the second German edition of the essay, the Virginia Bill of Rights was printed as an appendix to the main text.

17. Ibid., 19, n. 12; Marx, Karl, “On the Jewish Question” [1843], repr. in Karl Marx: Early Writings, ed. Colletti, Lucio (London: Penguin, 1974), 227–31Google Scholar, had made similar points of comparison between the American Bill of Rights and the French Déclaration, linking them to ideas of individual freedom. Jellinek proably knew these, yet, when discussing Marx, he typically focused his criticism on the developmental implications of historical materialism. See Kersten, Jens, Georg Jellinek und die klassische Staatslehre (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2000), 153.Google Scholar

18. Jellinek, Declaration of the Rights of Man, 46.

19. Ibid., 49f.

20. Ibid., 50f.

21. Ibid., 49.

22. Ibid., 94.

23. Ibid., 53.

24. Ibid., 54.

25. See Freeman, E. A., Comparative Politics (London: Macmillan, 1873), 127ff.Google Scholar, and Lecture II in general; Burrow, J. W., A Liberal Descent (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)Google Scholar, chap. 7.

26. Jellinek, Declaration of the Rights of Man, 53f.

27. Ibid., 54. Emphasis added.

28. Cf. Dunn, John, “The Politics of Locke in England and America in the Eighteenth Century,” in John Locke: Problems and Perspectives, ed. Yolton, John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 45–80Google Scholar; Banning, Lance, “Some Second Thoughts on Virtue and the Course of Revolutionary Thinking,” in Conceptual Change and the Constitution, ed. Ball, Terence and Pocock, J. G. A. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1988), 194–212Google Scholar; Rahe, Paul A., Republics Ancient and Modern—Inventions of Prudence: Constituting the American Regime, vol. 3 (Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1994).Google Scholar

29. Jellinek, Declaration of the Rights of Man, 91: “Locke's doctrines of a Law of Nature appear to have had no influence at all outside of England.” However, the “continental doctrines of a Law of Nature played their important part for the first time at the end of the eighteenth century in the great social transformation of the French Revolution.” (My emphasis.) Cf. Jellinek, “La Déclaration,” 74: “Que Locke, que Blackstone, que Montesquieu, que Rousseau aient exercé une influence sur la Déclaration française, que le Droit anglais, par l'intermédiare de l'Amérique, ait agi indirectement sur elle, je pense l'avoir démontré surabondamment.”

30. Hutson, James H., “The Bill of Rights and the American Revolutionary Experience,” in A Culture of Rights: The Bill of Rights in Philosophy, Politics, and Law—1791 and 1991, ed. Lacey, M. J. and Haakonssen, Knud (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 66–74Google Scholar, 78–81. See also Jellinek, Declaration of the Rights of Man, 55.

31. Jellinek, Declaration of the Rights of Man, 68.

32. Ibid., 74, 78–89. On p. 77, Jellinek argued that “what has been held to be a work of the Revolution was in reality a fruit of the Reformation and its struggles”; see also Huston, “The Bill of Rights,” 80–91.

33. Jellinek, Declaration of the Rights of Man, 95.

34. On this, see Jennings, Jeremy, “The Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du Citoyen and Its Critics in France: Reaction and Idéologie,” The Historical Journal 35 (1992): 839–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. Interestingly enough, therefore, Boutmy did not make the rhetorical countermove of locating the origins of liberty in France in a protonationalist interpretation of Tacitus's Germania, as Bodin, for example, had done. See Briggs, Robin, “From the German Forests to Civil Society: The Frankish Myth and the Ancient Constitution in France,” in Civil Histories: Essays Presented to Sir Keith Thomas, ed. Burke, Peter, Harrison, Brian, and Slack, Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 231–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For the revolutionary reinterpretation of this myth, see Bell, David, The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 1680–1800 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001).Google Scholar

36. Boutmy, “La Déclaration,” 421; and see also Baker, Keith Michael, “Transformations of Classical Republicanism in Eighteenth-Century France,” Journal of Modern History 73 (2001): 32–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. Jellinek, “La Déclaration,” 64–65.

38. See Skinner, Quentin, “Humanism, Scholasticism and Popular Sovereignty,” in his Visions of Politics, vol. 2, Renaissance Virtues (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002), 245–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. Jellinek, “La Déclaration,” 67.

40. Ibid., 74–75, 79.

41. See Boutmy, “La Déclaration,” 423, on Jellinek's analogies and claims of “influence.”

42. Pole, J. R., “Reflections on American Law and the American Revolution,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 50 (1993): 123–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43. Jellinek, Declaration of the Rights of Man, 55.

44. Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1765–1769), 1:40–41Google Scholar, quoted in Knud Haakonssen, “From Natural Law to the Rights of Man,” in A Culture of Rights, 34, n. 26.

45. See the discussion of Quentin Skinner, “From the State of Princes to the Person of the State,” Visions of Politics, vol. 2, Renaissance Virtues, 409ff.

46. Digest i. 3. 32. 1. I have quoted from the variant reading in The Institutes of Justinian, ed. and trans. Sanders, T. C. (London: Longmans Green and Co., 1922), 13.Google Scholar For an illuminating account of Gaius's importance to the development of Western legal thought both before and after Niebuhr's discovery, see Kelley, Donald R., “Gaius Noster: Substructures of Western Legal Thought,” American Historical Review 84 (1979): 619–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47. The importance of this element has been restated recently by Quentin Skinner in his formulations of a largely submerged neo-Roman theory of liberty in British political thought of the seventeenth century. See Skinner, Quentin, Liberty before Liberalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).Google Scholar

48. See Brett, Annabel, “The Civil Philosophy of Hugo Grotius,” Historical Journal 45 (2002): 33, 41, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49. See Haakonssen, “From Natural Law to the Rights of Man,” 35. The classic statement is Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan [1651], ed. Tuck, Richard (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)Google Scholar, chap. 14. For discussion see Skinner, Quentin, “Hobbes on Rhetoric and the Construction of Morality,” Visions of Politics, vol. 3, Hobbes and Civil Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 87–141.Google Scholar

50. See Hochstrasser, Tim, Natural Law Theories in the Early Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 97, 101Google Scholar; Hunter, Ian, Rival Enlightenments: Civil and Metaphysical Philosophy in Early Modern Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 174CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hont, István, “Samuel Pufendorf and the Theoretical Origins of the Four-Stages Theory,” in The Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe, ed. Pagden, Anthony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 253–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51. See Johnston, David, Roman Law in Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999), 78, 106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarOakeshott, Michael, On Human Conduct (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975)Google Scholar, made the distinction between societas and universitas the background to his own theory of human association.

52. On Locke's debts to these traditions, see Tully, James, An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Contexts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chap. 9.

53. Haakonssen, “From Natural Law to the Rights of Man,” 47. See also Ignatieff, Michael and Hont, István, eds., Wealth and Virtue (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Rahe, Republics Ancient and Modern, vol. 3.

54. Thompson, Martyn, “The History of Fundamental Law in Political Thought from the French Wars of Religion to the American Revolution,” American Historical Review 91(1986): 1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55. Ibid., 1127.

56. Cf. Jellinek, “La Déclaration,” 67; Kley, Dale van, “From the Lessons of History to Truths for All Times and All Peoples: The Historical Origins of an Anti-Historical Declaration,” in The French Idea of Freedom, ed. Kley, Dale van (Berkeley: Stanford University Press, 1994), 110ffGoogle Scholar; Keith Michael Baker, “The Idea of a Declaration of Rights,” in The French idea of Freedom, 154–58, 194ff.

57. See Clavreul, Collette, “Sieyès et la genèse de la representation modèrne,” Droits 6 (1986): 45–56.Google Scholar

58. See Wokler, Robert, “Rousseau's Pufendorf: Natural Law and the Foundations of Commercial Society,” History of Political Thought 15 (1994): 373–402Google Scholar; Rosenblatt, Helena, Rousseau and Geneva: From the First Discourse to the Social Contract, 1749–1762 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), esp. 167, 177CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tuck, Richard, The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 197–207.Google Scholar

59. Klippel, Diethelm, “Reasonable Aims of Civil Society: Concerns of the State in German Political Theory in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries,” in Rethinking Leviathan: The Eighteenth-Century State in Britain and Germany, ed. Brewer, John and Hellmuth, Eckhart (Oxford University Press and the German Historical Institute: Oxford, 1999), 87.Google Scholar See also Klippel, Diethelm, “Legal Reforms: Changing the Law in Germany in the Ancien Régime and in the Vormärz,” Proceedings of the British Academy 100 (1999): 43–59Google Scholar, esp. 53ff.

60. Tribe, Keith, “Natural Law and the Origins of Nationalökonomie: L. H. von Jakob,” in The Rise of the Social Sciences and the Formation of Modernity, ed. Heilbron, Johan, Magnusson, Lars, and Wittrock, Björn (Kluwer: Dordrecht, 1998), 202Google Scholar, discusses this movement in terms of the transformation of the concept of “needs” in German economic discourse in particular.

61. On Humboldt and liberalism, see Vogel, Ursula, “Liberty is Beautiful: Humboldt's Gift to Liberalism,” History of Political Thought 3 (1982): 77–101.Google Scholar The classic discussion of Polizei remains that of Maier, Hans, Die ältere deutsche Staats—und Verwaltungslehre, 2nd ed. (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1980)Google Scholar; for critical commentary, see Tribe, Keith, “From Cameralism to the Science of Government,” in his Strategies of Economic Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 8–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62. Raeff, Mark, “The Well-Ordered Police State and the Development of Modernity in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Europe: An Attempt at a Comparative Approach,” American Historical Review 80 (1975): 1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “the instruments of administration were coming to be seen as important as the ends they served or promoted.” For wider reflections, see Raeff, Mark, The Weil-Ordered Police State: Social and Institutional Change through Law in the Germanies and Russia, 1600–1800 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983)Google Scholar, esp. part 2; and Axtmann, Roland, “‘Police’ and the Formation of the Modern State. Legal and Ideological Assumptions on State Capacity in the Austrian Lands of the Habsburg Empire, 1500–1800,” German History 10 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: esp. 43, 60f.

63. Moser, Johann Jakob, quoted in Walker, Mack, Johann Jakob Moser and the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 306.Google Scholar

64. See Lindenfeld, David F., The Practical Imagination: The German Sciences of State in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65. See Walker, Mack, “Rights and Functions: The Social Categories of Eighteenth-Century German Jurists and Cameralists,” Journal of Modern History 50 (1978): 234–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Oz-Salzberger, Fania, “Scots, Germans, Republic and Commerce,” in Republicanism—A Shared European Heritage, ed. Gelderen, Martin van and Skinner, Quentin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 2:215f., 226.Google Scholar

66. Klippel, “Reasonable Aims of Civil Society,” 97.

67. See Adams, Willi Paul, “German Translations of the American Declaration of Independence,” The Journal of American History 85 (1999): 1325–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 1327ff.

68. Ibid., 1333; cf. Vick, Defining Germany, chap. 4.

69. See Green, Abigail, Fatherlands: State Building and Nationhood in Nineteenth-Century Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 98–99.Google Scholar Cf. Nolte, Paul, “Bürgerideal, Gemeinde und Republik: ‘Klassischer Republikanismus’ im frühen deutschen Liberalismus,” Historische Zeitschrift 254 (1992): 609–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; in general on German republicanism, see Heideking, Jürgen and Henretta, James A., Republicanism and Liberalism in America and the German States, 1 750–1850 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70. Dippel, Horst, Die amerikanische Verfassung in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert: Das Dilemma von Politik und Staatsrecht (Goldbach: Keip Verlag, 1994), 76ff.Google Scholar; Jellinek, Declaration of the Rights of Man, 1–7.

71. Jellinek, Declaration of the Rights of Man, 5; Stoìleis, “Georg Jellineks Beitrag,” 11 Of.

72. Adams, “German Translations,” 1337f.

73. Welcker, Carl, “Bund,” in Das Staats—Lexicon, ed. Rotteck, Carl von and Wekker, Carl (Altona, 1846), 2: 714–15Google Scholar, quoted in Dippel, Die amerikanische Verfassung, 113–16.

74. See Green, Fatherlands, esp. 292–96; also Brubaker, Rogers, Citizenship and Nationhood in Germany and France (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992).Google Scholar

75. Dippel, Die amerikanische Verfassung, 59ff.

76. The general impact of Tocqueville, Alexis de, Democracy in America, ed. and trans. Mansfield, Harvey C. and Winthrop, Delba (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, initially published in two volumes 1835/1840, should not be discounted here. Critical discussion of the work of Montesquieu was also central to the formation of early German liberalism. See Korioth, Stefan, ‘“Monarchisches Prinzip’ und Gewaltenteilung—Unvereinbar? Zur Wirkungsgeschichte der Gewaltenteilungslehre Montesquieus im deutschen Frühkonstitutionalismus,” Der Staat 37 (1998): 27–55.Google Scholar

77. Schmale, Wolfgang, “La France, l'Allemagne et la constitution (1789–1815),” Annales Historiques de la Révolution Française 4 (1991): 471Google Scholar; also Schmale, “Georg Jellinek,” 307, 309f.

78. Cf. Blanning, T. C. W., The French Revolution in Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; see also Rowe, Michael, “Between Empire and Home Town: Napoleonic Rule on the Rhine, 1799–1814,” Historical Journal 42 (1999): 643–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who emphasizes the character of elite manipulation and cooption for the maintenance of Napoleonic rule. Cf. Kelley, Donald R., “What Pleases the Prince: Justinian, Napoleon and the Lawyers,” History of Political Thought 23 (2002): 294–97.Google Scholar

79. See Yack, Bernard, “Popular Sovereignty and Nationalism,” Political Theory 29 (2001): 517–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80. See Schmale, “Georg Jellinek,” 306.

81. See Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, “Organ, Organismus, Organisation, politischer Körper,” Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1982), 4:561Google Scholar; Michael Stolleis, Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts, 56.

82. Stollberg-Rillinger, Barbara, Der Staat ah Maschine (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1986).Google Scholar

83. Müller, Adam, Die Elemente der Staatskunst (1808–1809: Berlin, 1936), 27.Google Scholar On these organic metaphors, see Böckenförde, “Organ, Organismus,” 587; Stolleis, Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts, 368f; cf. Sedgwick, Sally, “The State as Organism: The Metaphysical Basis of Hegel's Philosophy of Right,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 39 Supplement (2001): 171–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

84. Kaufmann, Erich, Über den Begriff des Organismus in der Staatslehre des 19. Jahrhunderts (Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1908), 11, 16.Google Scholar See also Stolleis, Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts, 107, 153; Böckenförde, “Organ, Organismus,” 600, 608ff.

85. Schönberger, Christoph, Das Parlament im Anstaltstaat. Zur Theorie parlamentarischer Repräsentation in der Staatsrechtslehre des Kaiserreichs (1871–1918) (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1997), 62f.Google Scholar More generally, see Bluntschli, Johann Kaspar, The Theory of the State, authorized translation from the 6th German edition (Kitchener: Batoche Books, 2000), 282ff.Google Scholar

86. Böckenförde, “Organ, Organismus,” 598f., 606f.; see also Böckenförde, “Rechtsstaat,” 93ff” 103.

87. Böckenförde, “Organ, Organismus,” 589; Kaufmann, Begriff des Organismus, 16.

88. Cf. Roben, Betsy Baker, “The Method behind Bluntschli's ‘Modern’ International Law,” Journal of the History of International Law 4 (2002): 250–56Google Scholar; Ross, Dorothy, The Origins of American Social Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).Google Scholar On Bluntschli's impact in Oxford, where his General Theory of the State was a standard political science text in 1851/2, see Stapleton, Julia, Englishness and the Study of Politics: The Social and Political Thought of Ernest Barker (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

89. Georg Jellinek, “Johan Caspar Bluntschli,” Ausgewählte Schriften und Reden, 1:292; see also the generous discussion in Koskenniemi, Martti, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1969 (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2002), 42–51.Google Scholar

90. Roben, “The Method behind Bluntschli's ‘Modern’ International Law,” 267.

91. Lipp, Martin, “‘Persona Morális,’ ‘Juristische Person’ und ‘Personenrecht’—Eine Studie zur Dogmengeschichte der ‘Juristischen Person’ im Naturrecht und frühen 19. Jahrhundert,” Quaderni Fiorentini 11–12 (1983): 237, 258, 220ff.Google Scholar For the condensed critique of Thibaut concerning the necessity of a constitutional code, see Savigny, Friedrich Karl von, Vom Beruf unsrer Zeit für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft (Heidelberg: Mohr und Zimmer, 1814), esp. 155–60.Google Scholar

92. Stein, Peter, Roman Law in European History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Whitman, James Q., The Legacy of Roman Law in the German Romantic Age (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

93. Stolleis, Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts, 431f.; also Stolleis, Michael, “Die Allgemeine Staatslehre im 19. Jahrhundert,” in Naturrecht im 19. Jahrhundert: Kontinuität, Inhalt-Funktion-Wirkung, ed. Klippel, Diethelm (Goldbach: Keip Verlag, 1997), 16Google Scholar; Klippel, Diethelm, “Politische und juristische Funktionen des Naturrechts in Deutschland im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert: Zur Einführung,” Zeitschrift für neuere Rechtsgeschichte 22 Sonderdruck (2000): 3–10.Google Scholar

94. Bluntschli, Theory of the State, 13.

95. Roben, “Method behind Bluntschli's ‘Modern’ International Law,” 272ff.

96. See Jellinek, Georg, Die rechtliche Natur der Staatenverträge. Ein Beitrag zur juristischen Construction des Völkerrechts (Vienna: Alfred Holder, 1880), 43f.Google Scholar

97. This therefore resembles Hans Kelsen's later theory, perhaps itself unsurprising, given Jellinek's deep engagement with Southwest German neo-Kantianism. See Paulson, Stanley, “The Neo-Kantian Dimension of Kelsen's Legal Theory,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 12 (1992): 325–26Google Scholar; “On the Puzzle Surrounding Hans Kelsen's Basic Norm,” Ratio Juris 13 (2000): 279–93.

98. Roben, “Method behind Bluntschli's ‘Modern’ International Law,” 272; see also Koskemienni, Gentle Civilizer, 49: “Bluntschli's law was neither fixed on sovereign will nor drawn from Roman law or moral theory but emerged spontaneously through the lives of (European) peoples.”

99. Koskemienni, Gentle Civilizer, 200.

100. Hübinger, Gangolf, “Staatstheorie und Politik als Wissenschaft im Kaiserreich,” in Politik, Philosophie, Praxis: Festschrift für Wilhelm Hennis zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Maier, Hans, Matz, Ulrich, Sontheimer, Kurt, Weinacht, Paul-Ludwig (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1988), 143–61Google Scholar; “Historicism and the ‘Noble Science of Politics’ in Germany,” in British and German Historiography, 1750–1950: Traditions, Perceptions and Transfers, ed. Stuchtey, Benedikt and Wende, Peter (Oxford: The German Historical Institute/Oxford University Press, 2000), 191–209.Google Scholar

101. The argument of this section builds upon the discussion of Kelly, Duncan, The State of the Political: Conceptions of Politics and the State in the Thought of Max Weber, Carl Schmitt and Franz Neumann (Oxford: Oxford University Press A The British Academy, 2003).Google Scholar

102. Jouanjan, Olivier, “Carl Friedrich Gerber et la constitution d'une science du droit public allemand,” in La science juridique française et la science juridique allemande de 1870 à 1918, ed. Beaud, Olivier and Wachsmann, Patrick (Strasbourg: Presses Universitaires de Strasbourg, 1997), esp. 16–19.Google Scholar

103. Ibid., 57.

104. See Kersten, Jetiinek und die klassische Staatslehre, 53.

105. Stolleis, Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts, 334.

106. Ibid., 336.

107. Ibid., 344; Lindenfeld, The Practical Imagination, 257.

108. Between 1880 and 1918 Laband occupied positions as professor and then rector at the Kaiser Wilhelm University in Strasbourg and was a member of the Staatsrat. See Stolleis, Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts, 347; Friedrich, Manfred, “Paul Laband und die Staatsrechtswissenschaft seiner Zeit,” Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 111 (1986): 205–9Google Scholar; Schlink, Bernhard, “Laband als Politiker,” Der Staat 31 (1992): 553.Google Scholar

109. Stolleis, Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts, 344f.

110. See Torre, Massimo La, “‘Rechtsstaat’ and Legal Science. The Rise and Fall of the Concept of Subjective Right,” Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 76 (1990): 60–63Google Scholar; Caldwell, Peter C., Popular Sovereignty and the Crisis of German Constitutional Law (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1997), 16.Google Scholar

111. Laband, Paul, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches, 5th ed. (1876–82; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1911), 1Google Scholar: ix, quoted in Lindenfeld, The Practical Imagination, 158. Otto Gierke was the most outspoken critic of this position. See Gierke, Otto von, “Labands Staatsrecht und die deutsche Rechtswissenschaft,” Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im deutschen Reich, ed. Schmoller, Gustav, vol. 7 (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1883): 7Google Scholar [1103], 17 [1113]

112. For two recent discussions, see Runciman, David, Pluralism and the Personality of the State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Caldwell, Popular Sovereignty, 14.

113. Kersten, Jellinek und die klassische Staatslehre, 275.

114. Ibid., 131.

115. Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre, esp. 262; see also Kersten, Jellinek und die klassische Staatslehre, 106.

116. Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre, 63.

117. Ibid., 408ff.

118. Caldwell, Popular Sovereignty, 34–35.

119. Dietmar Kettler, Die Drei-Elemente Lehre. Ein Beitrag zu Georg Jellineks Staatsbegriff, seiner Fortführung und Kritik, Inaugural Dissertation, Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität zu Munster (Vorgelegt von Dietmar Kettler aus Rahden, 1995), 26–30.

120. Jellinek, Georg, System der subjektiven öffentlichen Rechte, 2nd ed. (1892; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1921)Google Scholar; Allgemeine Staatslehre, 417f. See the discussion in Kersten, Jellinek und die klassische Staatslehre, 286f; Robert Alexy, “Grundrecht und Status,” in Jellinek—Beiträge zu Leben und Werk, 221–25; Stolleis. “Georg Jellineks Beitrag,” in ibid., 106.

121. Schmale, “Georg Jellinek,” 304.

122. Caldwell, Popular Sovereignty. See also Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre, 11, 62.

123. Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre, esp. 10ff., 50; Lindenfeld, The Practical Imagination. 307.

124. Kettler, Die Drei-Elemente Lehre, 2Iff.

125. Kersten, Jellinek und die klassische Staatslehre, 206.

126. Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre, 159; see also Hübinger, “Staatstheorie und Politik als Wissenschaft,” 149.

127. Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre, 180: “im Begriff des Politischen hat man bereits den Begriff des Staates gedacht.” Cf. Schmitt, Carl, The Concept of the Political, 1932 ed., trans. Schwab, George (1927; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 19.Google Scholar I am most grateful to one of the referees of Law and History Review for picking up on this point among many others.

128. Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre, 11–13, 15; Anter, Andreas, “Georg Jellineks wissenschaftliche Politik. Positionen, Kontexte, Wirkungslinien,” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 39 (1998): 509.Google Scholar

129. Jellinek, Die rechtliche Natur, 5, 7.

130. Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre, 97; Anter, “Georg Jellineks wissenschaftliche Politik,” 508; Hübinger, “Staatstheorie und Politik,” 155.

131. Georg Jellinek, “Adam in der Staatslehre” [1893], in his Ausgewählte Schriften und Reden, 2:28.

132. Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre, 180f” 183.

133. Breuer, Georg Jellinek und Max Weber, 14. See also Breuer, “Max Webers Staatssoziologie,” 213; Hübinger, “Staatstheorie und Politik als Wissenschaft,” 148.

134. Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre, 338; Kersten, Jellinek und die klassische Staatslehre, 273–78.

135. Anter, “Georg Jellineks wissenschaftliche Politik,” 521.

136. Ibid.

137. Jhering, Rudolf, Der Zweck im Recht, 4th ed. (1877; Leipzig, 1904), 1:240Google Scholar, quoted in Anter, “Georg Jellineks wissenschaftliche Politik,” 522. Jhering's writings on law were nevertheless underpinned by a complex account of the nature of the individual and were highly critical of contemporary jurisprudence. See Klippel, Diethelm, “Juristische Begriffshimmel und Funktionale Rechtswelt,” Colloquia für Dieter Schwab zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Klippel, Diethelm (Bielefeld: Gieseking Verlag, 2000), 129–34.Google Scholar

138. Dyson, Kenneth, The State Tradition in Western Europe (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1980), 175.Google Scholar

139. Kersten, Jellinek und die klassische Staatslehre, 193.

140. Ibid., 409f.

141. Dyson, State Tradition, 113.

142. Armitage, David, “The Declaration of Independence and International Law,” William and Mary Quarterly 59 (2002): 43ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the reliance upon international law doctrines in The Federalist, see also Helfman, Tara, “The Law of Nations in The Federalist Papers,” Legal History 23 (2002): 107–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

143. Armitage, “Declaration of Independence,” 64, also 58ff.

144. Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre, 274.

145. See Joachen von Bernstorff, “Völkerrecht als modernes öffentliches Recht,” in Beiträge zu Leben und Werk, 187.

146. Georg Jellinek, “Die Staatsrechtslehre und ihre Vertreter,” in his Ausgewählte Schriften und Reden, 2:335–39.

147. The issue of how codified law deals with “founding” has remained pertinent to political theory. See Honig, Bonnie, “Declarations of Independence: Arendt and Derrida on the Problem of Founding a Republic,” American Political Science Review 85 (1991): 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

148. See Hamm, Berndt, “What Was the Reformation Doctrine of Justification?” in The German Reformation, ed. Dixon, C. Scott (Oxford: Blackwell. 1999), 56–90Google Scholar; see also Weber, Wolfgang, “The Absolutist Making of the Individual,” in The Individuai in Political Theory and Practice, ed. Coleman, Janet (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1996), 198f.Google Scholar

149. See recently Ghosh, Peter, “Max Weber's Idea of ‘Puritanism’: A Case Study in the Empirical Construction of the Protestant Ethic,” History of European Ideas 29 (2003): 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ghosh assesses Jellinek's discussion of the rights of man as part of a broader Germanic tradition, seeking the roots of individual rights within “liberal Protestantism” rather than the French Revolution.

150. For engaging recent reflections on this theme, see Kim, Sung Ho, “‘In Affirming Them, He Affirms Himself: Max Weber's Politics of Civil Society,” Political Theory 28 (2000): 197–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

151. Jellinek, Declaration of the Rights of Man, 90–98.

152. Ibid., 97, n. 6.

153. See J. G. A. Pocock, “States, Republics and Empires: The American Founding in Early Modern Perspective,” in Conceptual Change and the Constitution, 70f.; Pole, J. R., Political Representation and the Origins of the American Republic (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971).Google Scholar On English reason of state, see Pincus, Steve, “To Protect English Liberties': The English Nationalist Revolution of 1688–89,” in Protestantism and National Identity, ed. Claydon, Terry and McBride, Ian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). 75–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “From Holy Cause to Economic Interest: The Study of Population and the Invention of the State,” in A Nation Transformed: England after the Restoration, ed. Houston, Alan and Pincus, Steve (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 272–98.Google Scholar

154. See also Dippel, Horst, “Die Konstitutionalisierung des Bundesstaats in Deutschland 1849–1949 und die Rolle des amerikanischen Modells,” Der Staat 38 (1999): 221–39.Google Scholar