Norwegian Lawyers and Political Mobilization: 1623-2015

M. Langford
{"title":"Norwegian Lawyers and Political Mobilization: 1623-2015","authors":"M. Langford","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2789729","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Do Norwegian lawyers mobilize only to enhance their privileges and prestige? Or do they also engage in collective action for more noble ends? Contrary to materialist approaches, the theory of the ‘legal complex’ predicts that the legal profession will struggle as an entity for ‘political liberalism’ – a moderate state with basic civil rights and freedoms. This presents a paradox for the Nordic countries. Lawyers are not especially visible in the public sphere yet political liberalism is more deeply entrenched than elsewhere. If correct, this suggests either a case of Nordic exceptionalism or a problematic theory. This paper focuses on Norway. Beginning with the emergence of lawyers in the 1600s, it traces the legal profession’s engagement with the development and defense of political liberalism. This is complemented by a quantitative content analysis of interventions by the Advokatforeningen (law society). The paper argues that the results should prompt us to rethink legal complex theory more generally. The legal profession will only mobilize broadly for political liberalism when: (1) committed individual lawyers are able to overcome collective action dilemmas in the profession and (2) lawyer-centric forms of mobilization are viewed as less costly or more appropriate than the alternatives.","PeriodicalId":318823,"journal":{"name":"Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility eJournal","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2789729","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Do Norwegian lawyers mobilize only to enhance their privileges and prestige? Or do they also engage in collective action for more noble ends? Contrary to materialist approaches, the theory of the ‘legal complex’ predicts that the legal profession will struggle as an entity for ‘political liberalism’ – a moderate state with basic civil rights and freedoms. This presents a paradox for the Nordic countries. Lawyers are not especially visible in the public sphere yet political liberalism is more deeply entrenched than elsewhere. If correct, this suggests either a case of Nordic exceptionalism or a problematic theory. This paper focuses on Norway. Beginning with the emergence of lawyers in the 1600s, it traces the legal profession’s engagement with the development and defense of political liberalism. This is complemented by a quantitative content analysis of interventions by the Advokatforeningen (law society). The paper argues that the results should prompt us to rethink legal complex theory more generally. The legal profession will only mobilize broadly for political liberalism when: (1) committed individual lawyers are able to overcome collective action dilemmas in the profession and (2) lawyer-centric forms of mobilization are viewed as less costly or more appropriate than the alternatives.
挪威律师与政治动员:1623-2015
挪威律师动员起来只是为了提高他们的特权和声望吗?或者他们也会为了更崇高的目标而参与集体行动?与唯物主义的方法相反,“法律情结”理论预测,法律职业将作为一个实体为“政治自由主义”——一个拥有基本公民权利和自由的温和国家——而斗争。这给北欧国家带来了一个悖论。律师在公共领域并不特别显眼,但政治自由主义比其他地方更根深蒂固。如果这是正确的,这表明要么是北欧例外论,要么是一个有问题的理论。本文以挪威为研究对象。本书从17世纪律师的出现开始,追溯了法律职业与政治自由主义的发展和捍卫的关系。此外,律师协会还对干预措施进行了定量内容分析。本文认为,这些结果应该促使我们更普遍地重新思考法律复杂性理论。法律职业只有在以下情况下才会为政治自由主义进行广泛的动员:(1)坚定的律师个人能够克服行业中的集体行动困境;(2)以律师为中心的动员形式被认为比其他形式成本更低或更合适。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信