Most Downloaded Articles
- Gefangen in der Mobilität. Prekäre Zonierungsprozesse an den Rändern Europas. Caught in Mobility. New zones of precarity at the margins of Europe by Hess, Sabine
- Produktive „Parallelgesellschaften“. Migration und Ordnung in der (neoliberalen) „Stadt der Vielfalt“. Productive „Parallel Societies“. Migration and Order in the (neoliberal) „City of Diversity“ by Rodatz, Mathias
- Postliberale Souveränität und Datenkörper. Ungeplante Assoziationen. Postliberal Sovereignty and Data-Bodies. Unplanned Associations by Sierra Barra, Sebastian
- (Dis)locating Control: Transmigration, Precarity and the Governmentality of Control by Kurz, Joshua J.
- Im Namen des Bruders: Fraternalität in Freundschaftsdiskursen der Antike, des Mittelalters und der Frühen Neuzeit/In the Name of the Brother: Friendship and Fraternality in Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Discourses by Kraß, Andreas
Widerstreitende Temporalitäten: Recht in Zeiten des Risikos/Conflicting Temporalities: Law in Times of Risk
1Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Lehrbereich für soziologische Theorie an der Uni Hamburg (Postdoc).
Citation Information: Behemoth. Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages 58–82, ISSN (Online) 1866-2447, ISSN (Print) 2191-7582, DOI: 10.1515/behemoth.2011.013, September 2011
- Published Online:
Drawing on Niklas Luhmann's systems theory, this article approaches the legal exception through an analysis of conflicting temporalities. According to Luhmann, each subsystem of society possesses a specific mode of relating to past and future events. Law has a specific temporality that is characterized by its orientation to the past: it deals with deeds done in light of laws already set in place. Luhmann suggests that considerations of future risks are at odds with the temporality of law. Following this idea, it will be argued that future orientated measures such as preventive detention and the doctrine of preemptive warfare introduce the legal exception into law itself. Both cases exhibit different rationalities of relating to an uncertain, potentially threatening futures that collide with law's proper temporality. Whereas preventive detention relies on the 19th century idea of the probable crime as incorporated into a ‘dangerous individual’, the preemptive strike thrives on the post-probabilistic anticipation of the unexpected. Both measures indicate the erosion of law's capacity to sustain an indifferent attitude towards the future. Consequently, both measures thwart law's retroactivity, albeit in different ways. They articulate a counter-legal temporality within law – and thereby disrupt the legal system.