Pleading for a resumption of systems theoretical concepts of interference (‘Steuerung’) in the age of governance, needs further explanation. The core question of these concepts was: How can one steer different societal spheres into certain directions despite their idiosyncrasy? The initial hypothesis of this contribution is that this question remained unanswered by following approaches and that it is gaining even more importance regarding the paradigm shift towards governance: Governance is characterized by negotiation systems, in which politics and those parts of society affected by a decision are asked to collaborate. But how could such negotiations work, if it is assumed (also beyond systems theory), that the participants talk at cross-purposes? The thesis that a resumption of systems theoretical concepts of interference would be rewarding, can only be uphold, if communication theoretical models can explain the success of intersystemic negotiation. Case studies will show, that although this is generally possible, it still demands further theoretical adjustment in terms of empirical adequacy. If one can thereby explain the success of negotiation systems (retrospectively), the question arises, if such models could also be applied in a rather shaping manner (prospectively). The contribution at hand therefore does not focus on the limits of interference (Luhmann), but instead fathoms the limits of a theory of interference. This is of special concern for the sociology of law, as the idea of reflexive law was at the core of the very first systems theoretical concepts. My proposal also considers law playing a crucial part, whereas not in a reflective but rather in a securing function.