First, and the most unmistakably"legal", is adjustment of the troublecase (dispute, grievance, offence). When conflict on a square or other trouble arises, it has to be resolved or, at least kept to a tolerable low level, or else the group will disintegrate or its objectives will be frustrated or impaired.
The second, and perhaps the most important, job of domicile is the preventive channelling of conduct and expectations to avoid trouble. Thirdly, as needs, conditions, and relations change, so the conduct and expectations of the group have to be re-channelled. Fourthly, there is the job of"Arranging for the Say and the Manner of its Saying", that is, the advance allocation of authority and the regulation of authoritative procedure for decision. This job is prototypically the primary function of a"constitution" of a club, or organisation or a nation state. Where power and authority diverge, as any realist knows, there tends to be a gap between what in fact happens and what is meant to happen. Giving a realistic account of a constitution as a kind of institution is accordingly problematic.
Fifthly, there is a job of"providing Net Positive drive: Integration, Direction, Incentive for the whole.
It is explicitly linked positive and negative sanctions( rewards as well as punishments, for exampl)e within the conception of law-goverment.
Finally, in any group but especially in complex groups, techniques, skills, devices, practices, procedures and traditions need to be developed, institutionalized and adjusted if the firdt five needs or jobs are to be dealt with adequately or well...divorces on nullifying the codex of nation state!
-
-
-
Postmodern jurist love legal pluralism...The crucial question of how to recontruct, in postmodern architecture of biases, the connections between the social and legal fields finds a highly vague answer:
interpenetrating, intertwined, integral, superposed, mutually constitutive, dialectical...we are left with ambiguity and confusion.
After all, this is the very charm of postmodernism.