Alternativen der Rechtsberatung: Dienstleistung, Fürsorge und kollektive Selbsthilfe
This paper criticizes the theoretical background of different forms of legal aid to socially and financially underprivileged groups. The existing patterns of the attorney-client type of legal service and the public provision of legal services have different effects on the relationships between a client and his counsellor and the manner in which a counsellor defines his client’s interest and acts to protect them. Legal services provided through union legal aid offices (die “Arbeitersekretariate”) around the turn of the century give a historical example of collective forms of legal services. For the same reasons that led to the development of socially protective regulations within the substantive law, the legal services offered by attorneys proved to be unsatisfactory for the socially underprivileged groups. There were two historical responses to this problem: A collective representation of interests and a welfare orientated “rule of law” approach (“Rechtsfriedensbewegung”, which constituted a countermovement to the “Arbeitersekretariate”). The ‘rule of law’ movement attempted to achieve a conflict-free integration of all social contradictions. Yet another way to provide social services has been followed by the British trade unions. Unlike the German unions they were not incorporated into the formal legal system, a fact which allowed them to develop their own “extra-legal” forms of negotiations with regard to labour conflicts.
Delivering Legality: Some Proposals for the Direction of Research
This paper visualizes legal services as one of various alternative paths to delivering legality (i.e., the benefits which access to law confers upon actors). It challenges the assumption that deficiencies in access to law can be most effectively remedied by providing the services of lawyers. It suggests that in some cases there are excessive costs of delivering legality through the medium of legal services and that in other cases legal services are insufficient without some admixture of other factors. Among the alternatives considered are (a) modification of rules systems (e.g., no-fault schemes, simplified transactions); (b) modification of institutions for applying rules (e.g., departures from the court model by making institutions simple, mediative, proactive, private, etc.); (c) enhancement of the capabilities of the parties (personal competence, organizational capacity to utilize legal services, etc.). It is argued that lack of capability of parties poses the most fundamental barrier to access and that upgrading of party capability holds the greatest promise for promoting access to legality. Evidence is adduced for the proposition that organizational structure is a key factor in determining the ability of parties to utilize the legal system. Alternative ways in which various interests can attain the benefits of organization are considered. Finally, research possibilities associated with these themes are sketched.
Arm und Reich: Wie man die Unterschiede mißt
In der politischen Diskussion findet man haufig die Behauptung, die Einkommensverteilung sei „ungerecht”. Sehr viel seltener wird gesagt, welche Kriterien fur die Beurteilung der „Gerechtigkeit” einer gegebenen Einkommensverteilung herangezogen werden. „Gerechtigkeit” des Einkommens kann sich einerseits am Bedarf und andererseits an der im Produktionsprozes erbrachten Leistung orientieren. Das Ergebnis der Bewertung aufgrund dieser beiden Kriterien kann sehr unterschiedlich sein. Wurde man Einkommen nur nach dem Bedarf verteilen, muste man zum Beispiel dem Vater mit einer grosen Familie ein erheblich hoheres Einkommen zugestehen als dem Junggesellen, selbst wenn beide dieselbe Leistung erbringen. Wurde man an der Leistung orientieren, ware eine derartige Unterscheidung nicht vertretbar.