Demonstration's of Max Weber's Theory of Bureaucratic Perpetuation in Supreme Court Decisions: Marbury v. Madison, Bush v. Gore

Kane Timothy Michael,김보혁 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2015 서울법학 Vol.23 No.2

The Supreme Court dominates America’s legal establishment. Predicting its decisions has, arguably, and for all practicality, become an industry. The traditions of the court have endowed it with a teleological approach which makes predicting the court’s decisions difficult. On important decisions, especially those with political overtones, the Justices on the court show a strong preference to vote along partisan lines, in harmony with the party that nominated them onto the court – but not always. In a review of the court’s history, in key decisions Justices have departed from their more predictable partisanship. Our analysis shows that when judges depart from their predictable partisanship, they do so for fairly consistent, if not predictable, reasons: institution building. This paper argues that the Supreme Court behaves in a manner consistent with Max Weber's social theory: that a bureaucracy will labor to perpetuate itself. The Supreme Court often makes decisions for the purpose of enhancing and perpetuating the institution of the Court itself. Because the Supreme Court is a national institution, at times “institution building”means nation building. This paper studies the tension of partisanship versus institution building in Supreme Court decisions: the dynamics of fission versus fusion, the tension that exist between these two poles and the mechanics of how this is worked out, creates arguably some of the greatest drama in the Court’s history as demonstrated in Marbury v. Madison and Bush v. Gore.

War, Inhumane Acts and International Restorative Justice

Kane Timothy Michael,김보혁 인하대학교 법학연구소 2015 法學硏究 Vol.18 No.2

War often brings with it the most brutal and inhumane acts, at times on incredibly vast scales, often committed by governments of states. After the fighting stops, somehow justice must be served and scars healed. And somehow we have to find a way to reduce the likelihood of inhumane crimes from ever happening again. World War II ended in 1945 but nearly 7 decades later much is unhealed, for many justice has yet to be served and much resentment lingers. In international law there are multiple provisions for dealing with international wrongful acts committed by states and the after affects of war. UN ULC adopted "Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts" in 2001. The article 37 states that the state responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to give satisfaction for the injury caused by that act insofar as it cannot be made good by restitution or compensation. The satisfaction may consist in an acknowledgement of the breach, an expression of regret, a formal apology or another appropriate modality. Article 37 has its limit to heal emotive side of trust from the victim state because this process is not obligation sofaras the state wrongful act can be made by restitution or compensation. In the case of the after effects of World War II we have two almost parallel cases that had nearly opposite outcomes in regard to the process of restoration of trust, peace and healing in the international community: Germany and Japan. Germany has largely managed to restore its place in the international community while making amends with its victims. Japan has, to a considerable degree, fallen short of restoring trust with its neighbors and many victims still remained aggrieved. The question remains, is there a better way to restore international trust for countries which have committed inhumane actions by their government during a time of war and what would such a system look like? Tn the mean while, there is only one example of a large modern industrial democracy with a significantly declining domestic crime rate. That example is Japan. Japan does not achieve this through direct reliance upon its formal criminal law system. Instead Japan has achieved this through utilization of a quasi-formal system of restorative justice. In this paper, we analyze Japan’s quasi-formal system of restorative justice. What we find is that Germany followed a process that maps closely to Japan’s domestic system of restorative justice, while, ironically, Japan did not. We then take the process we extracted from analysis of Japan’s system of restorative justice and craft a proposed framework for a quasi-formal international restorative justice system. Perhaps this way we can arrive at our goals of restoration and reduction in inhumane act by state internationally.

War, Inhumane Acts and International Restorative Justice

Timothy Michael Kane(팀케인),Bo Hyuk Kim(김보혁) 인하대학교 법학연구소 2015 法學硏究 Vol.18 No.2

역사적으로 전쟁에서 국가에 의해 주도되는 국가행위(Act of State)에 의한 비인도적 위법행위(human rights violation or inhumane acts)가 때로 발생했다. 종전 후 전쟁 중 국가에 의해 자행된 비인도적 위법행위 대해서 국가책임(State responsibility)을 지게 되고 이러한 정의 실현의 과정을 거쳐 위법행위를 자행한 국가는 국제 사회에 복귀하고 국가위법행위의 희생자들의 상처도 치유의 길을 가게 된다. 국제사회는 UN ULC가 2001년에 채택한 “Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts”을 통해 전쟁중 국가에 의해 이루어진 비인도적 위법행위에 대한 책임문제를 다루지만 국제위법행위로 인한 피해가 원상회복이나 금전배상으로 전보될 수 없는 경우에 유책국은 이에 대해 위반사실인정, 유감의 표시, 공식사과 등과 같은 만족을 제공해야할 의무를 지는 동법 제37조의 규정으로는 피해국가로부터 신뢰회복의 감정적 측면을 치유하는데 한계가 있으며 이러한 측면은 2차대전 전후 두가지 상반된 사례를 통해 잘 나타난다. 독일은 2차대전 이후 지속적으로 나찌에 의해 저질러진 범죄에 대해 지속적으로 사죄하고 신뢰를 회복함으로써 국제사회에서 그 위상을 회복한데 반해 일본은 아직까지도 주변 국가들로부터 신뢰를 얻는데 실패하고 있으며 전쟁 범죄의 희생자들 역시 치유의 길을 가고 있지 못하다. 위의 두가지 상반된 사례는 전쟁 중 정부에 의해 저질러진 비인도적 위법행위 대해 가해자와 피해자 모두에게 치유의 기회를 주며 같은 범죄의 재발을 막고 전쟁 중 범죄를 저지른 국가가 국제사회로부터 신뢰를 회복할 수 있는 보다 나은 길은 과연 무엇인지에 대해 중요한 단초를 제공한다. 한편 현대 국가 가운데 국내 범죄율을 낮은 수준으로 유지하고 감소시키고 있는 나라는 일본이 유일하며 일본의 시스템은 정형적인 형법에 의존해서 범죄율을 낮추고 있는 것이 아니라 그들만의 준사법적인 정의 회복 시스템을 통해 이를 실현시키고 있다. 본 논문에서는 역설적으로 이러한 일본의 독자적인 준사법적 정의 회복 시스템을 분석해서 국가에 의한 비인도적 위법행위 사례에 적용해 보고 이러한 일본의 고유한 준사법적 정의 회복 시스템을 국제사회의 국가 위법행위 문제를 해결할 수 있는 대안으로서 사용할 것을 제안하고 있다. War often brings with it the most brutal and inhumane acts, at times on incredibly vast scales, often committed by governments of states. After the fighting stops, somehow justice must be served and scars healed. And somehow we have to find a way to reduce the likelihood of inhumane crimes from ever happening again. World War II ended in 1945 but nearly 7 decades later much is unhealed, for many justice has yet to be served and much resentment lingers. In international law there are multiple provisions for dealing with international wrongful acts committed by states and the after affects of war. UN ULC adopted "Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts" in 2001. The article 37 states that the state responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to give satisfaction for the injury caused by that act insofar as it cannot be made good by restitution or compensation. The satisfaction may consist in an acknowledgement of the breach, an expression of regret, a formal apology or another appropriate modality. Article 37 has its limit to heal emotive side of trust from the victim state because this process is not obligation sofaras the state wrongful act can be made by restitution or compensation. In the case of the after effects of World War II we have two almost parallel cases that had nearly opposite outcomes in regard to the process of restoration of trust, peace and healing in the international community: Germany and Japan. Germany has largely managed to restore its place in the international community while making amends with its victims. Japan has, to a considerable degree, fallen short of restoring trust with its neighbors and many victims still remained aggrieved. The question remains, is there a better way to restore international trust for countries which have committed inhumane actions by their government during a time of war and what would such a system look like? Tn the mean while, there is only one example of a large modern industrial democracy with a significantly declining domestic crime rate. That example is Japan. Japan does not achieve this through direct reliance upon its formal criminal law system. Instead Japan has achieved this through utilization of a quasi-formal system of restorative justice. In this paper, we analyze Japan’s quasi-formal system of restorative justice. What we find is that Germany followed a process that maps closely to Japan’s domestic system of restorative justice, while, ironically, Japan did not. We then take the process we extracted from analysis of Japan’s system of restorative justice and craft a proposed framework for a quasi-formal international restorative justice system. Perhaps this way we can arrive at our goals of restoration and reduction in inhumane act by state internationally.

Demonstration's of Max Weber's Theory of Bureaucratic Perpetuation in Supreme Court Decisions : Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Timothy Michael Kane,Kim Bohyuk 아주대학교 법학연구소 2015 아주법학 Vol.9 No.3

본 논문은 미대법원의 주요 판결 중 막스 베버의 기관 영속성 이론의 관점이 적용될 수 있는 판결에 관한 두 번째 논문이다. 역사적으로 미대법관들은 경우에 따라 그들을 임명한 정파의 입장과 다른 판결을 내리기도 했다. 본 논문은 미대법원의 법관들이 정파의 입장을 따르거나 벗어나는 판결을 내리는데 있어 고려하는 중요한 요소 가운데 하나를 사회학자인 막스 베버의 이론을 통해 논증하는 것에 목적을 둔다. 막스 베버가 주장한 “조직의 기관은 그자신의 존재와 존속을 정당화시키기 위해 힘쓴다”라는 명제를 바탕으로 본 논문은 미대법관들이 때때로 자신들이 속한 기관의 존속과 공고화를 판결의 중요한 요소로 두었음을 증명하려고 시도한다. 전편인 Marbury v. Madison 사례에서는 대법관들이 그들이 속한 기관의 존속을 위해 정파를 초월한 판결을 내려 기관의 존재 기반을 공고히 했었음을 논증했다면 본편에서는 Dred Scott v. Sandford 판결을 통해 대법관들이 전자의 판결과는 반대로 자신들이 뿌리를 둔 정파의 입장에서 벗어나지 못하고 이를 따르는 것이 기관과 국가 존속에 바람직하다는 판단을 내림으로써 결국 자신들이 속한 기관의 존재가치와 국가의 존속 모두를 위기에 처하게 했었음을 논증한다. This is the second installment in a series of papers that examine Supreme Court decisions as a process that contest partisanship against institution building (Demonstration's of Max Weber's Theory of Bureaucratic Perpetuation in Supreme Court Decisions was the first installment). In the first installment we examined the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison using this analysis method. In this installment we examine the seminal case of Dred Scott v. Sandford using the same approach. The Supreme Court dominates America’s legal establishment so predicting its decisions is important. The traditions of the court have endowed it with a teleological approach which makes predicting its decisions difficult. While Justices show a strong preference to vote along partisan lines, in key decisions they depart from their predictable partisanship for consistent, if not predictable, reasons: institution building. This paper argues that the Supreme Court behaves as Max Weber's social theory suggest: institutions tend to try to perpetuate themselves. The Supreme Court often makes decisions for the purpose of enhancing and perpetuating the Court itself. Because the Supreme Court is a national institution, institution building often means nation building. In Dred Scott the court attempts mistakingly attempts to align partisanship with institution building only for it to backfire, inflicting damage to the court and the nation from which it nearly did not recover.