Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T11:32:34.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fuller's Analysis of Polycentric Disputes and the Limits of Adjudication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

J.W.F. Allison
Get access

Extract

Fuller made a leading contribution to the understanding of the adversary system and the process of adjudication. He did not officially publish his paper, “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication”, but distributed it widely and discussed it in his correspondence with prominent academics. His analysis of the limits of adjudication has been influential in both England and North America.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , July 1994 , pp. 367 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fuller, L.L. & Randall, J.D., “Professional Responsibility: Report of the Joint Conference” (1958) 44 American Bar Association Journal 1159;Google ScholarFuller, L.L., “Adjudication and the Rule of Law” (1960) 54 American Society for International Law Proceedings 1;Google Scholar “The Adversary System” in Berman, H.J. (ed.), Talks on American Law: A Series of Broadcasts to Foreign Audiences by Members of the Harvard Law School Faculty (New York 1961), pp. 30–43;Google Scholar “Collective Bargaining and the Arbitrator” [1963] Wisconsin Law Review 3,30 et seq.; “Irrigation and Tyranny” (1965) 17 Stanford Law Review 1021; The Morality of Law (New Haven 1969), pp. 170–181;Google Scholar “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication” (1978) 92 Harvard Law Review 353. See generally Fuller, L.L., The Principles of Social Order: Selected Essays of Lon L. Fuller, ed. Winston, Kenneth I. (Durham 1981);Google ScholarSummers, R.S., Lon L. Fuller (London 1984 pp. 90–100Google Scholar.

2 See Stone, J., Social Dimensions of Law and Justice (London 1966 pp. 652–656;Google ScholarWeiler, P., “Two Models of Judicial Decision-Making” (1968) 46 Canadian Bar Review 406, 423–426;Google ScholarBoyer, B.B., “Alternatives to Administrative Trial-Type Hearings for Resolving Complex Scientific, Economic, and Social Issues” (1972) 71 Michigan Law Review 111;Google ScholarFreeman, M.D.A., “Standards of Adjudication, Judicial Law-Making and Prospective Overruling” (1973) 26 C.L.P. 166, 182–189, 206–207;Google ScholarJowell, J., “The Legal Control of Administrative Discretion” [1973] P.L. 178, 213–218Google Scholar; Schwartz, M L., “The Professionalism and Accountability of Lawyers” (1978) 66 California Law Review 669, 672, n. 5;Google ScholarMacdonald, R.A., “Judicial Review and Procedural Fairness in Administrative Law” (1980) 25 McGill Law Journal 520, 540–543, 26 McGill Law Journal 1, 16–21;Google ScholarPaterson, A., The Law Lords (London 1982), pp. 172–174;CrossRefGoogle ScholarLangbein, J.H., “The German Advantage in Civil Procedure” (1985) 52 University of Chicago Law Review 823, 843–844;Google ScholarCraig, P.P., Administrative Law (2nd ed., London 1989) pp. 213–217;Google ScholarCane, P., An Introduction to Administrative Law (2nd ed.,Oxford 1992), pp. 34–36 170;Google ScholarRichardson, G., Law Process and Custody: Prisonersand Patients (London 1993), pp. 48 et seq.Google Scholar

3 Steadman, Steadman v. [1976] A.C. 536, 542c. See generally Paterson, op. cit., pp. 154–189.Google Scholar See also e.g. Jones v. Secretary of State for Social Services [1972] A.C. 944, 1025F;Google ScholarMorgans, Launchbury v. [1973] A.C. 127, 137CD, 143A-D, 145H-146A;Google ScholarMiliangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd. [1976] A.C. 443, 469G–470C, 479H–491A; Hesperides Hotels Ltd v. Muftizade [1979] A.C. 508; 541F, 544F–H. CF. Cross, R. & Harris, J.W., Precedent in English La (Oxford 1991, p. 138.Google ScholarCf. generally Dorset Yacht Co. v. Home Office [1970] A.C. 1004, 1067B–F; Western Fish Products Ltd. v. Penwith D.C. [1981] 2 All E.R. 204, 221F–J.

4 See R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd. (No. 2) [1991] 1 A.C. 603, esp. 659D–660E, 675D–676C, 682H–683E; M. V. Home Office [1992] Q.B. 270 (C.A.) 306G–307A, 3O8BC; –1993 3 W.L.R. 433 (H.L.), 448F, 463F; Woolwich Equitable Building Society v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1993] A.C. 70; 176F–177E, 198H–199A, 161C–G, 195F–196F (cf. P. Birks, “ 'When Money is Paid in Pursuance of a Void Authority … '—A Duty to Repay?” [1992] P.L. 580, at p. 587); Pepper v. Hart [1992] 3 W.L.R. 1032; Derbyshire C.C. v. Times Newspapers [1993] A.C. 534; Allison, J.W.F., The Justification for an English Distinction between Public and Private Law: An Historical and Comparative Analysis (1992), Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cambridge, (to be published by Oxford University Press), chs. 4, 5 & 6;Google ScholarWilkinson, Lord Browne, “The Infiltration of a Bill of Rights” [1992] P.L. 397;Google Scholar The Hon. Sir John Laws, “Is the High Court the Guardian of Fundamental Constitutional Rights?” [1993] P.L. 59; A. Lester, “English Judges as Law Makers” [1993] P.L. 269; Rose, D., “Silent Revolution”, The Observer 9 May 1993, pp. 45–46;Google ScholarClark, J., “The Politics of Precedents”, The Times 28 July 1993, p. 12Google Scholar

5 See e.g. Fiss, O.M., “The Supreme Court 1978 Term—Foreword: The Forms of Justice” (1979) 93 Harvard Law Review 1, 39–44;Google Scholarletters of S. Mermin (24 November 1959), L.L. Fuller (30 November 1959), B.I. Bittker (29 March 1960) & L.L. Fuller (4 April 1960), Lon Luvois Fuller Papers, Harvard Law School Library.

6 Stone, op. cit., p. 655. Cf. Fuller, The Morality of Law, p. 180.

7 “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication”, note 1 supra, pp. 363–365.

8 See also Fuller, L.L., “The Law's Precarious Hold on Life” (1969) 3 Georgia Law Review 530;, Summers, op. cit. note 1 supra, pp. 96–98Google Scholar.

9 Polanyi, M., The Logic of Liberty: Reflections and Rejoinders (London 1951) pp. 170et seq.Google Scholar

10 “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication”, pp. 395, 397.

11 Ibid. pp. 394–395.

12 Ibid. p. 395.

13 “Adjudication and the Rule of Law”, note 1 supra, pp. 3–4.

14 See also Boyer, op. cit. note 2supra, pp. 123 et seq.

15 “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication”, note 1 supra, p. 401.

16 Ibid., p. 398; Weiler, op. cit. note 2 supra, p. 423.

17 Cf. Jowell, op. cit. note 2 supra, pp. 213–220.

18 See e.g. Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co. Ltd. [1957] A.C. 555, 578–579, 583, 595; Dorset Yacht Co., note 3 supra, 1067B–F; Western Fish Products Ltd., note 3 supra, 221F–J.

19 See e.g. Jones, note 3 supra, 1025F; Launchbury, note 3 supra, 137CD, 143A–D, 145H–146A; Miliangos, note 3 supra, 469G–470C, 479H–491A; Hesperides Hotels Ltd., note 3 supra, 45IF, 544F–H.

20 Letter of F.C. Newman (19 October 1959), Lon Luvois Fuller Papers, Harvard Law School Library. See also Fiss, op cit. note 5 supra, pp. 42–43.

21 “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication”, note 1 supra, pp. 397, 398.

22 “Adjudication and the Rule of Law”, note 1 supra, p. 5.

23 Summers, R.S., “Professor Fuller's Jurisprudence and America's Dominant Philosophy of Law” (1978) 92 Harvard Law Review 433, 442–444.Google Scholar

24 Cf. Murphy v. Brentwood D.C. [1991] A.C. 398, 468H–472F, 482C, 491D–492B, 498DE.

25 “Collective Bargaining and the Arbitrator”, note 1 supra, p. 31.

26 Cf. generally e.g. Lister, note 18 supra, 578–579, 583, 594–595, 591–592, 600–601.

27 4 April 1960, Lon Luvois Fuller Papers, Harvard Law School Library.

28 See Harlow, C. & Rawlings, R., Law and Administration (London 1984), pp. 63–64.Google ScholarCf. Paterson, op. cit. note 2 supra, pp. 187–189, 197–198; Fuller, The Morality of Law, note 1 supra, pp. 170–177; Fuller, “Irrigation and Tyranny”, note 1 supra, pp. 1034–1037.

29 Op. cit. note 2 supra, p. 186. See also Stone, op. cit. note 2 supra, p. 655.

30 See Winston, K.I., “Introduction”, in Fuller, The Principles of Social Order, note 1 supra, p. 27. See also e.g. L.L. Fuller, “Mediation—Its Forms and Functions” (1971) 44 Southern California Law Review, 305, 307.Google Scholar

31 Fuller, The Morality of Law, pp. 177–178; “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication”, note 1 supra, pp. 399–400.

32 See generally Fuller, L.L., Anatomy of the Law (London 1968), pp. 57et seq.;Google Scholar “Mediation”, p. 307. Cf. Blumrosen, A.W., “The Bottom Line in Equal Employment Guidelines—Administering a Polycentric Problem” (1981) 33 Administrative Law Reveiw 323.Google Scholar

33 See generally Fuller, “Mediation”.

34 Fuller, “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication”, pp. 398–400.

35 See , Fuller, “Irrigation and Tyranny”, note 1 supra, pp. 1032;Google ScholarThe Morality of Law, note 1 supra, p. 176. See See generally Boyer, , op. cit. note 2 supra, pp. 164–168Google Scholar.

36 Winston, K.I., “Editor's Note”, in Fuller, The Principles of Social Order, note 1 supra, p. 188; Letter of R.F. Fuchs (20 October 1959), Lon Luvois Fuller Papers, Harvard Law School Library.Google Scholar

37 Summers, Lon L. Fuller, note 1 supra, p. 87.

38 , Fuller, “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication” , note 1 supra, pp. 398–399.Google Scholar

39 Summers, op cit., p . 88. See e.g. Fuller, The Morality of Law, note 1 supra, pp. 207–223.

40 , Boyer, op. cit., pp . 150–164.Google Scholar

41 See e.g. Fuller, The Principles of Social Order, p. 84. See generally Fuller, “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication”, pp. 405 et seq.

42 Letters of L.L. Fuller (22 October 1959) and F.C. Newman (19 October 1959), Lon Luvois Fuller Papers, Harvard Law School Library.

43 Ibid.

44 “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication”, note 1 supra p. 365.

45 Ibid. pp.365–367.

46 Eisenberg, M.A., “Participation, Responsiveness, and the Consultative Process: An Essay for Lon Fuller” (1978) 92 Harvard Law Review 410, 411–412.Google Scholar

47 “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication”, pp. 388–391, esp. at p. 390.

48 “Collective Bargaining and the Arbitrator”, note 1 supra, pp. 11–12. Cf. generally Fuller, “Irrigation and Tyranny”, note 1 supra.

49 “Collective Bargaining and the Arbitrator”, p. 39.

50 “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication”, note 1 supra, pp. 371–372.

51 Letter of Gellhorn, W. (19 October 1959), Lon Luvois Fuller Papers, Harvard Law School Library.Google Scholar See also letter of Nathanson, N.L. (29 October 1959), Lon Luvois Fuller Papers, Harvard Law School Library.Google Scholar

52 Fuller, & Randall, , “Professional Responsibility”, note 1 supra, p. 1160. The italics are my own. See also Fuller, “The Adversary System”, note 1 supra, pp. 38 et seq.; Summers, Lon L. Fuller, note 1 supra, pp. 90–94.Google Scholar

53 See Langbein, , op. cit. note 2 supra, pp. 843–844, 857;Google ScholarGross, S.R., “The American Advantage: The Value of Inefficient Litigation” (1987) 85 Michigan Law Review 734, 743CrossRefGoogle ScholarLangbein, J.H., “Trashing "The German Advantage' ” (1988) 82 Northwestern University Law Review 763, 771–772.Google Scholar But cf. Allen, R.J., Kock, S., Riechenberg, K. & Rosen, D. Toby, “The German Advantage in Civil Procedure: A Plea for More Details and Fewer Generalities in Comparative Scholarship' (1988) 82 Northwestern University Law Review 705, 727–729.Google Scholar See also Bayles, M.D., Principles of Law: A Normative Analysis (Dordrecht 1987), pp.37–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication”, p. 353.

55 Summers, op. cit., p. 93.

56 See e.g. “The Adversary System”, pp. 35–36; Fuller, Anatomy of the Law, note 32 supra, pp. 19–22, 32. But cf. Fuller, The Morality of Law, note 1 supra, pp. 176–177.

57 See “Irrigation and Tyranny”, note 1 supra; Winston, K.I., Review of Lon L. Fuller (1985) 95 Ethics 751, 754;Google ScholarD'Amato, A., “Lon Fuller and Substantive Natural Law” (1981) 26 American Journal of Jurisprudence 202, Boyer, op. cit. note 2 supra, p. 137.Google Scholar

58 Winston, “Introduction”, in Fuller, The Principles of Social Order, note 1 supra, p. 27. See generally Stone, op. cit. note 2 supra, pp. 654–655.

59 22 January 1960, Lon Luvois Fuller Papers, Harvard Law School Library.

60 Ibid.

61 22 October 1959, Lon Luvois Fuller Papers, Harvard Law School Library.

62 Fiss, op. cit. note 2 supra, p. 39. See infra, pp. 378–379.

63 23 October 1959, Lon Luvois Fuller Papers, Harvard Law School Library.

64 See supra, pp. 375–376.

65 Letter (23 October 1959), Lon Luvois Fuller Papers, Harvard Law School Library.

66 Letter (30 November 1959), Lon Luvois Fuller Papers, Harvard Law School Library; Winston, , “Editor's Note”, in Fuller, The Principles of Social Order, note 1 supra, p. 86Google Scholar.

67 Op. cit. note 2 supra. See also letter of Fuchs, R.F. (20 October 1959); Stone, op. cit. note 2 supra, pp. 654–656Google Scholar.

68 Op. cit. note 2 supra. See also Craig, op. cit. note 2 supra, pp. 214–215.

69 Chayes, A., “The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation” (1976) 89 Harvard Law Review 1281, esp. 1288 el seq.: “The Supreme Court: 1981 Term—Foreword: Public Law Litigation and the Burger Court” (1982) 92 Harvard Law Review 4. Cf. Fiss, op. cit. note 5 supra, esp. pp. 35–36Google Scholar. See Summers, Lon L. Fuller, note 1 supra, p. 109.

70 Eisenberg, op. cit. note 46 supra, pp. 414, 426–431. See also Macdonald, op. cit. note 2 supra, p. 18. Cf. generally Craig, P.P., Public Law and Democracy in the United Kingdom and the United States of America (Oxford 1990), pp. 173–179Google Scholar.

71 Galanter, P.P., “ ‘ … A Settlement Judge, Not a Trial Judge:’ Judicial Mediation in the United States” (1985) 12Google ScholarJournal of Law & Society 1, esp. 15; “The Legal Malaise; Or, Justice Observed” (1985) 19 Law & Society Review 537; “The Day after the Litigation Explosion” (1986) 46 Maryland Law Review 3; “Beyond the Litigation Panic” (1988) 37 Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 18.

72 See Chayes, , “The Role of the Judge”, pp. 1292–1294, 1309Google Scholar; Eisenberg, op. cit., pp. 427–29. Cf. generally Samuelson, R.J., “The Litigation Explosion: The Wrong Question”, (Comment on Gallanter's “The Day after the Litigation Explosion”), (1986) 46 Maryland Law Review 78, 81Google Scholar.

73 Cf. Boyer, op. cit. note 2 supra.

74 Letters of L.L. Fuller (14 October 1964), J. Rivero (5 December 1964), (21 September 1965), Lon Luvois Fuller Papers, Harvard Law School Library.

75 The Morality of Law, note 1 supra, pp. 176–177.

76 Note, box no. 10, folder no. 12, Lon Luvois Fuller Papers, Harvard Law School Library.

77 Fuller, L.L., “Governmental Secrecy and the Forms of Social Order” in Friedrich, C.J. (ed.), Community, Nomos II (New York 1959), ch. 15, esp. pp. 267–268Google Scholar.

78 The Morality of Law, pp. 191 et seq. esp. at p. 192.

79 Ibid, pp. 220, 219.

80 Ibid, p. 193.

81 “The Forms and Limits of Social Order”, note 1 supra, pp. 357–365.

82 Cf. Freeman, op. cit. note 2 supra, pp. 180–186, 204.

83 See supra, p. 376.

84 Cf. Eisenberg, op. cit. note 2 supra, pp. 427–428; Fiss, op. cit. note 5 supra, pp. 40–41.

85 See e.g. Boyer, op. cit. note 2 supra, pp. 120–121; Mentschikoff, S., “Commercial Arbitration” (1961) 61 Columbia Law Review 846, 846–848Google Scholar.

86 See supra, p. 379.

87 Cf. Chayes, “The Role of the Judge”, note 69 supra, pp. 1307–1316; Eisenberg, op. cit. note 46 supra, pp. 417, 430–432.

88 See supra, p. 375–376.

89 Langbein, , “The German Advantage”, note 2, supra, p. 844Google Scholar.

90 See Jolowicz, J.A., “Adversarial and Inquisitorial Approaches to Civil Litigation” in Baldwin, E.G. (ed.), The Cambridge Lectures (Toronto 1983), ch. 21, p. 237Google Scholar; Langbein, “The German Advantage”, note 2 supra, pp. 841–844.

91 Ibid.

92 Cf. Chayes, “The Role of the Judge”, note 69 supra; Eisenberg, op. cit. note 46 supra, pp. 426 el seq.

93 See Browne-Wilkinson, op. cit. note 4 supra, pp. 398, 409; Laws, op. cit. note 4 supra; Lester, op cit. note 4 supra,