¹ See the decision at: http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104.html.Google Scholar

² “The legislature shall be bound by the constitutional order, the executive and the judiciary by law and justice.”Google Scholar

³ Formal case citation, sub C I 3 (“The obligation to respect the law and justice (Art. 20.3) also applies to the observation of the ECHR guarantees as well as the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights within the confines of methodologically justifiable statutory interpretation. The failure to consider a decision of the Court, just as much as a schematic “execution” of the Court's law against prioritary law may constitute a violation of fundamental rights in connection with the command of the Rule of Law.” (Translated by Russell Miller)).Google Scholar

⁴ Filàrtiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (1980), available at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/filartiga-630F2d876.html; see hereto, e.g., Stephens, Translating Filártiga: A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations, 27 Yale J. Int'l L. 1 (2002).Google Scholar

⁵ Still, the authoritative formula is offered by Jessup, Transnational Law (1954), 1-16; Scott/Wai, Transnational Governance of Corporate Conduct through the Migration of Human Rights Norms: The Potential of Transnational “Private” Litigation, in: Transnational Governance and Constitutionalism 287-319 (Joerges/Sand/Teubner Ed. 2004); For an overview of the concept's origin and subsequent development my “Transnational Law” in: Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (Jan Smits ed.), forthcoming 2005; see already Zumbansen, Piercing the Legal Veil: Commercial Arbitration and Transnational Law, in: 8 European Law Journal 400-432 (2002).Google Scholar

⁶ See only Schepel, Constituting Private Governance Regimes: Standards Bodies in American Law, in: Transnational Governance and Constitutionalism 161 (Joerges/Sand/Teubner eds. 2004).Google Scholar

⁷ There are proposals in this regard: see, e.g., Starck, Die Rechtswissenschaft in der Zukunft, in: Festschrift Brohm 567 (Eberle/Ibler/Lorenz eds. 2002), (trusting in the rationality of our “legal methodology” to select from the influences of Globalization what is worthy); on the other hand, see Kennedy, Two Globalizations of Law and Legal Thought: 1850-1968, in: 36 Suffolk L. Rev. 631 (2003) (reconstructing the rise and fall of formalist ‘classical legal thought’ and the emergence of ‘the social’ as the subsequently dominating theme in legal theory); while Kennedy's article still holds the promise to extend (in a sequel) to globalized law as such, see for an assessment of ‘the social’ in transnational civil litigation: Scott/Wai, Transnational Governance of Corporate Conduct through the Migration of Human Rights Norms: The Potential of Transnational “Private” Litigation, in: (Joerges/Sand/Teubner eds)., supra, note 5, at 294.Google Scholar

⁸ Bazyler, www.swissbankclaims.com: The Legality and Morality of the Holocaust-Era Settlement with the Swiss Banks, 25 Fordham Int'l L. J. 64-106 (2001), at 64.Google Scholar

⁹ See, e.g, Reimann, The End of Comparative Law as an autonomous subject, Tulane European and Civil Law Forum 49-72 (1996); Valcke, Global Law Teaching, 54 J. Legal Educ. 160-181 (2004).Google Scholar

¹⁰ For an overview of recent examples of such litigative and alternative undertakings, see Bazyler, The Holocaust Restitution Movement in Comparative Perspective, 20 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 11-44 (2002); Stephens, Translating Filártiga: A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations, 27 Yale J. Int'l L. 1-57 (2002); see also the contributions in Lethe's Law: Justice, Law and Ethics in Reconciliation (Christodoulidis/Veitch eds. 2001). On the impact on law school curricula, see, infra, sub D., and the papers by Arthurs, Poor Canadian Legal Education: So Near to Wall Street, So Far from God, 38 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 381 (2000); Valcke, Global Law Teaching, 54 J. Legal Educ. 160-181 (2004); Reimann, Taking Globalization Seriously: Michigan Breaks New Ground by Requiring the Study of Transnational Law, 82 Michigan Bar Journal 52-54 (2004); Knop, Here and There: International Law in Domestic Courts, 32 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L & Pol. 501-535 (2000); Dorsen, Achieving International Cooperation: N.Y.U.'s Global Law School Program, J. Legal Educ. 332-337 (2001).Google Scholar

¹¹ On the erosion of this boundary, see the references, supra, note 9; see also Reimann, The End of Comparative Law as an autonomous subject, Tulane European and Civil Law Forum 49-72 (1996), and Ginsburg, Looking Beyond Our Borders: The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication, 40 Idaho L. Rev. 1-10 (2003), particularly highlighting the relevance of the German Law Journal in this light, id., at 3.Google Scholar

¹² See only Morgan, Slaughterhouse-Six: Updating the Law of War, in: 5 German Law Journal 525-544 (2004), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdf/Vol05No05/PDF_Vol_05_No_05_525-544_special_issue_Morgan.pdf.Google Scholar

¹³ See the “questions” raised by Burt Neuborne towards the end of his ‘preliminary reflections': Neuborne, Preliminary Reflections on Aspects of Holocaust-Era Litigation in American Courts, 80 Washington University Law Quarterly 795-834 (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Morgan, supra, note 12; Koh, Separating Myth from Reality About Corporate Responsibility Litigation, 7 Journal of International Economic Law 263-274 (2004)Google Scholar

¹⁵ See hereto the accounts by Baumgartner, Human Rights and Civil Litigation in United States Courts: The Holocaust-Era Cases, 80 Wash. U. L. Quarterly 835-854 (2002); Bazyler, www.swissbankclaims.com: The Legality and Morality of the Holocaust-Era Settlement with the Swiss Banks, 25 Fordham Int'l L. J. 64-106 (2001); Neuborne, supra, note 12; Adler/Zumbansen, The Forgetfulness of Noblesse: A Critique of the German Foundation Law Compensating Slave and Forced Laborers of the Third Reich, 39 Harvard Journal on Legislation [and in: Zwangsarbeit im Dritten Reich: Erinnerung und Verantwortung / NS Forced Labor: Remembrance and Responsibility 333 (P. Zumbansen ed. 2002)] 1-61 (2002)Google Scholar

¹⁶ See hereto Pal Wrange, Of Power and Justice, in: 4 German Law Journal No. 9 (1 September), 935–962, at 938-9, 945-954, available at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdf/Vol04No09/PDF_Vol_04_No_09_935-962_SI_Wrange.pdf.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See, hereto, e.g., Slaughter, Judicial Globalization, 40 Virginia Journal of International Law 1103-1124 (2000); Schiff Berman, The Globalization of Jurisdiction, 151 U. Pa. L. Rev. 311-545 (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Jessup, Transnational Law (1956)Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Scott/Wai, Transnational Governance of Corporate Conduct through the Migration of Human Rights Norms: The Potential of Transnational “Private” Litigation, in: Transnational Governance and Constitutionalism 287-319 (Teubner Ed. 2004), at 289-290; Scott, Translating Torture into Transnational Tort: Conceptual Divides in the Debate on Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Harms, in: Torture as Tort 45-63 (Scott Ed. 2001), at 52; a brilliant reconstruction of the emergence of transnational legal conceptualizing that consistently draws on the intertwined perspectives of domestic and international law theorizing is provided by Koh, Transnational Legal Process, 75 Nebraska Law Review 181-206 (1996); see also Aceves, Liberalism and International Legal Scholarship: The Pinochet Case and the Move Toward a Universal System of Transnational Law Litigation, 41 Harvard International Law Journal (Harv. Int'l L.J.) 129-184 (2000).Google Scholar

²⁰ Jessup, Transnational Law (1956); Panel, The Challenge of Non-State Actors, 92 American Society of International Law Proceedings 20-36 (1998); Thürer, The Emergence of Non-Governmental Organizations and Transnational Enterprises in International Law and the Changing Role of the State, in: NonState Actors as New Subjects of International Law. International Law – From the Traditional State Order Towards the Law of the Global Community 37-58 (Hofmann Ed. 1999); Zumbansen, Die vergangene Zukunft des Völkerrechts, 34 Kritische Justiz [KJ] 46-68 (2001).Google Scholar

²¹ See, for a concise discussion of the Monist and Dualist approach in International Law, e.g., Rigaux, Hans Kelsen on International Law, in: 9 Eur. J. Int'l L 325 (1998), available at: http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol9/No2/art6-04.html.Google Scholar

²² Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (U.S. Court of App., 2^nd Cir. 30 June 1980). Filàrtiga was brought under the “rarely invoked” (Irving R. Kaufman, Cir.J., id., at 878) Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 [28 U.S.C.A. § 1350] (available at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=28&sec=1350). The case recognized federal jurisdiction in cases brought before its Courts for “deliberate torture perpetrated under color of official authority violates universally accepted norms of the international law of human rights, regardless of the nationality of the parties.” (Id.) The case set off a wave of cases for human rights violations perpetrated abroad by governments or private entities, see for a concise account Scott, Translating Torture into Transnational Tort: Conceptual Divides in the Debate on Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Harms, in: Torture as Tort 45-63 (Scott ed. 2001).Google Scholar

²³ See the concise analysis by Michaels, Three Proceedings of Legal Unification: National, International, Transnational, 96 A.S.I.L. Proceedings 333-336 (2002).Google Scholar

²⁴ Bouzari v. Iran [2002], O.J. No. 1624 (http://incat.org/projects/bouzari.pdf); http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041001.wnovogrodsky01/BNStory/Front/.Google Scholar

²⁵ See http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/11/24/arar_lawsuit031124; http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/.Google Scholar

²⁶ See, e.g., Fischer-Lescano, Die Emergenz der Globalverfassung, in: 63 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht – Heidelberg Journal of International Law [ZaöRV], 717-760 (2003).Google Scholar

²⁷ Safferling, See, Can Criminal Prosecution be the Answer to massive Human Rights Violations?, in this issue.Google Scholar

²⁸ Philip Jessup, Transnational Law 11 (1956).Google Scholar

²⁹ Scott, Translating Torture into Transnational Tort: Conceptual Divides in the Debate on Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Harms, in: Torture as Tort 45-63 (Scott Ed. 2001); Zumbansen, Piercing the Legal Veil: Commercial Arbitration and Transnational Law, 8 European Law Journal 400-432 (2002).Google Scholar

³⁰ See hereto the contribution by Kemmerer, Like Ancient Beacons: The European Union and the International Criminal Court – Reflections from afar on a Chapter of European Foreign Policy, in this issue.Google Scholar

³¹ See, e.g., Romano, The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Pieces of the Puzzle, 31 New York University Journal of International Law and Policy (N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol.) 709-751 (1999).Google Scholar

³² See, in this context, Baumgartner, Human Rights and Civil Litigation in United States Courts: The Holocaust-Era Cases, 80 Wash. U. L. Quarterly 835-854 (2002), 837.Google Scholar

³³ Very insightful Zürn, Sovereignty and Law in a Denationalised World, in: Rules and Networks. The Legal Culture of Global Business Transactions 39-71 (Gessner/Appelbaum/Felstiner Eds. 2001).Google Scholar

³⁴ Habermas, Die Krise des Wohlfahrtsstaates und die Erschöpfung utopischer Energien, in: ibid., Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit 141-163 (1985).Google Scholar

³⁵ Blumberg, Asserting Human Rights Against Multinational Corporations under United States Law: Conceptual and Procedural Problems, 50 American Journal of Comparative Law 493-529 (2002); Deva, UN's Human Rights Norms for transnational corporations and other business enterprises: an imperfect step in the right direction?, 10 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 493-523 (2004).Google Scholar

³⁶ Pound, The New Feudalism, 16 American Bar Association Journal 553-558 [also in: The New Feudal System, Commercial Law Journal 397-403 35 (1930), 397–403] (1932)Google Scholar

³⁷ Wiethölter, Privatrecht als Gesellschaftstheorie?, in: Funktionswandel der Privatrechtsinstitutionen. Festschrift für Ludwig Raiser zum 70. Geburtstag 645-695 (Baur/Esser/Kübler/Steindorff Eds. 1974).Google Scholar

³⁸ Teubner, Juridification – Concepts, Aspects, Limits, Solutions, in: Juridification of Social Spheres 3-48 (Teubner Ed. 1987).Google Scholar

³⁹ Landis, The Administrative Process (1938); but see Kirchhof, Demokratie ohne parlamentarische Gesetzgebung?, 54 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1332-1334 (2001); Baums, Interview: Reforming German Corporate Governance: Inside a Law Making Process of a very new nature, 2 German Law Journal No. 12 (16 July 2001), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=43.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ladeur, The Theory of Autopoiesis as an Approach to a Better Understanding of Postmodern Law, EUI Working Paper Law No. 99/3 (1999).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Teubner, Reflexives Recht, 68 ARSP 13-59 (1982).Google Scholar

⁴² Vesting, Zwischen Gewährleistungsstaat und Minimalstaat: Zu den veränderten Bedingungen der Bewältigung öffentlicher Aufgaben in der ‘Informations- oder Wissensgesellschaft', in: Verwaltungsrecht in der Informationsgesellschaft 101-131 (Hoffmann-Riem/Schmidt-Assmann Ed. 2000); Frankenberg, Why Care? – The Trouble with Social Rights, 17 Cardozo Law Review 1365-1390 (1996); Zumbansen, Quod Omnes Tangit: Globalization, Welfare Regimes and Entitlements, in: The Welfare State, Globalization, and International Law 135-173 (Benvenisti/Nolte Ed. 2003).Google Scholar

⁴³ Black, Constitutionalising Self-Regulation, 59 Modern Law Review 24 (1996).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Gardbaum, The “Horizontal Effect” of Constitutional Rights, 102 Michigan Law Review 387-459 (2003); Teubner, Ein Fall struktureller Korruption? Die Familienbürgschaft in der Kollision unverträglicher Handlungslogiken (BVerfGE 89, 214ff.), 83 Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft 388-404 (2000); Zumbansen, Public Values, Private Contracts and the Colliding Worlds of Family and Market, 11 Feminist Legal Studies 73-87 (2003).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Helfer, Constitutional Analogies in the International Legal System, Loy. L. A. L. Rev. 193-236 (2003); Choudhry, The Lochner Era and Comparative Constitutionalism, University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 02-22 (2002)Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Grossfeld, CyberCorporation Law – Comparative Legal Semiotics/Comparative Legal Logistics, 35 The International Lawyer 1405-1425 (2001)Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Scott/Wai, supra, note 5.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Teubner, Globale Privatregimes: Neo-spontanes Recht und duale Sozialverfassungen in der Weltgesellschaft, in: Zur Autonomie des Individuums. Liber Amicorum Spiros Simitis 437-453 (Simon/Weiss Eds. 2000)Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Wiethölter, Recht-Fertigungen eines Gesellschafts-Rechts, in: Rechtsverfassungsrecht. Recht-Fertigung zwischen Privatrechtsdogmatik und Gesellschaftstheorie 11-22 (Joerges/Teubner Eds. 2003)Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Koh, Transnational Legal Process, 75 Nebraska Law Review 181-206 (1996).Google Scholar

⁵¹ See, e.g., Choudhry, The Lochner Era and Comparative Constitutionalism, University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 02-22 (2002)Google Scholar

⁵² See the brilliant assessment by Michaels, Im Westen nichts Neues?, 66 RabelsZ 97-115 (2003).Google Scholar

⁵³ Wai, Transnational Liftoff and Juridical Touchdown: The Regulatory Function of Private International Law in an Era of Globalization, 40 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 209-274 (2002).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Kaldor, Global Civil Society: An Answer to War 2003); Anheier/Kaldor/Glasius, Global Civil Society in an Era of Regressive Globalisation: The State of Global Civil Society in 2003, in: Global Civil Society Yearbook 2003 3-33 (Anheier/Kaldor/Glasius Ed. 2003),Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Teubner, 'Global Bukowina': Legal Pluralism in the World Society, in: Global Law Without A State 3-28 (Teubner Ed. 1997).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See only the assessment by Schneiderman, Investment Rules and the New Constitutionalism, 25 Law & Soc Inquiry 757-783 (2000).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See, e.g., from the German constitutional perspective, Di Fabio, Der Verfassungsstaat in der Weltgesellschaft 2001); Hobe, Der offene Verfassungsstaat zwischen Souveränität und Interdependenz. Eine Studie zur Wandlung des deutschen Staatsbegriffs der deutschsprachigen Staatslehre im Kontext internationaler institutionalisierter Kooperation 1998); Frankenberg, Shifting Boundaries: The Private, the Public, and the Welfare State, in: The Mixed Economy of Social Welfare 72-94 (Katz/Sachße Ed. 1996); see also Hobson/Ramesh, Globalisation Makes of States What States Make of It: Between Agency and Structure in the State/Globalisation Debate, 7 New Political Economy 5-22 (2002).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Very insightful Habermas, Die postnationale Konstellation und die Zukunft der Demokratie, in: ibid, Die postnationale Konstellation (1998) 91-169; see now the very outspoken return to a critical theory of democracy within the nation-state and its lessons for the ‘post-national constellation’ by Habermas, Hat die Konstitutionalisierung des Völkerrechts noch eine Chance?, in: ibid, Der gespaltene Westen (2004) 113-193.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See only Koskenniemi, 'The Lady Doth Protest Too Much'. Kosovo, and the Turn to Ethics in International Law, 65 Modern Law Review 159-175 (2002); ibid., Book Review – Giovanna Boradori (ed.), Philosophy in a Time of Terror. Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida (2003), in: 4 German Law Journal No. 10 (1 October 2003), 1087-1094, available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdf/Vol04No10/PDF_Vol_04_No_10_1087-1094_Legal_Culture_Koskenniemi.pdf.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Knop, Here and There: International Law in Domestic Courts, 32 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L & Pol. 501-535 (2000).Google Scholar

⁶¹ See, e.g., Neuborne, Preliminary Reflections on Aspects of Holocaust-Era Litigation in American Courts, 80 Washington University Law Quarterly 795-834 (2002), at 795; see also Eizenstat, Imperfect Justice. Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the Unfinished Business of World War II (2003).Google Scholar

⁶² See the overview by Bazyler, www.swissbankclaims.com: The Legality and Morality of the Holocaust-Era Settlement with the Swiss Banks, 25 Fordham Int'l L. J. 64-106 (2001); Neuborne, Preliminary Reflections on Aspects of Holocaust-Era Litigation in American Courts, 80 Washington University Law Quarterly 795-834 (2002); in contrast to these overly sympathetic accounts (and their appraisal of US legal litigation culture), see the comments by Baumgartner, Human Rights and Civil Litigation in United States Courts: The Holocaust-Era Cases, 80 Wash. U. L. Quarterly 835-854 (2002), identifying the political pressure exerted on the litigants.Google Scholar

⁶³ See hereto, e.g., Bazyler, www.swissbankclaims.com: The Legality and Morality of the Holocaust-Era Settlement with the Swiss Banks, 25 Fordham Int'l L. J. 64-106 (2001), at 64, who concentrates on routes to monetary compensation when thinking of other “movements aiming to bring justice for historical wrongs”.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Mainly for the recompensation of never paid out so-called dormant bank accounts in Swiss Banks, insurance claims as well as for looted assets and slave labor.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Bazyler, The Holocaust Restitution Movement in Comparative Perspective, 20 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 11-44 (2002); Neuborne, Preliminary Reflections on Aspects of Holocaust-Era Litigation in American Courts, 80 Washington University Law Quarterly 795-834 (2002).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Adler/Zumbansen, The Forgetfulness of Noblesse: A Critique of the German Foundation Law Compensating Slave and Forced Laborers of the Third Reich, 39 Harvard Journal on Legislation [and in: Zwangsarbeit im Dritten Reich: Erinnerung und Verantwortung / NS Forced Labor: Remembrance and Responsibility 333 (P. Zumbansen ed. 2002)] 1-61 (2002); Benjamin B. Ferencz, Less Than Slaves: Jewish Forced Labor And The Quest For Compensation (1979); Ulrich Herbert, Fremdarbeiter: Politik Und Praxis Des “Auslander-Einsatzes“ In Der Kriegswirtschaft Des Dritten Reiches (2d Ed. 1999); Wolfgang Benz, Zwangsarbeit im nationalsozialistischen Staat, 16 Dachauer Hefte 3, 3-17 (2000).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Vagts/Murray, Litigating the Nazi Labor Claims: The Path Not Taken, 43 Harvard International Law Journal (Harv. Int'l L.J.) 503-530 (2002).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ For a critique of this case law, see Safferling/Zumbansen, Iura novit curia: Rechtsanspruch auf Entschädigung für Zwangsarbeit im Nationalsozialismus, in: Juristische Rundschau 6-11 (2002) [reprinted in: Zwangsarbeit im Dritten Reich: Erinnerung und Verantwortung / NS Forced Labor: Remembrance and Responsibility (P. Zumbansen ed. 2002)]; from the U.S. case law, see in particular Burger-Fischer v. Degussa AG, 65 F. Supp. 2d 248, 279-81 (D.N.J. 1999); see Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D.N.J. 1999).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See Roger Cohen, Last Chapter: Berlin to Pay Slave Workers Held by Nazis, N.Y. TIMES, May 31, 2001, at A7. The Foundation began making payments on June 19, 2001. See Stephanie Flanders, Payments Begin for Laborers Forced to Work for the Nazis, N.Y. TIMES, June 20, 2001, at A10. See for an account of this development, Adler/Zumbansen, supra, note 54. Note: At the time the Foundation grew out of a German industry wide initiative to create a compensation fund to end class action suits for forced labor recompensation, the present author and his collaborator, Libby Adler, envisioned working together on the litigation and the Foundation with a particular focus on the regulatory aspects of the Foundation. Thus, our original focus was the changing face of public services and the emerging phenomena of ‘private ordering’ and societal self-regulation. We therefore aimed at exploring the relevance of private law theory within new forms of public service delivery and delegations of public duties (and powers) to private actors. The Foundation offered itself as a perfect instance where a regulatory function, while clearly demarcated as public in nature, had been transferred upon several private actors, the so-called partner organizations responsible for the assessment and the compensation of the claims. The choice of studying the litigation and the Foundation from that angle proved to be one that would eventually guide and inform the authors’ further outlook on law and on their work in general in the future. Every aspect of our research and of our teaching a seminar to a group of German and foreign LL.B. and graduate students in Germany, accompanied by the testimony of direct participants in the post-war restitution efforts, the recent class action litigation in American courts, and the contemporary creation and administration of the Foundation, lead to a whole chain of further questions regarding, ultimately, law's role in bringing past injustice before a judicial forum. Thus, the fate of the litigants as well as of those that fought with or against them became deeply intertwined with issues regarding the adjudication of past wrongs, the purpose and ultimate merit of judicial treatment of claims for compensation, recognition and acknowledgment, the importance of establishing legal responsibility compared with otherwise motivated and comparatively easily accepted “moral“, “historical“ or “political“ responsibility, as documented in the preamble of the Foundation law (http://www.stiftung-evz.de/). But, increasingly, law's boundaries became porous and law's demarcation from ubiquitous discourses on reconciliation, societal memory and confronting ‘darker legacies’ proved ever more difficult.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Neuborne, Preliminary Reflections on Aspects of Holocaust-Era Litigation in American Courts, 80 Washington University Law Quarterly 795-834 (2002); Bazyler, www.swissbankclaims.com: The Legality and Morality of the Holocaust-Era Settlement with the Swiss Banks, 25 Fordham Int'l L. J. 64-106 (2001); see hereto Niethammer, Beschädigte Gerechtigkeit – Entschädigung von Zwangsarbeitern als Paradigma, in: Zwangsarbeit im Dritten Reich: Erinnerung und Verantwortung. NS-Forced Labor: Remembrance and Responsibility. Zeithistorische und juristische Betrachtungen/Historical and Legal Observations 259-276 (Zumbansen Ed. 2002), pointing to the other dimensions of recognition of past injustice.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See, e.g., Miller, Much Ado, But Nothing: California's New World War II Slave Labor Law Statute Of Limitations And Its Place In The Increasingly Futile Effort To Obtain Compensation From American Courts, 23 Whittier Law Review 121-136 (2002), reprinted in: Zwangsarbeit im Dritten Reich: Erinnerung und Verantwortung. NS-Forced Labor: Remembrance and Responsibility. Zeithistorische und juristische Betrachtungen/Historical and Legal Observations (Zumbansen Ed. 2002).Google Scholar

⁷² See hereto, e.g., Neuborne, Preliminary Reflections on Aspects of Holocaust-Era Litigation in American Courts, 80 Washington University Law Quarterly 795-834 (2002); Bazyler, The Holocaust Restitution Movement in Comparative Perspective, 20 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 11-44 (2002); Miller, Reconceiving Reparations: Multiple Strategies in the Reparations Debate, 24 Boston College Third World Law Journal 45-79 (2004).Google Scholar

⁷³ See, on the limits of law (also) in that respect, Goodwin, White Knights On Chargers: Using The US Approach To Promote Roma Rights In Europe?, in this issue.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See, hereto, the analysis by Miller, in: MSU-DCL J. Int'l L. 2004, forthcoming.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See Section 16 No. 2 of the Foundation Law of 2 August 2000, available at: http://www.stiftungevz.de/.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See, e.g., http://www.hagalil.com/archiv/99/11/gerecht.htm; http://www.zeit.de/archiv/2000/20/200020.kolumne.xml.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Slaughter, A Typology of Transjudicial Communications, 29 University of Richmond Law Review 99-137 (1994); see also ibid., A New World Order (2004), for the reference to the Supreme Court's comparative perspective in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Helfer, Constitutional Analogies in the International Legal System, Loy. L. A. L. Rev. 193-236 (2003).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Romano, The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Pieces of the Puzzle, 31 New York University Journal of International Law and Policy (N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol.) 709-751 (1999); Alford, The Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals: International Adjudication in Ascendance, 94 American Society of International Law Proceedings 160-165 (2000).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ This is the basic motivation for the creation of the ICT (International – Transnational – Comparative) Curriculum Stream at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University, a two-year program that allows for a specialization in the named larger disciplinary fields with a strong focus on the national-international ‘interface’ as students are invited to reflect on the interpenetration of globalized fields of legal doctrine: http://www.yorku.ca/osgoode/streams/#ict.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Ongoing Comparative Curriculum Overview Study at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, on file with author.Google Scholar

⁸² See, e.g., from a student's perspective, Carlson, Why Slavery Reparations are Good for Civil Procedure Class, 47 St. Louis U. L. J. 139-147 (2003).Google Scholar

⁸³ Arthurs, Poor Canadian Legal Education: So Near to Wall Street, So Far from God, 38 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 381 (2000); Wiethölter, Die Wirtschaftspraxis als Rechtsquelle, in: Das Rechtswesen – Lenker oder Spiegel der Gesellschaft? 165-185 (Bockelmann Ed. 1971).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ The same applies, however, certainly in jurisdictions where law is a so-called First Degree of study, such as Germany or France; see Windel, Scheinspezialisierung und Verzettelung als mögliche Folgen der Juristenausbildungsreform, Jura 79-82 (2003).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See Derrida, Force of Law. “The Mystical Foundation of Authority”, 11 Cardozo L. Rev. 921 (1990); see hereto the very fine interpretation by Orford, Critical Intimacy: Jacques Derrida and the Friendship of Politics, in: 6 German Law Journal No. 1 (1 January 2005), forthcoming in a Special Dedication Section on the late Jacques Derrida with contributions, inter alia, by Peter Krapp, Adam Thurschwell, Friedrich Balke, Dirk Baecker, Drucilla Cornell, Pierre Schlag, Elisabeth Weber, Peter Goodrich, Simon Critchley, Petra Gehring and Costas Douzinas.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Wiethölter, Begriffs- oder Interessenjurisprudenz. Falsche Fronten im IPR- und Wirtschaftsverfassungsrecht, in: Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung im Ausgang des 20. Jahrhunderts. Festschrift für Gerhard Kegel 213 (A. Lüderitz/J. Schröder eds. 1977), at 234: “Es hilft nicht weiter, unsere Vergangenheit vor 1945 als positivistisch’ und nach 1945 als ‘nichtpositivistisch’ zu würdigen. Einen Positivismus, der diesen Namen aus heutiger Sicht verdiente, hat es in der jüngeren Rechtsgeschichte (noch) nicht gegeben. Eine brauchbarere und zukunftsträchtigere Fragestellung ist es wohl, wie ‘positives’ Recht als zugleich ‘richtiges’ Recht denn zu gewährleisten sei.” See also Wiethölter, Recht-Fertigungen eines Gesellschafts-Rechts, in: Rechtsverfassungsrecht 13-21 (C Joerges/G Teubner eds. 2003); see hereto, Zumbansen, Das soziale Gedächtnis des Rechts, oder: Juristische Dogmatik als Standeskunst, in: (C Joerges/G Teubner eds. 2003), 151, 154.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See, e.g., Cutler, Artifice, Ideology and Paradox: the Public/Private Distinction in International Law, 4 Review of International Political Economy 261-285 (1997); Zumbansen, Sustaining Paradox Boundaries: Perspectives on the Internal Affairs in Domestic and International Law, 15 European Journal of International Law [EJIL] 197-211 (2004).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Schiff Berman, The Globalization of Jurisdiction, 151 U. Pa. L. Rev. 311-545 (2002), at 323.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Philip Jessup, Transnational Law 7 (1956), citing Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 127 (1921).Google Scholar