¹ Coase, Ronald, The Problem of Social Cost, 3 Journal of Law & Economics 1 (1960); Guido Calabresi, Some Thoughts on Risk Distribution and the Law of Torts, 70 Yale Law Journal 499 (1961). The articles did appear simultaneously because the third volume of the Journal of Law & Economics, even though dated 1960, had really appeared in 1961.Google Scholar

² Horn, Norbert, Zur ökonomischen Rationalität des Privatrechts – Die privatrechtliche Verwertbarkeit der Economic Analysis of Law, 176 Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 307 (1976).Google Scholar

³ Ökonomische Analyse des Rechts (Assmann, Heinz-Dieter/Kirchner, Christian/Schanze, Erich eds. 1978).Google Scholar

⁴ Behrens, Peter, Die ökonomischen Grundlagen des Rechts (1986).Google Scholar

⁵ Eidenmüller, Horst, Effizienz als Rechtsprinzip (2nd ed. 1998).Google Scholar

⁶ Weyers, Hans-Leo, Unfallschäden 492 (1971).Google Scholar

⁷ See (in chronological order) Theodor Schilcher, Theorie der sozialen Schadensverteilung 73 (1977); Gert Brüggemeier, Deliktsrecht (1986); Ulrich Magnus, Schaden und Ersatz (1987); Hein Kötz, Zivilrechtliche Haftung aus ökonomischer Sicht, in Die Ökonomisierung der Sozialwissenschaften 149 (H.-B. Schäfer ed; 1989); Gebhard Kirchgässner, Das Verursacherprinzip – Leerformel oder regulative Idee? Juristen Zeitung 104 (1991); Andreas Blaschczok, Gefährdungshaftung und Risikozurechnung (1993); a thoughtful summary was then made by Taupitz, Jochen, Ökonomische Analyse und Haftungsrecht – eine Zwischenbilanz, 196 Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 114 (1996).Google Scholar

⁸ Adams, Michael, Ökonomische Analyse der Gefährdungs- und Verschuldenshaftung (1985).Google Scholar

⁹ Jansen, Nils, Die Struktur des Haftungsrechts. Geschichte, Theorie und Dogmatik Außervertraglicher Ansprüche auf Schadensersatz 151 (2003).Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Burow, Patrick, Juristische Schulung 8 (1993); Bernd Holzwarth, Juristische Schulung 437 (1985); and recently Hein Kötz, Juristische Schulung 209 (2003); EAL is also covered in textbooks by Kötz, Hein & Wagner, Gerhard, Deliktsrecht, 9th ed. 199 (2001); Manfred Wolf, Sachenrecht at Rn. 32 (2004); Norbert Horn, Einführung in die Rechtswissenschaft und Rechtsphilosophie, 2nd ed. 131 (2001); Michael Kittner, Schuldrecht. Rechtliche Grundlagen – Wirtschaftliche Zusammenhänge, 3rd ed. (2003); see also Weigel, Wolfgang, Rechtsökonomik Eine methodologische Einführung für Einsteiger und Neugierige (2003).Google Scholar

¹¹ Schäfer, Hans Bernd & Ott, Claus, Lehrbuch der ökonomischen Analyse des Zivilrechts, 3rd ed. (2000).Google Scholar

¹² Helmut Heinrichs, in: Palandt, BGB, [Commentary of the German Civil Code] (63rd ed 2004) at Einl Rn 32.Google Scholar

¹³ Kennedy, Duncan, Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy, 32 Journal of Legal Education (J. Legal Educ.) 591 (1982).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Adams, Michael, Ist die Ökonomie eine imperialistische Wissenschaft?, JURA 337 (1984), reprinted in Michael Adams, Ökonomische Theorie des Rechts. Konzepte und Anwendungen 11 (2002) [Adams, Ökonomische Theorie Des Rechts].Google Scholar

¹⁵ Adams, Michael, Vorstandsvergütungen – Die Fälle Mannesmann und DaimlerChrysler, in Festschrift für Carl-Christian von Weizsäcker (2002); for an in-depth analysis of the Mannesmann case before the Landgericht Düsseldorf, see Kolla, Peter, The Mannesmann Trial and the Role of the Courts, in: 5 German Law Journal 829-847 (2004); for an assessment of Josef Ackermann's early restructuring of Deutsche Bank's management board, see Zumbansen, Peer, Germany Inc. Eroding? Board Structure, CEO and Rhenish Capitalism, in: 3 German Law Journal No. 6 (1 June 2002), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=156.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Stigler, George J., The Law and Economics of Public Policy: A Plea to the Scholars, 1 Journal of Legal Studies (J. Legal Stud.) 1 (1974) cited in Adams, Ökonomische Theorie des Rechts, supra note 14 at 11.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See hereto the contributions by Baer, Susanne, Nickel, Rainer and Mahlmann, Matthias, in: 1 Annual of German & European Law (Miller, Russell/Zumbansen, Peer eds. 2004), 323, 334, and 353; see already the wide coverage of the debate in German Law Journal: Florian Stork, Comments on the Draft of the New German Private Law Anti-Discrimination Act: Implementing Directives 2000/43/EC and 2004/113/EC in German Private Law, in: 6 German Law Journal 533-548 (2005); Andreas Engert, Allied by Surprise? The Economic Case for an Anti-Discrimination Statute, in: 4 German Law Journal 685-699 (2003); Eduard Picker, DEBATE: Anti-Discrimination as a Program of Private Law?, in: 4 German Law Journal 771-784 (2003); Viktor Winkler, The Planned German Anti-Discrimination Act: Legal Vandalism? A Response to Karl-Heinz Ladeur, in: 3 German Law Journal No. 6 (1 June 2002), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=158; Karl-Heinz Ladeur, The German Proposal of an “Anti-Discrimination”-Law: Anticonstitutional and Anti-Common Sense. A Response to Nicola Vennemann, in: 3 German Law Journal No. 5 (1 May 2002), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=152; Nicola Vennemann, The German Draft Legislation On the Prevention of Discrimination in the Private Sector, in: 3 German Law Journal No. 1 (1 March 2002), available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=137.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Adams, Ökonomische Theorie des Rechts, supra note 14 at 105; mainly following the seminal enquiry by Becker, Gary S., The Economics of Discrimination (1957).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Zumbansen, Peer, Law of Contracts, in: Introduction to German Law (Reimann, Mathias/Zekoll, Joachim eds., 2^ND Ed. 2005), 179, 190.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibid. at 121.Google Scholar

²¹ For the roots of this approach see Winkler, Viktor, Ökonomische Analyse des Rechts im 19. Jahrhundert: Victor Matajas “Recht des Schadensersatzes”revisited, 26 Zeitschrift für Neuere Rechtsgeschichte 262 (2004).Google Scholar

²² Posner, Richard, Values and Consequences: An Introduction to Economic Analysis of Law, Chicago Working Papers in Law and Economics No.53 at 9 (1998).Google Scholar

²³ See Posner, Richard, Bentham's Influence on the Law and Economics Movement, 51 Current Legal Problems 425 (1998); id., Utilitarianism, Economics, and Legal Theory, 8 J. Legal. Stud. 103 (1979).Google Scholar

²⁴ Posner, Richard, Pragmatic Adjudication, 18 Cardozo Law Review 1 (1996).Google Scholar

²⁵ Important contributions include Gustav Radbruch, Gesetzliches Unrecht und übergesetzliches Recht, Süddeutsche Juristenzeitung 105 (1946); Wilhelm R. Beyer, Rechtsphilosophische Besinnung (1947); Helmut Coing, Die obersten Grundsätze des Rechts (1947); Hans Welzel, Naturrecht und materiale Gerechtigkeit (1951); Hans Rommen, Die ewige Wiederkehr des Naturrechts, 2nd ed. (1947); for a collection of contributions to the “Naturrechts-Renaissance” see also Naturrecht und Rechtspositivismus (Werner Maihofer ed., 1966).Google Scholar

²⁶ See Thieme, Hans, Das Naturrecht und die europäische Privatrechtsgeschichte (1947); Ludwig Mitteis, Vom Lebenswert der Rechtsgeschichte (1947); Paul Koschaker, Europa und das römische Recht (1947). A brillant inquiry into this connection is Heinz Mohnhaupt, Zur “Neugründung” des Naturrechts nach 1945: Helmut Coings “Die obersten Grundsätze des Rechts” (1947), in Rechtsgeschichtswissenschaft in Deutschland 1945 bis 1952, 97 (Horst Schröder ed., 2001).Google Scholar

²⁷ An exhaustive critique on the dominance of the Natural Law Renaissance in German legal history is lacking. For many important rectifications, see Kühl, Kristian, Kontinuitäten und Diskontinuitäten im Naturrechtsdenken des 20. Jahrhunderts, in Erkenntnisgewinne – Erkenntisverluste 605 (Acham, Karl, Nörr, Knut Wolfgang, Schefold, Bertram eds., 1998), and Joachim Rückert, Zu Kontinuitäten und Diskontinuitäten in der juristischen Methodendiskussion nach 1945, in Erkenntnisgewinne – Erkenntisverluste 113 (Acham, Karl, Nörr, Knut Wolfgang, Schefold, Bertram eds., 1998).Google Scholar

²⁸ see Naturrecht im 19. Jahrhundert (Deithelm Klippel ed., 1997).Google Scholar

²⁹ The most prominent scholars were Franz Wieacker (1908—1994), Karl Larenz (1903—1993), Hans Welzel (1904—1977), and Ernst Rudolf Huber (1903—1990).Google Scholar

³⁰ See Somek, Alexander, Politischer Monismus versus formalistische Aufklärung: Zur Kontroverse zwischen Carl Schmitt und Hans Kelsen, in Untersuchungen zur Reinen Rechtslehre 109 (Paulson, Stanley L./Walter, Robert eds., 1986), and the profound, provoking analysis Izhak Englard, Nazi-Criticism Against the Normativist Theory of Hans Kelsen – Its Intellectual Basis and Post-Modern Tendencies, in Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt – A Juxtaposition 133 (Diner, Dan/Stolleis, Michael eds., 1999).Google Scholar

³¹ Lepsius, Oliver, Die gegensatzaufhebende Begriffbildung (1994). In my view one of the best inquiries is still Recht, Rechtsphilosophie und Nationalsozialismus (Hubert Rottleuthner ed., 1983).Google Scholar

³² Radbruch, Gustav, Gesetzliches Unrecht und übergesetzliches Recht, Süddeutsche Juristenzeitung 105 (1946) [The Süddeutsche Juristenzeitung is a law journal that, to my knowledge, lacks a volume number]; Lon Fuller, The Legal Philosophy of Gustav Radbruch, 6 J. Legal Educ. 481 (1953/1954); H.L.A. Hart, Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals, 71 Harvard Law Review (Harv. L. Rev.) 593 (1958).Google Scholar

³³ See for a more recent application of the Radbruch thesis in the Berlin wall trials, Russell A. Miller, Rejecting Radbruch: The European Court of Human Rights and the Crimes of the East German Leadership, in: 14 Leiden Journal of International Law 653-663 (2001).Google Scholar

³⁴ Günther, Frieder, Denken vom Staat her (2004); Dirk van Laak, Gespräche in der Sicherheit des Schweigens: Carl Schmitt in der politischen Geistesgeschichte der frühen Bundesrepublik (1993); Richard Saage, Neokonservatives Denken in der Bundesrepublik, in id., Rückkehr zum starken Staat? 229 (1983).Google Scholar

³⁵ BVerfGE [short title for the collected opinions of the German Federal Constitutional Court] Vol. 7, 198.Google Scholar

³⁶ See Das Lüth-Urteil in (rechts-)historischer Sicht (Henne, Thomas/Riedlinger, Arne eds., 2005).Google Scholar

³⁷ Winkler, Viktor, Dubious Heritage. The German Debate on the Anti-Discrimination Law, 15 Iowa Journal of Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems (forthcoming, 2005); for this particular discussion see id., The Planned German Anti-Discrimination Act: Legal Vandalism? A Response to Karl-Heinz Ladeur, 3 German Law Journal No. 6 (2002).Google Scholar

³⁸ See the “classic” Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Dispair (1961); Ulrich Kronauer, Gegenwelten der Aufklärung (2003).Google Scholar

³⁹ See Kamphausen, Georg, Die Erfindung Amerikas in der Kulturkritik der Generation von 1890 (2002).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ George, Robert, In Defense of Natural Law (1999); Michael Zuckert, Do Natural Rights Derive From Natural Law?, 20 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 695 (1997); Philipp Soper, Making Sense of Modern Jurisprudence: The Paradox of Positivism and the Challenge for Natural Law, 22 Creighton Law Review. 67 (1988); see also Pound, Roscoe, The Ideal Element in Law (1948); ibid., Idea of an Universal Law, 1 UCLA Law Review 7 (1953).Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Kennedy, Duncan, Two Globalizations of Law and Legal Thought: 1850-1968, 36 Suffolk University Law Review 631 (2003).Google Scholar

⁴² Herget, James E. & Wallace, Stephen, The German Free Law Movement as the Source of American Legal Realism, 73 Virginia Law Review (Va. L. Rev.) 399, 413-414 (1987); Roscoe Pound, The Spirit of the Common Law (1921); Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law 165 (1888; repr. 1968) [Holmes, Common Law]. Holmes called Jhering a “man of genius”, see Reimann, Matthias, Holmes’ Common Law and German Legal Science, in The Legacy of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. 72 (Robert Gordon ed., 1992); for an overview of the contributions of Karl Llewellyn to American jurisprudence and his German influences [this article does contain a true “overview of the contributions of Llewellyn to American jurisprudence” but is “only” a biographical sketch regarding Llewellyn's ties to Germany] see Ansaldi, Michael, The German Llewellyn, 58 Brooklyn Law Review (Brook. L. Rev.) 705, 708-710 (1992).Google Scholar

⁴³ Guess, Raymond, The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School (1981).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See the brilliant analysis by Standen, Jeffrey A., Critical Legal Studies as an Anti-Positivist Phenomenon, 72 Va. L. Rev. 983 (1986); for important divergences from Standen, see Somek, Alexander, Unbestimmtheit: Habermas und die Critical Studies, 41 Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 343 (1993).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Compare the overview by Kennedy, Duncan, Legal Formalism, The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences 8634 (2001); For Jhering's formalist notions, however, see Somek, Alexander, Legal Formality and Freedom of Choice, A Moral Perspective on Jhering's Constructivism, 15 Ratio Juris 52 (2002).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L. Rev., 457, 461 (1897); Duncan Kennedy, Legal Formality, J. Legal Stud. 351 (1972); Remember the famous opening lines of Holmes, Common Law, supra note 39 at 1: “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed”.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ For Holmes’ skepticism see Holmes, Oliver Wendell Jr., Ideals and Doubts, 10 University of Illinois Law Review 1 (1915); see also Gilmore, Grant, The Ages of American Law 48-49 (1977): “The Real Holmes was savage, harsh and brutal, a bitter and lifelong pessimist who saw in the course of human life nothing but a continuing struggle in which the rich and powerful impose their will on the poor and weak […] In this black and terrifying universe, the function of law, as Holmes saw it, is simply to channel private aggressions in an orderly, perhaps in a dignified fashion.” This aspect of Holmes’ thought motivated some daring but convincing comparisons, see Dyzenhaus, David, Holmes and Carl Schmitt – an Unlikely Pair? 63 Brook. L. Rev. 165, 195 (1997).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Holmes’ “positivist” convictions are documented in his dissent to Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 221-22 (1917). The famous case for the alleged “dualism” in Holmes’ positivism was made by Hart, H.L.A., Holmes’ Positivism – An Addendum, 64 Harv. L. Rev. 929 (1951).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Fezer, Karl-Heinz, Aspekte einer Rechtskritik an der economic analysis of law und am property rights approach, Juristen Zeitung 817 (1986).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ The Essential Holmes: selections from the letters, speeches, judicial opinions, and other writings of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (Richard Posner ed.; 1992).Google Scholar

⁵¹ I have tried to make a case for Pound's “formalism” in Viktor Winkler, The Great Protector: Roscoe Pound (1870-1964) zum 40. Todestag, 24 Newsletter of the German-American Lawyers-Association 104 (2004); Id., In Memoriam Roscoe Pound, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 105 (2005).Google Scholar

⁵² Kennedy, Duncan, Law and Economics from the Perspective of Critical Legal Studies, 2 The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law 465 (Peter Newman ed.; 1998).Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Cohen, Felix S., Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach, 35 Columbia Law Review 809 (1935).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ For the underlying problems between enlightenment, indoctrination and academic freedom see Kennedy, Duncan, Politicizing the Classroom, 4 U.S.C. Review of Law and Women's Studies 81 (1995).Google Scholar