It is no semantic accident that the word government derives from the Latin word, gubernare which means to steer or pilot a ship, and that gubernare derives from the Greek word for rudder, kybernaei. The ship as pictorial and linguistic metaphor for the state dates back to at least the fifth century B.C., when we find explicit reference to the “whole ship of the polis” in Aristophanes' (ca. 445–388 B.C.) play The Wasps, and seems to have maintained a place in the collective Western psyche throughout the millennia.

“Sozialstaatlichkeit” is a collection of essays dedicated to the author of Negative Freiheitsrechte und gesellschaftliche Selbstorganisation? Reflections on the survival of welfarism in the postnational constellations after his analyses of globalisation and Europeanisation? Affirmative references to the Discourse Theory of Law and Habermasian notions of Proceduralisation at all levels of governance against “Proceduralisation and its use in a post-modern legal policy?” “Are you trying to deliver something like an Anti-Ladeur.” No, neither Sisyphus nor Hercules, let alone Friedrich Engels, has inspired this essay. Its argument should rather be observed in the spirit of conflict-of-laws, i.e. of a discipline which accepts as a normative fact that different academic projects may be worthwhile despite of, or even because of, the differences of their premises and of the logics of their development, which may be inspired by complementary perceptions of a common problématque.

In order to introduce the riddle that is at the heart of my contemplations, I would like to tell a story taken from Ibn Arabis' myth of creation: God existed all alone in an eternity that has no beginning and no end. Yet, the names that were hidden within him, the most beautiful names of God that are found in the Koran in Sure 59, 24 yearned to manifest themselves. So God said: “I was a hidden treasure and wanted to be recognized; so I created the world”. The names within him heeded their yearning to be recognized and broke free from the hidden, godly being, as breath that has been held too long leaves the body.

A spectre is haunting contemporary theoretical debates: the spectre of Network. Whether it is about techno-music or football, whether the focus is on the architecture of poststructuralist thinking, international terrorism or individual career-planning, there is one common feature of all debates: the network model. There seems to be hardly a cultural theory – in a wide sense – still able to go on operating without using (at the very least) its heuristic effects. Meanwhile, even the entertainment and the advertising industries have discovered the concept. We need not wonder, then, that it is bull market for the model on the specific juridic field too.

It can only seem impolite to speak about network failure in the presence of Karl-Heinz Ladeur, who has been insisting that the law needs to change in order to address the transformation of the organizational society into the network society. Alas, here I stand; I can do no other.

With considerable regularity, the established and functioning scientific apparatus is able to reshape itself, to confirm or change its course and the respective lenses of observation through the rationalization of themes, trends and through the identification of individuals and groups of scholars who are being associated with these developments. This exercise, leaving its traces in conferences, edited volumes and the formation of scientific associations, is largely centred around the formulation, assessment and defence of scholarly projects and tasks. The importance of such undertakings lies, however, in their ability to never let the forces of institutionalization, formalization and bureaucratization take the upper hand over the continuing diversity and curiosity that reigns beneath their surface. The awarding of academic honours and prizes themselves are part of the institutionalization of scholarly projects, but they come with the calming realization that, despite all the festivity, it is clear to everyone that there is no one who deserves the prize. There is in fact no prize recipient. What remains is the constantly nagging doubt whether curiosity and critical inquiry still govern our search, whether ears and eyes continue to be open.

Ever closer gets the net of networks, and so it does in law and legal scholarship. Finally in the law, one feels tempted to remark. But there is a reason for the lawyer's patient scepticism, for her professional habit to await a certain academic consolidation of a concept before setting out on a transdisciplinary transfer. There is a reason – and it lies in the law's “necessity to decide” (Entscheidungsnotwendigkeit). There is no shortage of fuzziness and uncertainty. But have life and law ever been less paradoxical? Arguably, the problem is not new, yet it has only recently been made explicit.

As one of the commentators of Luhmann's oeuvre once rightly put it, “the occasionally authoritative gestures of Luhmann's writing may intimidate all those who do not also perceive his gentle touches of irony.” Luhmann's note at the end of his treatise, Law as a Social System, about law's future in the global society is one of those typical statements of Luhmann, characterized by this mixture of authoritative “coolness” with a touch of irony. Be that as it may, the master seems to be once again right with his prophecy-like statement: Law is indeed undergoing a transformation, the results of which might soon let law appear as nothing more than a “European anomaly, which might well level off with the evolution of global society.”

The concept of “network” has become the most central concept within the work of Karl-Heinz Ladeur (KHL). It is an omnibus concept which he uses to extrapolate insights at all levels: It is used to provide a general framework at the level of Gesellschaftstheorie (social theory) in the sense that it provides insights into the general structure of society and thereby into the context within which legal processes unfold. At the level of organizational theory it provides a basis for understanding the transformation of organizational structures as it unfolds through the breakdown of hierarchy and the boundaries between the private and the public, just as the network concept plays an important role in its attempt to formulate a legal theory which is adequate for a society which, according to KHL, has become postmodern.

It is not a new insight that nowadays everything and everybody seems to be globalized. This is even true with respect to the different branches of the state. We know a lot about the globalization of the executive branch and administrative law (towards a global or international administrative law) for example. Public agencies around the world are compelled to cooperate – e.g. to change information and work together on legal cases – because many problems can only be solved by a cross-border approach. The legislative branch faces the deep influence of globalization, too. National lawmakers have to respect or transform standards and rules set by international organizations such as the WTO, NAFTA or the EU. In the EU, for example, 70–80% of national legislation in the field of economic law is based on rules set by the EU. Furthermore, the question arises whether the judiciary is also remarkably influenced by globalization. Is the judicial branch, or more precisely in the international context, the national and international judiciary, yet globalized? What role does the judge play in the context of globalization?

The process which is commonly called “globalization” in social sciences seems to shatter the very foundations of law and legal thinking. Yet while legal scholarship, for the most part, is still grappling with identifying the problem, Karl-Heinz Ladeur is already offering a solution. He may therefore count among the avant-garde in the debate on law and globalization.