The Same Only Different: Reflections on Robert Kagan’s Adversarial Legalism | Law & Social Inquiry | Cambridge Core

The Same Only Different: Reflections on Robert Kagan’s Adversarial Legalism | Law & Social Inquiry | Cambridge Core


Law & Social Inquiry

Article contents
Abstract
Footnotes
References

The Same Only Different: Reflections on Robert Kagan’s Adversarial Legalism


Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 October 2020
Lawrence M. Friedman
Article
Metrics
Get access
ShareCiteRights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract


Robert A. Kagan’s influential book, first published at the beginning of the twenty-first century, is now brought up to date with a second edition. “Adversarial legalism,” in Kagan’s view, distinguishes law in the United States from the law of other developed countries in many ways, for example, heavy use of policymaking through litigation and punitive regulation, as opposed to bureaucratic and conciliatory techniques. He suggests that this situation is likely to continue. This essay, however, looks at the same phenomena from the standpoint of similarities rather than differences. It suggests that powerful economic and cultural forces, common to the modern world of developed countries, tend to push the legal systems of these countries in parallel directions. Convergence, rather than divergence, is therefore the trend in the legal systems of the Western world; and this trend is likely to continue in the future.
TypeReview Essays
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , November 2020 , pp. 1170 - 1184
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2020.32[Opens in a new window]
Copyright
© 2020 American Bar Foundation

Access optionsGet 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.)

Check access

Institutional login
We recognised you are associated with one or more institutions that don't have access to this content. If you should have access, please contact your librarian.Access through your institution

Personal login
Log in with your Cambridge Core account or society details.Log in


Footnotes



Lawrence M. Friedman is the Marion Rice Kirkwood Professor of Law at the Stanford University School of Law, with a courtesy appointment as well in the Department of History. He can be reached at the Stanford Law School, Crown Quadrangle, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His phone number is 650-862-8194. Email: lmf@stanford.edu.

I want to acknowledge the enormous help I enjoyed from the Stanford Law Library staff.

References

REFERENCES





Aoki, Kazumasu, and Cioffi, John. “Poles Apart: Industrial Waste Management Regulation and Enforcement in the United States and Japan.” In Regulatory Encounters: Multinational Corporations and American Adversarial Legalism. Edited by Kagan, Robert A. and Axelrad, Lee, 33–63. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000.Google Scholar


Baldwin, John, and McConville, Michael. “Plea Bargaining and Plea Negotiation in England.” Law & Society Review 13, no. 2 (1979): 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar


Farhang, Sean. The Litigation State: Public Regulation and Private Lawsuits in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar


Friedman, Lawrence M., and Ladinsky, Jack. “Social Change and the Law of Industrial Accidents.” Columbia Law Review 67, no. 1 (1967): 50–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar


Galanter, Marc. “The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 1, no. 3 (2004): 459–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar


Galanter, Marc. “More Lawyers Than People.” In The Paradox of Professionalism; Lawyers and the Possibility of Justice. Edited by Cummings, Scott L., 68–89. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar


Hensler, Deborah R. “From Sea to Shining Sea: How and Why Class Actions Are Spreading Globally.” Kansas Law Review 65 (2017): 965–88.Google Scholar


Kagan, Robert A. “The ‘Non-Americanisation’ of European Law.” European Political Science 7 (2008): 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar


Kagan, Robert A.. “Globalization and Legal Change: The ‘Americanization’ of European Law?” Regulation and Governance 1 (2007): 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar


Langer, Maximo. “From Legal Transplants to Legal Translations: The Globalization of Plea Bargaining and the Americanization Thesis in Criminal Procedure.” Harvard International Law Journal 45, no. 1 (2004): 1–64.Google Scholar


Nelson, William. Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2000.Google Scholar


Nielsen, Laura Beth. “Employee Termination Practices in the United States and Canada.” In Regulatory Encounters: Multinational Corporations and American Adversarial Legalism. Edited by Kagan, Robert A. and Axelrad, Lee, 225–54. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000.Google Scholar


Vogel, David. The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012.Google Scholar


Whitman, James Q. Harsh Justice: Criminal Punishment and the Widening Divide Between America and Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

CASES





Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 128 S. Ct. 1612 (2018).Google Scholar


Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch (5 U.S.) 113 (1803).Google Scholar


National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).Google Scholar


Valle v. Florida, 564 U.S. 1067 (2011).Google Scholar