The New Legal Paradigm of Jean Cohen and Its Implication for Public Online Dispute Resolution

寇恩新法律典範對公共線上爭議解決機制之啟發

陳起行(Chishing Chen)

reflexive ； self-regulation ； co-original ； legal principle ； public online dispute resolution ； 自發性 ； 自律 ； 戶生性 ； 法律原則 ； 公共線上爭議解決

歐美研究

37卷4期（2007 / 12 / 01）

513 - 533

英文

Cohen improves Teubner's reflexive legal paradigm to insure self-regulation stays in contact with the society-wide formation of public opinion and legal principles. This article discusses Cohen's paradigm and Sturm's analysis of the sexual harassment issue as the second generation of labor discrimination, which is compatible to Cohen's model. The author then illustrates how an improvement of Dworkin's theory of adjudication that emphasizes the inclusion of social dialogue can strengthen Cohen's paradigm, and how the development of public online dispute resolution can be an important step towards realizing Cohen's ideal.

寇恩（Jean Cohen）改善屠布涅（Gunther Teubner）的自發性法律，以確保自律不會背離社會公共意見以及法律原則的要求。本文探討寇恩的法律理論以及史東（Susan Sturm）運用相容的理論解讀性騷擾這項美國第二代勞動歧視法律的發展。作者並且進一步指出，德渥金（Ronald Dworkin）的裁判理論可以藉由寇恩的法律典範加強社會對話，而後者的理論也會因此更形完整。最後，本文建議發展公共線上爭議解決機制，做為落實寇恩法律典範重要的一步。

1. Chen, C.(2003).Reno v. ACLU-A case study of internet regulation and the court.EurAmerica,33(3),191-220.
   連結：
2. Balkin, J. M.(2004).Digital speech and democratic culture: A theory of freedom of expression for the information society.New York University Law Review,79,1-55.
3. Chen, C.,C-K. Chiao (Ed.)(2007).Essays on important decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court: 2000-2003.Taipei:Institute of European and American Studies, Academia Sinica.
4. Chen, C.,O. Zetterquist (Ed.)(2004).Law and modernity: Particular problems.Krakow, Poland:Polpress.
5. Cohen, J.(2002).Regulating intimacy: A new legal paradigm.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
6. Cohen, J. L.,Arato, A.(1992).Civil society and political theory.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
7. Dworkin, R.(1977).Taking rights seriously.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
8. Ehrlich, E.(1975).Fundamental principles of the sociology of Law.New York, NY:Arno.
9. Etzioni, A.(2004).Response.Chicago-Kent Law Review,79,299-313.
10. Etzioni, A.(2004).On protecting children from speech.Chicago-Kent Law Review,79,3-53.
11. Fiss, O. M.(1995).Emerging media technology and the first amendment: In search of a new paradigm.Yale Law Journal,104,1613-1618.
12. Goldstein, P.(1997).Copyright and its substitute.Wisconsin Law Review,1997,865-871.
13. Habermas, J.,W. Rehg (Trans.)(1996).Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy.Cambridge, UK:Polity.
14. Katsh, E.,Rifkin, J.(2001).Online dispute resolution: Resolving conflicts in cyberspace.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
15. Katsh, M. E.(1989).The first amendment and technological Change: The new media has a message.George Washington Law Review,57,1459-1478.
16. Lodder, A, R.,Zeleznikow, J.(2005).Developing an online dispute resolution environment: Dialogue tools and negotiation support systems in a three-step model.Harvard Negotiation Law Review,10,287-337.
17. Lodder, A. R.,Huygen, P. E. M.,B. Verheij,A. R. Lodder,R. P. Loui,A. J. Muntjewerff (Eds.)(2001).Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2001: The fourteenth annual conference.Amsterdam, Netherland:IOS.
18. Perritt, H.(2000).Dispute resolution in cyberspace: Demand for new forms of ADR.Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution,15,675-703.
19. Ponte, L.(2002).The Michigan Cyber Court: A bold experiment in the development of the first public virtual courthouse.North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology,4,51-91.
20. Ramasastry, A.(2004).Government-to-citizen online dispute resolution: A preliminary inquiry.Washington Law Review,79,159-174.
21. Schultz, T.(2004).Does online dispute resolution need governmental intervention? The case for architectures of control and trust.North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology,6,71-106.
22. Sturm, S.(1991).A normative theory of public law remedies.Georgetown Law Journal,79,1357-1446.
23. Sturm, S.(2001).Second generation employment discrimination: A structural approach.Columbia Law Review,101,458-568.
24. Teubner, G.(1983).Substantive and reflexive elements in modern law.Law & Society Review,17,239-286.
25. Teubner, G.,M. Rosenfeld,A. Arato (Eds.)(1998).Habermas on law and democracy.Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.
26. Winston, K. (Ed.)(2001).The principles of social order: Selected essays of Lon L. Fuller.Portland, OR:Hart.

1. Chen Chi-Shing(2008).Toward a Discursive Basis of Public Reason in the Internet World.東吳法律學報,19(4),1-30.
2. 陳起行(2007)。美國數位著作保護的法理論述。臺大法學論叢，36(2)，131-164。
3. 陳起行(2008)。台灣法律資料庫及其個人資料之保護。法令月刊，59(6)，99-109。
4. 李俊增(2012)。程序主義與反思（身）法典範之爭：從哈伯馬斯對韋伯法理論之批判談起。歐美研究，42(1)，83-165。