Reflections on the sociology of law: A rejection of law as 'socially marginal'

Rejecting the concept of law as subservient to social pathology, the principle aim of this article is to locatc law as a critical matter of social structure - and power - which requires to be considered as a central element in the construction of society and social institutions. As such, this article contends that wider jurisprudential notions such as legal procedure and procedural justice, and juridical power and discretion are cogent, robust normative social concerns (as much as they are legal concerns) that positively require consideration and representation in the ernpifical study of sociological phenomena. Reflecting upon scholarship and research evidence on legal procedure and decision-making, the article attempts to elucidate the inter-relationship between power, 'the social', and the operation of law. It concludes that law is not 'socially marginal' but socially, totally central. (c) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The sociology of childhood as scientific communication - Observations from a social systems perspective

This article begins by identifying a close relationship between the image of children generated by several sociologists working within the new sociology of childhood perspective and the claims and ambitions of the proponents of children's autonomy rights. The image of the child as a competent, self-controlled human agent are then subjected to observation from the perspective of Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory. The new sociology of childhood's constructivist approach is compared and contrasted with Niklas Luhmann's theory of 'operational constructivism'. The article applies tenets of Luhmann's theory, to the emergence of the new childhood sociologist's image of the child as a competent, self-controlled social agent, to the epistemological status of this image and, in particular, to claims that it derives from scientific endeavour. The article proceeds to identify two theoretical developments within sociology - sociology of identity and social agency - which have brought about fundamental changes in what may be considered 'sociological' and so 'scientific' and paved the way for sociological communications about what children,really are'. In conclusion, it argues that the merging of sociology with polemics, ideology, opinion and personal beliefs and, at the level of social systems, between science and politics represents in Luhmann's terms 'dedifferentiation'- a tendency he claims may have serious adverse consequences for modern society. This warning is applied to the scientific status of sociology - its claim to be able to produce 'facts' for society, upon which social systems, such as politics and law, may rely. Like the mass media, sociology may now be capable of producing only information, and not facts, about children.

Ensuring operational compliance and ethical responsibility in the regulation of ART: the HFEA, past, present, and future

Under the Public Bodies Bill 2010, the HFEA, cornerstone in the regulation of assisted reproduction technologies (ART) for the last twenty years, is due to be abolished. This implies that there is no longer a need for a dedicated regulator for ART and that the existing roles of the Authority as both operational compliance monitor, and instance of ethical evaluation, may be absorbed by existing healthcare regulators. This article presents a timely analysis of these disparate functions of the HFEA, charting reforms adopted in 2008 and assessing the impact of the current proposals. Taking assisted conception treatment as the focus activity, it will be shown that the last few years have seen a concentration on the HFEA as a technical regulator based upon the principles of Better Regulation, with little analysis of how the ethical responsibility of the Authority fits into this framework. The current proposal to abolish the HFEA continues to fail to address this crucial question. Notwithstanding the fact that the scope of the Authority's ethical role may be questioned, its abolition requires that the Government consider what alternatives exists - or need to be put in place - to provide both responsive operational regulation and a forum for ethical reflection and decision-making in an area which continues to pose regulatory challenges