Das Dokument besteht aus einem "Geleitwort zur Reihe" der HerausgeberInnen und einer nicht namentlich gezeichneten Projektbeschreibung. Dt. Zusammenfassung der Projektbeschreibung: Das Projekt ist ein Beitrag zur insb. seit den 1980er Jahren geführten Debatte über die Verrechtlichung (span. juridificación) des Sozialen. Daß dieser Begriff im Deutschen und Spanischen, nicht aber bspw. im Englischen existiert, verweist auf den breiteren rechtshistorischen und rechtstheoretischen Rahmen, in den dieses Projekt eingebettet ist: Auf die dem deutschen und spanischen Begriff des Rechtsstaats / Estado de Derecho eigene Entgegensetzung von (metaphysischem) Recht und (parlamentarischem) Gesetz, die weder das britische Konzept der rule of law noch das französische Konzept des État légal kennen. Die Verrechtlichung wurde bisher vor allem anhand der Praxis der staatlichen Verwaltungen sowie der Arbeits- und Wirtschaftsbeziehungen untersucht. Weitergehend ist aber zu fragen, ob eine solche Verrechtlichungsstrategie auch erfolgreich sein kann, wenn ein höheres Konfliktniveau vorliegt. Deshalb soll hier die Verrechtlichung im internationalen Vergleich anhand eines Extrembeispiels analysiert werden: der scharfen politischen und bewaffneten Konfrontation zwischen dem bundesdeutschen Staat und der Roten Armee Fraktion (RAF) sowie dem spanischen Staat und den Grupos de Resistencia Antifascista Primero de Octubre (Antifaschistische Widerstandsgruppen 1. Oktober - GRAPO). Dabei sollte auch die Debatte über den Rechtsstaat eine neue Wendung erfahren: Während diese bisher auf den Gegensatz zwischen Nord- und Westeuropa einerseits sowie Süd- und Mitteleuropa andererseits fixiert war, sollen hier interne Differenzierungen des Rechtsstaats-Konzeptes analysiert werden: So soll nach dem Einfluß gefragt werden, den die unterschiedlichen politischen Situationen in Spanien und der BRD zum Zeitpunkt des Beginns jener Kämpfe und die unterschiedlichen ideologischen Vorstellungen von RAF und GRAPO/PCE(r) auf die Reaktionen der jeweiligen Staatsapparate hatten (und im Falle Spaniens: weiterhin haben). Was sind die Unterschiede und Ähnlichkeiten der Transformation politischer „Feinde” (Carl Schmitt) in die juristische Kategorie von ‚Angeklagten‘?

Julia Macher / Katrin Stranz Spanien und Deutschland – Zwei konvergierende Sonderwege? The aim of the paper was to verify if there exists a 'special way' (Sonderweg) in Germany and Spain towards modernity and how this concept is being discussed in the national historiographies. Although both historiographies partly defend the thesis of a 'special way' or 'specific evolution', these concepts differ on important points. Moreover, the theory of Sonderweg as formulated by the 'school of Bielefeld' (Bielefelder Studie) - with its inherent analytical problems - proved to be only limited as an analytical instrument of comparison between the two countries in explaining the emergence of the Constitutional State and the predominance of an anti- positivistic concept of law. Following a historical and methodological analysis of the ‘Sonderweg’ concept, the study aims to provide a comparison between modern Spain and Germany, examining in parts the constitutional history, the history of Ideas (the myth of the Reich/reino and the ‘crisis of modernity’) and the evolution of the bourgeoisie in both countries. The study shows that despite important structural differences between Germany and Spain, there are indeed similarities in particular as concerns the creation of a national identity in antagonism to France as well as in the discussions amongst liberals of both countries, being closely connected to the political romanticism. In conclusion, the authors of the study put forward recommendations on how the evolution and concept of the Rechtsstaat in both countries can be analysed by a history of law approachment. Emilia Girón Reguera El Estado de Derecho en España (Juridificación / Judicialización) The paper describes the process of juridification of the society and of executive power, which is developed in Spain from the establishing of Rule of Law and Welfare State by the Constitution of 1978. Firstly it is argued, that it is impossible to claim, that there was already a rule of law in the Franco’s period. Secondly it is shown, that juridification – besides other factors – has reinforced the judicialisation of law, and it is advised of the risk that judicial activism, especially by the Constitutional Court, has for the democratic system, because it could imply a transfer of political power form the legislator the judge. Finally the paradox is highlighted, that the neo- liberal politics of the last years have reduced the degree of normative intervention of the State, however there has not been any equivalent reduction of judicialisation. Detlef Georgia Schulze Lehren und Leerstellen – Schlußfolgerungen The paper regarding Sonderweg shows, that the German Sonderweg-hypothesis as well as similar Spanish concepts were strongly criticised in the last two decades. But it seems this criticism relies not on an empirical disproving of the claimed German and Spanish particularities. Rather the theoretical concepts, which were used to analyse these particularities, are disputed. In deed the modernisation theory paradigm of the Bielefeld Version of the Sonderweg-hypothesis should be rejected. But the reason is not “too much”, rather “too less” structural Marxism. The German and the Spanish course of history should be analysed no as deviation of a universal norm of history, rather as a sequence of societal struggles (with specific results, which determined the further development). One of the Spanish and German particularities to be analysed is the strong juridification and judicialisation of politics, which derives from the Rechtsstaat-concept. As the paper summarising the Spanish discussion about juridification shows, juridification in Spain is mainly seen as desirable anti-dictatorial consequence from the supposed positivism, which alleged was used by the Franquist judicial state apparatus for the strong and precise application of Franquist law. A reanalysis of the arguments reviewed within the paper suggests: Positivism and formalism of the Franco period are a great myth designed for acquitting the Spanish judicial state apparatus on having been an active and willing part of the regime and for legitimating judicial activism contra nowadays democratic legislator. Julia Macher / Katrin Stranz Antwortpapier auf „Lehren und Leerstellen“. Schlussfolgerungen aus der Studie und Diskussion zur These vom „deutsch-spanischen Sonderweg“ The answer briefly sums up the authors' main points of criticism concerning the validity of the ‘Sonderweg’ concept as an instrument of historical comparison between Spain and Germany. Based on the similarities between both countries as regards the history of Ideas and the history of liberalism, the authors advocate for a more accurate European investigation of juridical history. Such an investigation would allow analysing links between the Constitutional State and state-centred-antiliberal traditions. This approach could also offer an alternative to a mere revision of the theory of Sonderweg and provide new theoretical perspectives. Emilia Girón Reguera Respuesta / Antwort In the answer to the reflections of Dr. Schulze his point of view, that Constitutional Courts are a danger for the democratic political system, is criticised. In contrast to it the view is defended that it is the basic challenge of the present constitutional state to guarantee an adequate balance between the democratic legislator and the constitutional jurisdiction, and thereby to resolve their relation of tension in a balanced manner. Also the authors’ point of view of the apparent neutrality of the judiciary in the Franco-era is clarified and it is pointed out that the judicial activism was favoured by the process of the increasing juridification in Spain after the acceptance of the constitution.