Purposive Interaction And Adjudication

As a famous contemporary theorist in jurisprudence, Lon. Fuller is not only famous for the internal morality of legislation to, but also he is famous for his deep discussion in the judicial process, mediation, arbitration and other procedures. His theory of adjudication had a great impact on generations after him. Exploring his theory of adjudication helps us broaden our understanding of Fuller's jurisprudence, in the wider field of view, also helps us in focusing on the internal system of Fuller's legal theory. Also, we can learn the development and reform of American adjudication in sixties and seventies of the 20th century in which Fuller lived.Fuller's theory of adjudication and his general theory can be concerned with the purposive interaction associated and the framework of his theory. Fuller's jurisprudence demands that the legal systems are for the purpose of providing a baseline and borders of human interaction. In this context, people are free to interact with others for their own aim and to achieve their pursuit. The institution is the result of a long time human interaction and the co-expression of human sharing purposes. To this end, each of the system has its own internal purposes or internal requirements in order to achieve the purpose of promoting interaction. What we have to do is based on the inherent requirements of the various systems for human interactive services, not for the purpose of any real external change system.On this basis, Fuller pointed out that the internal property of adjudication is that the parties in judicial procedure have presentation of proofs and reasoned arguments, in other words, the reason of parties involved is restricting judges activities. High demand of reason is the nature of the judicial process, while the adversarial process of participation is the expression. On one hand this is because the court referee will give the parties guidelines of their interaction with expectation, which requires the effective participation of the parties to convince the decision, giving stabilize expectations for the interaction between the parties, on the other hand it is also an interaction between the official and citizens.After seventies of the 20th century, Fuller was severely criticized by the judicial model of public law litigation of Abram Chayes and Owen M. Fiss. They took Fuller's judicial model as a traditional model or model of dispute resolution, and they think that Fuller's judicial model presupposes an atomic individualism which only considers private interests. In this model, the isolated individual cannot resolve a conflict of private interest would put the dispute to a neutral third party stranger processing, once the dispute settlement that restored natural harmony. This jurisdiction neglect public values of the social justice and norms for the community to provide the function of the general, and the role of judicial process reform on the social structure, and therefore cannot explain the structural reform litigation——the typical case is Brown vs. Board of Education——in Civil Rights Movement.However, sticking to the theoretical framework we found Fuller's view of society not atomic individualism. He stressed that the entity of society in an interaction all the time, each person involved in the reciprocity and common aims, in the process of which evolved social norms. Adjudication is to define norms and make judgments in the means of reciprocity and common aims while there are no clear norms. In this sense, Fuller does not oppose the idea that the judicial procedures will affect social structure. His disagreement with Fiss is in demarcation of the border on the administration of adjudication. Fuller aims hat if a transaction if the public perception of their differences over a huge gap exists, the party general framework of reasoning does not exist, the parties cannot participate effectively to ensure the purposive interaction——Effective participation is an inherent requirement of jurisdiction——in which case if the court enforce the referee will make difficulties for the interaction between the parties. The parties will also be disappointed of judicial process which will undermine the credibility of the judicial process. It is not correct that Fiss and others tip fuller's theory of the label affixed dispute resolution without understanding his theoretical framework.