Harmonizing the German Civil Code of the Nineteenth Century with a Modern Constitution - The Lueth Revolution 50 Years Ago in Comparative Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article explains the task of German law to bring a Civil Code that came into force in 1900 as a consequence of nineteenth century legal science in line with the German Constitution of 1949. In 1958, the highest German court solved this in Lueth and gave its most important decision about the reach of constitutional rights and the importance of free speech. The Lueth case, which is about a boycott against a film of a former director of a Nazi film, is not just a fascinating story of law. The German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG]) also developed the indirect horizontal application of constitutional rights to private law. This represents a new concept of primacy of constitutional law that has been noticed and discussed around the world. Therefore, the constitutional and private law setting of the decision and its consequences will be explained in the following. This will be done by highlighting the differences and commonalties to the U.S. development and by using the general personality right as example of the indirect application of constitutional rights to private actors. The paper closes with more general observations regarding the effect of the Lueth decision on e.g. Canadian, South African, Greek and EU law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".