Max Weber`s work is one of the classic texts of social law theory. But while most scholars praise Weber`s contribution to the history of the discipline, few consider his work essential to understanding the modern dynamics of legal change in a globalized world. In particular, scholars working in rational choice theory, autopoietic systems theory (Luhman), and discourse theory (Habermas) believe that Weber`s perspective needs to be replaced by new theories. In the recent rise of sociological/historical studies of “new institutionalist” social law, Weber is still present, but barely mentioned. In my contribution, I focus on three elements of Weber`s sociology of law that have received little attention so far: Weber-inspired ideas about the charisma of law, rationality in law, and the legal aspect of democratic legitimacy. To show that these elements can contribute to contemporary research, I apply them to the emergence of judicial control in post-communist Eastern Europe. The essay attempts to combine three lines of literature: the sociology of law, the American political science “Law and Courts” and the literature of the “transition to democracy”. She argues that Weberian theory should be integrated into the neo-institutionalist critique of behaviorism. An analysis of UNITA`s internal war structure. The purpose of this article is to take up the concept of “office charisma” as introduced by Max Weber in his sociology of religions. Weber`s conceptualization seems incomplete and is used only to characterize a form of degeneration of personal charisma, more precisely as the form that charisma takes when it becomes commonplace. The discussion of this hypothesis requires a re-examination of the sources used by Weber, namely the canon law of Rudoph Sohm, published in 1892.

From Sohm, Weber drew the opposite pair of personal charisma and office charisma. Canon law was published in a Lutheran context, and it seems that Weber, in his interpretation and secularization of the term cha-risma, remained a prisoner of Lutheran commandments; In particular, they prevented a truly autonomous characterization of the “office charisma.” But Sohm`s book continued to inspire reflection on the question of charism among Catholics; in particular, it led them to rediscover the pneumatic dimension in their theology of the Church and ministries. The question therefore arises as to whether Catholic theology, or more precisely its ecclesiology, could allow us to think differently about the charism, especially in its relation to the institution, so that this ecclesiology is a possible crossroads for the sociology of the charism. In the light of this Catholic reflection, how can we reconstruct an alternative concept of ministerial charism? Central Asian politics theorizes state, ideology and power.