37
2591-2259 / This is an open access article under the CC-BY-SA license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
DOI: 10.17573/cepar.2025.1.02 1.01 Original scientific article
Law and Individualism: Balancing 
Rights, Responsibilities, and Group 
Dynamics
Mirko Pečarič
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Public Administration, Slovenia
mirko.pecaric@fu.uni-lj.si
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0551-5682
Received: 1. 2. 2025
Revised: 2. 5. 2025
Accepted: 13. 5. 2025
Published: 20. 5. 2025
ABSTRACT
Purpose: This article critically examines the interplay between individu-
alism and collectivism in legal systems. It argues that the law remains 
disproportionately focused on individual rights and duties, even though 
group dynamics demonstrably shape behaviour. The paper therefore 
calls for the formal recognition of informal groups and the integration of 
collective responsibility to reflect current social realities more accurately.
Methodology: Employing a historical-legal and interdisciplinary lens, the 
study traces the evolution of individualism from Roman law to modern 
legal frameworks. It combines comparative legal analysis, theoretical cri-
tique, and normative analysis to propose legal reforms that reconcile in-
dividual autonomy with collective accountability.
Findings: Historically, legal systems have privileged individualism and un-
derestimated the influence of groups. As a result, informal collectives of-
ten lack protection and meaningful participation in legal processes. This 
over-emphasis on the individual hampers effective responses to systemic 
discrimination, environmental harm, and labour rights violations. Al-
though certain branches—such as corporate and environmental law—im-
plicitly recognise collective responsibility, explicit mechanisms to balance 
individual and group interests are still required. Flexible legal models can 
integrate group accountability without eroding personal rights.
Practical implications: Conferring limited legal personality on informal 
groups would enable them to assert rights without full formalisation. A 
calibrated balance between individual and collective liability would en-
hance the law’s capacity to address problems that demand shared re-
sponsibility. Strengthening collective legal tools—such as class actions, 
trade unions, and community governance—would improve legal repre-
sentation, while the use of AI-enabled digital platforms could foster par-
ticipatory law-making and deliver fairer legal structures.
Keywords: individualism, collective responsibility, group dynamics, informal groups
Pečarič, M. (2025). Law and Individualism: Balancing Rights, Responsibilities, and 
Group Dynamics. 
Central European Public Administration Review, 23(1), pp. 37–62

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
38
Mirko Pečarič
Pravo in individualizem: uravnoteženje pravic, 
odgovornosti in skupinske dinamike
POVZETEK
Namen: Članek kritično obravnava preplet individualizma in kolektivizma 
v pravnih sistemih. Avtor trdi, da je pravo nesorazmerno osredotočeno 
na individualne pravice in dolžnosti, čeprav skupinska dinamika dokazano 
oblikuje vedenje. Zato poziva k formalnemu priznanju neformalnih skupin 
in vključitvi kolektivne odgovornosti, s čimer bi pravo natančneje odraža-
lo sodobno družbeno stvarnost.
Metodologija: S historično-pravnim in interdisciplinarnim pristopom štu-
dija sledi razvoju individualizma od rimskega prava do sodobnih pravnih 
okvirov. Združuje primerjalnopravno analizo, teoretsko kritiko in norma-
tivno analizo ter predlaga reforme, ki usklajujejo individualno avtonomijo 
s kolektivno odgovornostjo.
Ugotovitve: Zgodovinsko gledano so pravni sistemi privilegirali indivi-
dualizem in podcenjevali vpliv skupin. Posledično neformalne skupine 
ne uživajo ustrezne zaščite in smiselne udeležbe v pravnih postopkih. To 
pretirano poudarjanje posameznika ovira učinkovite odzive na sistemsko 
diskriminacijo, okoljsko škodo in kršitve delavskih pravic. Čeprav nekatera 
področja – na primer korporacijsko in okoljsko pravo – implicitno prizna-
vajo kolektivno odgovornost, so za uravnoteženje interesov posameznika 
in skupnosti še vedno potrebni izrecni mehanizmi. Prilagodljivi pravni mo-
deli lahko vključijo skupinsko odgovornost, ne da bi pri tem razvrednotili 
osebne pravice.
Praktične posledice: Podelitev omejene pravne subjektivitete neformal-
nim skupinam bi jim omogočila uveljavljanje pravic brez popolne forma-
lizacije. Uravnoteženo razmerje med individualno in kolektivno odgovor-
nostjo bi okrepilo sposobnost prava za reševanje problemov, ki zahtevajo 
deljeno odgovornost. Krepitev kolektivnih pravnih orodij – kot so skupin-
ske tožbe, sindikati in skupnostno upravljanje – bi izboljšala pravno zasto-
panje, uporaba digitalnih platform z umetno inteligenco pa bi lahko spod-
bujala participativno oblikovanje prava in pravičnejše pravne strukture.
Ključne besede: individualizem, kolektivna odgovornost, skupinska dinamika, nefor-
malne skupine
JEL: K23
1 Introduction
Since prehistoric times, humans have lived in collectives, from basic family 
units and tribal communities to more complex modern forms of association, 
such as companies, political parties, trade unions, or NGOs. Although the in-
fluence of group dynamics on individual agency has long been recognized 
(and acknowledged) in social science disciplines such as sociology, psychol-
ogy, and anthropology, legal scholarship remains largely individual-centred; 
it deals with groups only indirectly or through limited formal structures such 
as legal persons. This discrepancy between social reality and the legal system 

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
39
Law and Individualism: Balancing Rights, Responsibilities, and Group Dynamics
raises the question of whether reality should be adapted to law or vice versa. 
Whatever the answer, the fact remains that legal scholarship insists on an in-
dividualistic approach despite the major role of groups in the lives and behav-
iour of individuals. Of course, the legal system also recognizes the existence 
of groups (e.g. families, religious communities, businesses or local communi-
ties), but it often does so in a limited and superficial way (legal regimes on the 
functioning of groups address the governance of individuals within them but 
rarely include the specificities of group dynamics that can decisively influence 
the behaviour of individuals within them. The individual is therefore always 
“blamed” or thanked as an individual, not as part of a group that has influ-
enced his or her “individual” behaviour.
Individualism, as the central paradigm of contemporary legal scholarship, 
emphasizes the autonomy of the individual, his inalienable dignity and rights. 
This approach is the result of a historical development that has focused on 
protecting the individual against abuse of power and ensuring a legal order 
in which every individual is treated as an equal legal subject. However, this 
paradigm also has shortcomings about the (failure to) consider the collective 
influence of groups on the individual. Individuals are inextricably linked to 
groups such as family, community, cultural and religious groups that shape 
their behaviours, norms, and values. Legal scholarship that focuses solely on 
the individual often neglects these connections. Individualism can overlook 
the needs and rights of groups, such as minority communities or indigenous 
peoples, whose identity and interests are inextricably linked to the group 
context. Individualist-based legal scholarship can make collective action to 
enforce rights, such as trade union struggles or class actions, difficult. Legal 
scholarship often recognizes only formal groups (such as legal persons), while 
the influence of informal groups such as interest groups or local communi-
ties is ignored. Individualism legally treats responsibility as personal, which 
can make it difficult to address collective responsibility, for example, in the 
case of war crimes, environmental disasters, or systemic discrimination. The 
individualist approach assumes that all individuals are equal before the law 
but ignores structural inequalities arising from social and economic differ-
ences. Considering the above-mentioned problems, this paper will address is-
sues related to the focus on the individual and his/her relationship to groups. 
The central research question concerns the regulation of the relationship 
between individual and collective responsibility and ways to regulate more 
effectively the impact of both informal and formal groups on the individual. 
The lack of an adequate legal framework to address groups leads to legal 
and social problems, including collective responsibility and heterogeneity of 
interests within groups. On the other hand, insisting on individualism risks 
making law an ineffective tool for ensuring justice in an increasingly complex 
social environment. After a historical-legal overview of the development of 
individualism in the next section, Chapter 3 examines the impact of groups on 
individual behaviour, to move on to the legal treatment of formal and infor-
mal groups. On this basis, Chapter 5 sets out the possibilities for future devel-
opments, which should also reflect the role of groups in society, followed by 
a conclusion in Chapter 6.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
40
Mirko Pečarič
2 The Historical-legal Development of Individualism
2.1 Roman Law as the Basis of Individualism
Roman law is the basis for modern legal systems because of its focus on in-
dividual rights and duties. Its fundamental conception was based on the con-
cept of the subject as a legal subject who had the capacity to be the bearer 
of rights and duties, which made a key contribution to the understanding 
and promotion of individualism. It focused on the distinction between per-
sons who were the bearers of rights (lat. persona) and the things (lat. res) that 
were the objects of those rights. This distinction allowed individuals to have 
precisely defined rights, including the right to property, inheritance, and obli-
gations. (Korošec, 1980) While Roman law also included collective structures 
such as families (lat. familia), urban communities (lat. civitates in municipia) 
and merchant associations (lat. collegia in societates), these collective units 
operated through individuals who were individually responsible for the ac-
tions of the group.1 Similarly, corporations and associations have only acted 
through individuals who have acted on their behalf.2 Because of its focus on 
the individual, Roman law provided a balance between legal certainty and pre-
dictability, which allowed for an effective and stable legal order in a complex 
society such as the Roman Empire. It is therefore reasonable to argue that Ro-
man law, with all its peculiarities, was a key contributor to the development of 
the concept of individualism that shapes modern legal and social structures.
2.2 The Middle Ages Collective Responsibility and Feudalism
The Middle Ages offer a contrasting insight into the development of legal 
systems, as it is a period of collective responsibility and feudal regulation. 
One of the key features of medieval legal systems was collective communal 
responsibility, where local communities were often punished for the actions 
of individuals;3 this practice, which recognizes the influence of the individual 
on the collective, has strengthened the cohesion of the community, while at 
the same time limiting the rights of the individual and raising questions about 
the fairness of such an arrangement. Collective punishments burden innocent 
members of society, encroaching on the individualism that is also familiar in 
modern law (existing military and other conflicts where innocent victims are 
recorded, or actions taken against the wider community for the actions of 
one or a small group of people4). In a feudal society, where social classes were 
clear and impermeable, legal systems ensured that the nobility, peasantry, 
and clergy were treated differently. The social hierarchy thus created inequal-
1 For example, the “pater familias” had an authoritative position in the family, and his role em-
phasised individual responsibility for the legal actions of all family members.
2 Urban communities had elected or appointed officials who acted on behalf of the communi-
ty; thus, contracts for the construction of public buildings (e.g. aqueducts or temples) were 
awarded by these officials. Associations appointed individuals (e.g. magister collegii or actor) 
to manage the day-to-day business and to conclude contracts on behalf of the association.
3 See e.g. (Barber, 2004; Glenn, 2004).
4 If a driver is caught by the police speeding, instead of just punishing him (and impounding the 
vehicle), the action taken is to reduce the speed of everyone on a given stretch of road.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
41
Law and Individualism: Balancing Rights, Responsibilities, and Group Dynamics
ities that today (at least legally5) would be inappropriate. Nevertheless, the 
historical context of the medieval system teaches us a lesson about the role 
of community and collective responsibility. Although anti individualist, such 
an approach reinforces a sense of community and establishes the founda-
tions for accountability within broader social structures. The question is how 
modern policies can strike a balance between preserving individual rights and 
promoting the collective responsibility that the Middle Ages were known for. 
If the system of collective responsibility was rooted in the need to maintain 
order, security, and stability at a time when the institutions of state power 
were weak, communication was slow, and modern legal systems were still 
underdeveloped, the question of how to integrate a system of collective re-
sponsibility into an otherwise prevalent and modern system of individual re-
sponsibility remains open.
2.3 Enlightenment and the Individual
Individualism as a fundamental paradigm of legal science is a concept that 
draws firmly on the philosophical debates of the Enlightenment, which pro-
duced thinkers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rous-
seau. In contrast to the doctrine of collectivism, which ignores the importance 
of individual rights and freedom, individualism offers a robust framework for 
regulation in modern society that respects the autonomy of the individual 
and his or her inherent rights. John Locke (1632–1704) is one of the key 
thinkers of the Enlightenment, whose works laid the foundations of liberal 
thought. In Two Treatises of Government (Locke, 2010), he introduced the con-
cept of natural rights which belong to every individual at birth. These rights 
include the right to life, liberty, and property. Locke argued that the primary 
function of government is to protect these rights, with power derived from 
the consent of the governed, which is the basis of the social contract. If the 
government violates natural rights, citizens have the right to rebel. Thomas 
Hobbes (1588–1679) in his work Leviathan (Hobbes, 1998) presented a vision 
of a society where individuals in their natural state live in constant fear of 
violent death, because life is “lonely, miserable, miserable, animalistic, and 
short”. To avoid this situation, individuals unite and enter a social contract in 
which they transfer all their rights to the sovereign in exchange for security 
and order. Although Hobbes advocates the absolute power of the sovereign, 
his approach is deeply individualistic, starting from the assumption that indi-
viduals act in their own self-interest and that the social order is the result of 
their rational agreement. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) in the Social 
Contract (Rousseau, 2001) introduced the concept of general will (fr. volonté 
générale), which represents the collective will of all citizens and is directed 
towards the common good. Rousseau believed that by entering a social con-
tract, individuals become part of a political community where they are subject 
5 Despite the constitutional prohibition of caste-based discrimination and numerous reforms, 
caste still exists as a social and cultural phenomenon in India. The caste system, based on the 
traditional division of society into four basic varnas (varnas) and numerous sub-castes (jatis), 
continues to have a profound impact on social relations, marriage, employment and political 
practices.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
42
Mirko Pečarič
to the general will, but in doing so they gain true freedom, since they act in 
accordance with their own will, which is aligned with the common good. Al-
though he stresses the importance of the community, Rousseau starts from 
an individualist perspective, where it is the individual who chooses to enter a 
social contract. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) in his moral philosophy empha-
sized the autonomy of the individual as the ability to act in accordance with 
one’s own rational understanding of the moral law. In Critique of Practical Rea-
son (Kant, 2003), he introduced the concept of the categorical imperative, 
which dictates that only those maxims should be acted upon which we can 
at the same time wish to become general laws. Kant’s philosophy is based on 
the belief that the individual is autonomous and capable of moral judgement, 
which is the basis for a legal order that respects individual freedom and dig-
nity. The Enlightenment thinkers laid the foundations for the emergence of 
modern legal systems by emphasizing reason, individual rights, and the social 
contract. Their ideas influenced the drafting of important documents such as 
the American Declaration of Independence (1776)6 and the French Declara-
tion on the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), which for the first time 
legally recognized fundamental human rights and freedoms.
2.4 Critique of Individualism
Individualism draws its philosophical-legal basis from the main ideas of the 
Enlightenment (natural rights, individual autonomy, and the social contract). 
Legal science, based on the historical-philosophical ideas of the Enlighten-
ment, focuses on the individual as the fundamental unit of rights and duties, 
rather than on the community. If such an understanding is “classical”, this 
word (lat. classis) has inversely developed as ‘any one of the five divisions into 
which Servius Tullius divided the Roman citizenry, armed forces, fleet, group, 
rank, class’ (Krüger, 2023), and from it the term classical as ‘serving as a stand-
ard of excellence’ (Merriam-Webster, 2025) (excellence in relation to class, 
community). This individualistic approach relies on the natural rights of the 
individual, which are still placed at the center of the social and legal order. The 
individual is thus treated in law as an autonomous subject, the bearer of rights 
such as the right to life, liberty, and property, and duties such as respect for 
the law and responsibility for one’s own actions. Although Enlightenment ide-
as have shaped modern legal systems, it must be asked whether these ideas 
are still sufficiently effective in today’s increasingly complex society. On the 
other hand, such an individualistic framework overlooks the fact that man is 
not an isolated entity most of the time, but a social being (zoon politikon) (Ar-
istotle, 1998) who begins and lives life in a community based on relationships 
and social cohesion. On the contrary, Hobbes, in Leviathan, also addressed 
natural rights, but (differently from Locke (in his vision of the social contract, 
he believed that natural rights in the state of nature lead to chaos. To avoid 
this, individuals voluntarily give up part of their natural rights in favour of a 
sovereign (ruler or government) who provides security and order. According 
6 In the opening lines of the US Declaration of Independence (1776), Jefferson proclaims that 
“all men are created equal” and that they are endowed with “unalienable rights”, including 
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
43
Law and Individualism: Balancing Rights, Responsibilities, and Group Dynamics
to Rousseau (Rousseau, 2001), individuals do not lose their natural rights by 
entering a social contract but transfer them to a collective body acting in ac-
cordance with the general will (volonté générale). The latter is now known in 
law as the public interest.7
Through the cognitive revolution of using language and imagined reality of 
nations and corporations, which are best exemplified by modern legal fic-
tions, homo sapiens outstripped all other human and animal species mainly 
with his ability to cooperate (Harari, 2014); although corporate, “fictional”, 
legal systems have played a key role in this shift, the industrial revolution and 
the development of capitalist economies on this basis have primarily enabled 
the legal protection of individuals, owners, and entrepreneurs. Such a legal 
evolution was not merely a necessity of the moment but an inevitable orienta-
tion towards the recognition of the intrinsic value of the individual. Although 
individualized legal science encourages progress and innovation and the em-
phasis on individual rights protects against oppression and discrimination and 
promotes personal responsibility and motivation to participate in the legal 
and social spheres, the question of the impact of collective action in these 
areas remains unresolved. In this context, the question arises of whether le-
gal theory and practice should remain within the framework of individualism 
or introduce a more inclusive approach that also recognizes the importance 
of the community. The reality of social co-existence certainly involves both 
individual and collective elements, as well as combinations thereof. Integrat-
ing collective aspects into legal thought is not just a theoretical move, but a 
necessary adjustment to ensure fairer and more effective legal systems that 
respect both the individual and the community.
2.5 The Evolution of Modern Legal Systems
The development of legal systems in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, 
based on Enlightenment principles, is one of the most important milestones 
in legal history and gives individual rights a key place in the legal paradigm. 
The continental, as well as the Anglo-American system, and international hu-
man rights law focus attention on the individual, with both legal and social 
benefits. The Code Napoléon (1804) was of great importance for the codifica-
tion of civil law; its system is based on the concept of individual rights and con-
tractual autonomy, which allowed for greater legal protection of individuals 
and freedom of contract. Similarly, the Anglo-American legal system, based 
on case law, plays an important role in protecting individual rights through 
judicial decisions. By relying on past cases, it creates stability and predicta-
bility, which not only protects individuals, but also promotes social develop-
ment. Finally, international human rights law, through documents such as the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), establishes the individual as 
the bearer of universal rights that must be protected by every state. This is 
invaluable in the quest for the equal treatment and protection of all individu-
7 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen already in Article 1 states that ‘people are 
born and live free and equal in rights. Social differences should only be based on the general 
interest’.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
44
Mirko Pečarič
als worldwide. While the implementation of these principles has always been 
somewhat uneven, it is a fact that setting a framework of universal standards 
is a crucial step towards improving global justice.
Even though the existence of states and modern legal systems is per se based 
on the idea of the social contract (where individual freedom or security de-
pends on collective regulation, where the protection of individual rights is also 
in the public interest), the philosophical basis developed through the ideas of 
Enlightenment thinkers remains at the heart of legal science.8 A key change 
in the evolution of legal systems has been the shift away from collective re-
sponsibility and towards greater individualism. Previously, the importance of 
the community had been emphasized, in the belief that social harmony de-
rives from collective responsibility and solidarity (Durkheim, 1984; Ferdinand 
Tönnies, 2001; MacIntyre, 2007; Polanyi, 2008). The historical development 
of attention to the individual, from Roman law to modern legal systems, re-
flects the development of human rights; despite its importance (which no 
one denies), this individualistic focus is partly outdated, as in some parts it 
no longer corresponds to the needs of a complex modern society.9 Historical 
events often reveal conflicts between individualism and collectivism, which 
are not only of an academic nature, but have important implications for the 
contemporary understanding of law and social structure. The first well-known 
example that highlights this conflict is the French Revolution, where the Dec-
laration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) marked a turning point 
in the recognition of inalienable human rights, while at the same time being 
inextricably linked to the collective movement for equality and freedom. The 
Revolution thus combined individual ideals with powerful − despite on the 
emphasis on the individual − collective efforts, which has created a complex 
dynamic between the individual and the community. On the other hand, the 
public interest has been and continues to be those who, according to the prin-
ciple of proportionality and through public services, can interfere with and re-
strict human rights.10 The next period of great change, industrialization in the 
19th century, brought a different challenge; the capitalist system of the time 
was based on individual contractual autonomy, which often led to exploita-
tive practices (Thompson, 2002). In response to this, a movement for collec-
tive workers’ rights began to develop, which was crucial to protect workers 
from systematic exploitation, and these developments show that collective 
efforts can improve individual living and working conditions. It is still the case 
that trade unions are one of the bargaining parties in collective agreements 
8 The practical implications of individualism in law are clear: contract law allows individuals to en-
ter contracts that suit their interests; criminal law ensures that liability is personal. This makes 
everyone accountable for their actions, which promotes accountability and justice; constitu-
tional law protects the fundamental, human rights of individuals from interference by the state 
or other groups, which is essential to guaranteeing individual freedom and autonomy.
9 One of the innovative aspects of the Nuremberg trials, which were based on the belief that 
war crimes and crimes against humanity could not be attributed solely to a state or an organi-
sation, but rather to the individuals who made the decisions and carried out the crimes, was 
the treatment of certain Nazi organisations (Schutzstaffel, Geheime Staatspolizei and NSDAP) as 
criminal organisations, which implicitly included collective responsibility (although judgements 
still required individual proof of the guilt of each member of a criminal organisation, underlin-
ing that the law was based on individual responsibility for crimes) (Taylor, 2013).
10 See supra n. 16.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
45
Law and Individualism: Balancing Rights, Responsibilities, and Group Dynamics
(which by its very name refers to the collective) and labour legislation, both in 
terms of working conditions and rights arising from work; as such, they apply 
even to those employees who are not union members and have never bar-
gained for their rights on their own behalf.
2.6 Critique of Historical Development
Despite the attractiveness and usefulness of the individualistic approach, 
there are also critics who point to some of its inherent limitations. According 
to Marx, individuals in a capitalist system are inevitably trapped in a class struc-
ture (Marx, 2018), which means that individual rights are often insufficient to 
protect their interests because these rights take place within a broader eco-
nomic context of inequality and exploitation. Durkheim highlights collective 
consciousness as fundamental to social cohesion, which is shaped by groups 
and shared values. He points out that individualistic legal systems often fail 
to take this collective dynamic into account, which can lead to a lack of social 
integration and consequently to increased social tension (Durkheim, 1984);11 
contemporary feminist theories also question individual autonomy, point-
ing out that it is often built on social norms that unequally privilege certain 
groups over others (Hooks, 2014); in this context, individualism is not only lim-
ited but also problematic, as it perpetuates systemic inequalities. Inequality is 
supposed to be the result of political, ideological, and systemic choices, not a 
natural consequence of economic laws or technological progress; it is the sys-
tems, their underlying structure, that enables and sustains inequality.12 Sys-
tems theory, which is well known today, is based on the idea that systems are 
networks of smaller systems; this multilayered structure of systems is closely 
coupled with multiple relations at the same time from which emerge some-
thing new that parts per se do not have. Holism manifests itself throughout 
the set and is not present in any part. Hannah Arendt described the inter-
11 Collective consciousness, as defined by Émile Durkheim (“the sum total of beliefs, ideas and 
moral attitudes common to the average members of society”), plays a key role in shaping the 
mechanisms of social control: it acts as an invisible force guiding individuals towards conform-
ity to social norms and values. Collective consciousness promotes stability and order in soci-
ety. In a world where norms and values are often diverse, collective consciousness provides 
the common ground that allows individuals to interact in a way that minimises conflicting 
interests. Such a common framework acts as a reference point that enables harmonious ac-
tion in the community. Collective consciousness is also crucial for internal control and self-
regulation of individuals – instead of relying solely on external punishment mechanisms such 
as laws and regulations, collective consciousness fosters an internal sense of responsibility 
and duty. This not only strengthens individual moral responsibility but also reduces the need 
for strict institutional control. Without the basic level of coherence and harmony provided by 
collective consciousness, social innovation would not be able to flourish due to the lack of a 
common goal or starting point. Collective consciousness, as conceived by Durkheim, remains 
a fundamental tool for understanding and implementing mechanisms of social control. Its 
ability to guide individuals towards cooperation and harmony provides a solid basis for peace-
ful and orderly social living, which is essential for the progress and development of any soci-
ety. Durkheim defined a social fact as any mode of acting, thinking or feeling which is external 
to the individual (is of a collective nature), exercises coercion or influence over the individual, 
exists independently of the individual’s behaviour and is part of the social order. Examples of 
social facts are laws, norms, traditions, customs, religious rites, language, economics, culture 
(Durkheim, 1982).
12 A good example is the elephant curve of global inequality, also referred as the Lakner-Mi-
lanovic graph or the global growth incidence curve that visually represents how income 
growth has been unevenly distributed across various global income groups (Lakner and Mila-
novic, 2013).

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
46
Mirko Pečarič
twined web of relations that have no weight in isolation, but in their common 
(if unintentional) connections take on a new appearance, a new result that 
cannot be attributed to anyone individually, as “nobody’s rule” (Arendt, 1972, 
p. 137), as perhaps one of the most powerful forms of man’s domination over 
man, which goes by the name of “bureaucracy”: it is ‘a legally complex sys-
tem of offices in which no one, not one, not the best, not a few, not many, 
can be held accountable’. Taken together, these criticisms reveal that the in-
dividualist approach, while attractive in design, can be flawed and prone to 
neglecting the broader social and economic structures that affect individual 
lives. Legal scholarship should − consistent with the findings of psychology, 
where the individual unconsciously follows the actions of other people and/
or groups (Asch, 1952; Milgram, 2009; Zimbardo, 2008) − reconcile individual 
and collective perspectives and recognize that groups are an integral part of 
human identity and rights. In this way, we can achieve a better relationship 
between the individual and the social community that meets the needs of 
modern society. Pope Francis speaks of a similar issue when he mentions the 
globalization of indifference;13 his idea could be seen as the continuation of 
pastor Niemöller’s poem First They Came.14
3 The Influence of Groups on Individual Behaviour
Man is an intrinsically social being. Everyone’s behaviour and thought process-
es are shaped by interactions with others, which is crucial to understanding 
human nature. This demonstrates that the groups to which an individual be-
longs – family, friends, work teams, or wider social communities – inevitably 
influence the formation of an individual’s attitudes, values, and behavioural 
patterns. This influence is an indispensable tool to understand dynamics in 
sociology and psychology. Human behaviour is thus not only the result of indi-
vidual choice but is also influenced by the groups within which individuals live 
and work. This was recognized (only) after World War II, particularly in the sec-
ond half of the 20th century, with the development of the third generation of 
human rights (also referred to as collective or solidarity rights), as a response 
13 The culture of comfort, which makes us think only of ourselves, makes us insensitive to the 
cries of other people, makes us live in soap bubbles which, however lovely, are insubstantial; 
they offer a fleeting and empty illusion which results in indifference to others; indeed, it even 
leads to the globalization of indifference. In this globalized world, we have fallen into global-
ized indifference. We have become used to the suffering of others: it doesn’t affect me; it 
doesn’t concern me; it’s none of my business (Pope Francis, 2013)!
14 First, they came for the Communists
 And I did not speak out
 Because I was not a Communist
 Then they came for the Socialists
 And I did not speak out
 Because I was not a Socialist
 Then they came for the trade unionists
 And I did not speak out
 Because I was not a trade unionist
 Then they came for the Jews
 And I did not speak out
 Because I was not a Jew
 Then they came for me
 And there was no one left
 To speak out for me (Niemoller, 2025).

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
47
Law and Individualism: Balancing Rights, Responsibilities, and Group Dynamics
to global challenges that transcend the borders of individual states. These 
rights are not only directed at individuals, but above all at communities, na-
tions or even humanity. We often associate them with ideas of solidarity, sus-
tainable development, peace and global justice. Examples include the right to 
peace, a clean environment, development, humanitarian aid or global justice.
The role of groups is a necessary component to understand the formation 
of identities and social norms. Recognizing the interactive nature of human 
existence opens the door to a deeper understanding of the ways in which 
social policies and programs to address societal challenges foster positive 
interpersonal relations. That groups influence individual behaviour is diffi-
cult to ignore from personal experience, as confirmed by several academic 
studies: the Asch conformity experiment (Asch, 1952), Milgram’s obedience 
experiment (Milgram, 2009), the Stanford prison experiment,(Zimbardo, 
2008) or Sherif’s experiment on the autokinetic effect (Sherif, 1988). This 
influence is manifested through various mechanisms, the most important of 
which are conformity,15 group polarization,16 and social impact.17 The influ-
ence of groups on individual behaviour is not only present but also complex. 
Understanding these mechanisms is the key to creating constructive group 
environments that also promote critical thinking and individual autonomy 
within groups. Understanding group dynamics is key to the effective func-
tioning of any group; it is not just a series of processes and changes that take 
place within groups, but the mechanism through which group goals, values, 
and norms are shaped and expressed. Collective organizational behaviour 
is more than the sum of individual behaviours. The group environment has 
the capacity to (re)shape individual personal behaviour, which has an impact 
on group cohesiveness and the achievement of common goals. Neglecting 
group dynamics not only risks ineffective group functioning and lack of co-
herence among group members but also risks such behaviour against other 
individuals and groups or authorities.
In an organizational context, group dynamics play a key role in the function-
ing and performance of teams and organizations, paying attention to certain 
15 Conformity is the process by which individuals adjust their behaviour to fit the expectations 
and norms of the group. People often change their own beliefs and behaviour under pressure 
from the group; they often choose to conform to the majority opinion, despite internal, per-
sonal disagreement.
16 Group polarisation is the result of debate within a group, often leading to the adoption of 
more extreme views than individuals would have held on their own. See e.g. (Sunstein, 2011) 
This, in turn, underlines the need for critical reflection on the impact of group dynamics, as 
polarisation can lead to sub-optimal decisions and limit constructive debate.
17 Social influence is motivated by an individual’s desire for acceptance and fear of rejection; it 
involves processes such as persuasion, social compliance and obedience, which can change 
an individual’s behaviour without his or her full awareness. This raises questions about the 
autonomy of the individual in social situations and even about subtle forms of manipulation. 
See e.g. (Harkins, Williams and Burger, 2017; Sunstein, 2021).

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
48
Mirko Pečarič
group regularities such as the Ringelman18 or Köhler effect.19 Interactions 
between group members lead to collective behaviour that goes beyond the 
sum of individual behaviours.20 Synergy between team members often leads 
to innovative solutions and increased productivity. Organizational culture is 
also a central factor that determines the shape of group dynamics and the 
nature of relationships between individuals (e.g., Google culture or the Toy-
ota Production System). Strong dynamics allow for the creation of cohesive-
ness that fosters cohesion and shared values, which in turn promotes collec-
tive goals and reduces conflict (Schein, 2016). On the other hand, weak or 
negative organizational culture can lead to a lack of alignment and increased 
internal tensions, which inevitably affect the performance of teams. Un-
derestimating the dynamics within groups means losing an important com-
petitive advantage. Institutions that focus on understanding and improving 
group dynamics often have better working relationships, higher employee 
satisfaction, and better results.
The influence of reference groups, which plays a key role in shaping individual 
behaviour, cannot be overlooked. The informational influence of reference 
groups is not just a passive form of influence, but an active process in which 
individuals seek guidance and validation for their decisions (Festinger, 1954; 
Tajfel, 2010). Information obtained from reference groups is often a credible 
source that can improve an individual’s confidence in their decisions. People 
strive for conformity and social acceptance; people adapt their behaviour to 
fit the expectations of their reference group, as they want to maintain a posi-
tive social status and avoid rejection. This form of influence is particularly pro-
nounced in adolescent groups, where the need to belong is extremely strong 
(Sherif, 1988). Adults face similar pressures, especially in professional settings 
where it is important to maintain respect and esteem among colleagues. 
Identification influence confirms the ingrained human need to identify with 
certain groups, values, and goals. Identification with a reference group rein-
forces an individual’s personal and social identity, as they actively adopt the 
behavioural patterns and norms of the group with which they identify. Refer-
ence groups therefore play a major role in shaping individuals’ behaviour as 
18 When individuals work in groups (he studied groups of 7 and 14), their individual effort de-
creases as a result of a loss of motivation (individuals in groups work less hard because they 
feel less responsibility for the outcome, i.e. the ‘fidgeting’ phenomenon) and a loss of coordi-
nation (the larger the group, the more difficult it is to coordinate the actions of all members, 
which leads to inefficiency) (Kravitz and Martin, 1986)or the decrease in individual effort that 
occurs when the individual works within a cooperative group rather than alone. A group can 
be better than an individual if its members are well coordinated, motivated and able to com-
municate and work together effectively. At the same time, reducing losses due to poor coor-
dination, conflict and lack of motivation is key. In the absence of these conditions, a group can 
perform worse than an individual (Steiner, 1972).
19 The Köhler effect is a psychological phenomenon in which less able members of a group 
increase their effort when working together with more able individuals to avoid being the 
“weak link” of the group. The conditions for the phenomenon are a competitive environment 
(presence of more able members), clear group goals and the possibility to compare one’s 
contribution with others (Köhler, 1926).
20 The original Ringelmann effect is now replaced by the term social loafing: when people work 
on a task as part of a group, they often tend to disengage or work less enthusiastically than 
if they were working alone, but they still tend to perform better than an individual (Forsyth, 
2019, p. 320).

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
49
Law and Individualism: Balancing Rights, Responsibilities, and Group Dynamics
citizens, voters, consumers, or admirers. Your influence is powerful and can 
guide your decisions at both conscious and unconscious levels. It is therefore 
crucial that people can recognize these influences and consciously address 
them in their decisions.
There are both positive and negative aspects associated with the influence 
of reference groups. In the latter case, it is a grouping of uncritical, isolat-
ed individuals that is a precondition for irrational collectivism with negative 
consequences. The latter arises under conditions of generalised loneliness, 
lack of meaning, indefinable anxiety, discomfort, frustration and aggression 
(Desmet, 2022). When these factors are attached to an idea or a common 
narrative that is supposed to “save people from anxiety”, a fertile ground for 
totalitarian forms of rule over atomised individuals with a “higher purpose” 
is created.(Arendt, 1973) The solutions to this, according to Desmet, are the 
mirror image of the above conditions: restoring meaning and connectedness, 
strengthening personal autonomy, building communities connected through 
shared values, transparency and participation, decentralisation of power and 
ethical use of technology (Desmet, 2022). Just as every thing can have good 
and bad sides (the ancient Greeks would have said “not too much of any-
thing”), so too do the masses. Thus, one has to be alert to any deviations that 
go beyond the basic, fundamental sense, meaning and purpose. One of the 
solutions to the mechanistic ideology of collective faith in a common idea is 
the partial incorporation of informal groups into legal frameworks. Examples 
where this is necessary and justified are discussed in the next chapter.
4 Legal Treatment of Formal and Informal Groups
4.1 Formal Groups
Understanding legal persons is the key to operating successfully in the busi-
ness environment, as legal persons are the holders of rights and obligations 
that shape the economic and social environment. Thus, companies, institu-
tions, associations, bodies, and organizations, including religious communi-
ties, acquire the status of legal persons by registering in the relevant regis-
ters, thus forming the pillars of the legal order. By registering in the relevant 
registers, legal persons acquire legal capacity, which enables them to enter 
contracts, acquire property, bring actions, and respond to lawsuits. This ca-
pacity, which is granted exclusively to legal persons, also implies liability – the 
assumption of responsibility for one’s own obligations with one’s own assets, 
independently of the founders or members. Despite their different objec-
tives, both private and public legal entities, each with its own role, co-shape 
the legal and economic system. The synergy between them allows for stabil-
ity and progress in society, and awareness of their functioning and the legal 
frameworks within which it takes place is key to creating a balanced and fair 
environment that provides the foundations for growth. Formalizing groups 
brings advantages such as legal consistency, accountability, and confidence 
in the socioeconomic environment. Private law entities, such as companies, 

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
50
Mirko Pečarič
associations, and institutions, and public law entities operating in the public 
interest, ensure orderly and predictable functioning, which is essential for the 
stability of the legal and economic environment. Legal persons are not merely 
constructs of legal fiction, but key building blocks of our economic and social 
reality. Marriage, as perhaps one of the oldest forms of formalized life and 
action between two persons, should not be overlooked.
4.2 Informal Groups
By privileging formal groups, legal scholarship largely overlooks informal 
groups,21 which also form an important part of the social fabric. This may to 
some extent lead to the latter being exposed because they lack legal protec-
tion, basic rules of engagement, and the possibility to act in the legal arena. 
In this context, of course, the importance of formal structures such as legal 
persons, which enjoy a certain degree of protection and accountability in the 
legal system, cannot be overlooked. Informal groups do not have such ele-
ments, which is why it could be argued that informal groups should be regis-
tered, but this may not be their intention, or it may be premature: at a given 
moment in the development of a group, it may be sufficient for it to have 
only certain rights protected (as is the case, for example, in the case of an 
extramarital or civil partnership). Informal groups, as associations of individu-
als without formal legal status, represent a paradox in an increasingly com-
plex environment: even though individuals may live and work predominantly 
in groups and that they play a key role in society, informal groups remain 
marginalized by the legal system, which often does not even implicitly rec-
ognize their interests and activities. The lack of formal status prevents these 
groups from acting as legal subjects in legal proceedings, undermining their 
ability to assert their own interests and protect the rights of their members, 
which threatens their functioning and survival. In the event of legal disputes 
or damage caused, the determination of the liability of individual members 
is also problematic. As the group per se is not legally recognized, individual 
members are often placed in an unequal position, as they may be held liable 
for actions taken in the interests of the group. This creates legal uncertainty 
which may discourage members from participating in such groups. The lack 
of clearly defined rights and obligations for informal groups also makes it dif-
ficult to protect them legally, which may inhibit their contribution to social 
well-being (e.g., volunteering – this is not usually the case for volunteer fire 
brigades).es). Recognizing and regulating the rights and obligations of infor-
mal groups would not only better protect their interests but also encourage 
their active participation in the social dialogue.
An approach that would improve the situation of informal groups should fo-
cus efforts on developing mechanisms that would allow a certain degree of 
21 Some informal groups are nevertheless involved: for example, in order to make more efficient 
use of forestry machinery and equipment, labour and other productive capacities, natural per-
sons can set up machinery rings in accordance with the rules governing agriculture (cf. The 
Code of Obligations (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No 97/07 – UPB, 64/16 – 
Decree of the US and 20/18 – OROZ631) also provides for a community (lat. societas) if a right 
belongs to several persons jointly (see Article 1003).

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
51
Law and Individualism: Balancing Rights, Responsibilities, and Group Dynamics
legal recognition also for these structures, without jeopardizing the already 
established legal standards of formal groups. The legal regulation of infor-
mal groups must be adapted to the social situation. Recognition of their ex-
istence and role in society would contribute to a fairer and more inclusive 
legal system, in accordance with the principles of equality and legal justice. 
Incorporating collective responsibility into a system dominated by individual 
responsibility can be challenging but would have advantages in situations 
where individual actions are linked to collective action or where the collective 
has a significant influence on individual behaviour. Such an approach would 
require a detailed legal regime that considers (at least) the fundamental legal 
principles and values of a given society. Ultimately, a responsible legal system 
serves all segments of society, not just those already formally recognized.
4.3 Options for the Integration of Collective Responsibility into 
the Legal Frame
As with any need, the need to include informal groups in a legal framework 
(which would still recognize their informality) needs to be recognized as such. 
The growing presence of such groups in contemporary society is undeniable; 
legal recognition and protection of informal groups is essential not only to 
strengthen the protection of human rights and to effectively prevent dis-
crimination but also to enhance the effectiveness of their objectives and the 
efficiency of their governance. These collectives, although informal, make an 
important contribution to the diversity and vitality of the social ecosphere. Liv-
ing in a community that recognizes, and values informal connections fosters 
greater social capital and promotes the participation of individuals in social 
processes. Therefore, a modern legal system must recognize the collective 
aspects of human existence and action, including their contribution to the 
creation of social norms and values. Inconsistency in the treatment of these 
groups only leads to structural discrimination, i.e., a failure to recognize their 
role and influence and, consequently, a diminution of their benefits by the 
established system. The inclusion of informal groups in the legal framework, 
without making them fully formal or separate from existing formal forms, an-
swers the fear of dilution of legal predictability and legal certainty. Such a 
risk should not per se be a reason to ignore informal interests; flexible legal 
mechanisms should be developed to adequately address and protect the in-
terests of these groups while preserving fundamental legal principles. The 
right degree of integration of these groups into the legal framework would 
not only improve their legal protection but could also contribute to the devel-
opment of a fairer society, subject, of course, to certain conditions, which we 
set out below as a starting point.
Determination of specific fields of application (collective responsibility would 
make sense in situations where the group is a key actor or where the actions 
of individuals are inextricably linked to the group’s performance). Such areas 
could include environmental damage22 (industrial sectors, communities or 
22 Standing (lat. legitimatio ad processum), whereby a party has the right to bring a specific dis-
pute (notwithstanding that it is not protecting its rights or obligations), is possible for environ-

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
52
Mirko Pečarič
companies that collectively contribute to pollution could be held responsi-
ble for remediation), organized crime23 (for crimes committed by an organ-
ized group, liability could be extended to the group as a whole), labour law 
(trade unions or workers’ collectives could be held partly liable for violations 
of rights arising from collective agreements or collective decisions), commu-
nities (local authorities or communities could be held liable for failing to act to 
solve local problems, e.g. The same applies to the State in cases of increased 
liability for e.g. backlogs of cases, non-compliance with court rulings, blatant 
inaction by state authorities).
Introduction of a combined liability scheme − the system could combine indi-
vidual and collective liability, separating direct individual liability from indirect 
group liability. This could include primary individual liability (the individual 
who commits the crime or causes the damage is primarily liable) and second-
ary collective liability (the group is liable in cases where the individual cannot 
be identified or where the group was directly involved in the act, e.g., inad-
equate management or supervision).
Establishment of collective funds to cover damages (collective entities such as 
companies, local authorities, or industrial sectors could establish funds to 
cover damages arising from collective activities. This would allow collective 
damage recovery without burdening individuals and reduce the financial risk 
for individual group members.
Regulating preventive collective liability − collective responsibility could en-
courage groups to take preventive action to reduce the risk of harm. These 
would include self-regulatory measures (groups would be encouraged to es-
tablish internal rules to control the behaviour of their members), monitoring 
and reporting (groups would be responsible for reporting breaches or risks). 
Implementation of “collective fault” within organizations legal liability could 
be assigned to a group within an organization if the breach was the result 
of systematic actions or inadequate internal rules (if the damage was caused 
by group decisions at the management level of the company, the collective 
body, for example the board of directors, would bear the liability).
Integration into international law (collective responsibility could become an 
important part of international legal frameworks, especially in areas such as 
human rights (collective responsibility of states for systemic discrimination 
or oppression), and environmental obligations (states would be collectively 
responsible for global warming or environmental degradation). A system of 
collective responsibility would give groups more incentive to control their 
members, collective responsibility could encourage the introduction of pre-
ventive mechanisms, collective funds or accountability could ensure faster re-
mediation of damage, and collective responsibility could also allow address-
ing systemic problems caused by collective action. A collective liability system 
mental damage under the Aarhus Convention.
23 In predominantly Anglo-Saxon countries, it is possible to bring a qui tam action (a type of ac-
tion that allows a private party to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the state and therefore receive 
an award).

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
53
Law and Individualism: Balancing Rights, Responsibilities, and Group Dynamics
could complement the prevailing system of individual liability in areas where 
collective action is key to the creation or prevention of harm. The approach 
should be considered, proportionate, and limited to specific circumstances 
where collective responsibility contributes to fairness and efficiency.
These measures must, of course, be approached with a high degree of re-
sponsibility; collective responsibility could lead to the punishment of inno-
cent members of the group (which is contrary to the fundamental principles 
of individual responsibility). The treatment of informal groups, due to their 
fluidity and lack of formal structure, poses a particular challenge. Determin-
ing the responsibilities of the group and allocating the contributions of in-
dividuals to the overall result clearly requires a thoughtful reform based on 
an interdisciplinary basis. However, it is difficult that reality calls for reform 
and adaptation of the legal system, as the current system is simply not up 
to the dynamic and increasingly complex social changes that are creating le-
gal voids. Although informal groups could make their own rules, there is too 
much scope for arbitrary interpretation and exemption from liability. Law is 
not a homogeneous system based on a single source; it is a variety of hier-
archical and substantive normative systems, which, and in combination with 
each other, derive their identity and authority. Although the legal rules vary 
according to context, which makes it difficult to treat informal groups in a 
uniform manner, this does not mean that we cannot speak of a common basis 
or starting point governing the most important matters of their functioning. 
The situation brought about by modern legal pluralism calls for innovative ap-
proaches to ensure legal certainty and equality for all informal social actors.
4.3.1 Legal Constraints on the Treatment of Informal Groups
Informal groups without legal personality find themselves in a complex situ-
ation within an otherwise legal framework that is crying out for legislative 
change. In a modern society where cooperation and representation of inter-
ests is crucial, the informality of these groups can be an obstacle to their effec-
tive functioning. Without a formal status, informal groups are limited in their 
ability to become legally recognized parties in legal proceedings. This directly 
limits their right to legal protection and advancement of their interests, cre-
ates vulnerability, and reduces their influence in social and political debates. 
The difficulties in regulating informal groups represent a serious legal and 
administrative gap. Without a defined legal structure, it is almost impossible 
to determine the responsibility and control of the activities of these groups, 
which can lead to various legal anomalies. In the absence of clear regulatory 
frameworks, there is a higher risk of abuse and avoidance of legal obligations. 
This not only weakens the legal system but also leaves individuals uncertain 
about legal protection and guarantees. On the other hand, too rapid formali-
zation of social movements can lead to a range of negative consequences 
that affect the effectiveness of the movement, its appeal to supporters, and 
its long-term social impact.
The risks of formalization can be loss of the original spontaneity and flexibility, 
which can slow down the movement and reduce its effectiveness. There is also 

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
54
Mirko Pečarič
the risk of alienating supporters who feel excluded by the formalization of 
leadership, then there is greater vulnerability to external pressures and (due 
to financial support) compromises on values and objectives, reducing critical 
potential. The negative consequences of formalization can be avoided by such 
movements through gradual formalization, participatory decision-making, 
a constant focus on the original objectives, and a flexible structure that can 
respond quickly to change. Formalization should therefore serve the move-
ment’s objectives, not hinder them. Considering this, consideration should 
be given to introducing flexible legal solutions that would allow even infor-
mal groups to acquire (only) a certain degree of legal personality. This would 
strengthen their participation in social dialogue and protect their contribution 
to collective action, thus ensuring a more fair and inclusive legal system.
4.3.2 Legal Limits on Collective Liability and Heterogeneity of Interests
Collective responsibility is a concept that holds the whole group responsible 
for the actions of individuals within it. In a legal context, this concept often 
proves problematic, as legal principles have traditionally been built on the 
foundation of individual responsibility. The imposition of collective responsi-
bility could risk unfairly sanctioning individuals who were not directly involved 
in certain acts, as well as, on the other hand, failing to consider the important 
differences between individuals and their levels of involvement in certain 
acts. Such an approach could also lead to the social stigmatization of entire 
groups. The diversity of interests within groups creates tensions that need to 
be balanced or resolved. General rules that attempt to protect all members 
of a group in the same way cannot be successful, as they fail to capture the 
necessary flexibility and specificity of situations. One of the key challenges 
for the legal treatment of groups is the heterogeneity of interests among the 
individuals who make up these groups. In this sense, collective bargaining in 
labour law is something of a paradox. Traditionally, trade unions have been 
the legal entities that are supposed to represent the interests of workers, but 
this role is not clearly identifiable. Not all workers have the same views and 
priorities (as trade unions do), which creates tensions in collective bargain-
ing, especially when workers are not even members of a trade union.24 This 
misalignment of interests not only makes it more difficult to reach consensus 
but also weakens the union’s power as a negotiator. Another example is in-
formal groups such as social movements.25 Due to their nature, which usually 
involves a lack of formal structure and clear leadership, it is difficult to estab-
lish a common position for such groups. This raises the question of their legal 
recognition and effectiveness in legal proceedings. Without a clear and uni-
fied expression of interests, it is difficult for such groups to act as legitimate 
subjects in a legal context. A borderline example or so-called grey area are 
24 While politicians also make decisions on behalf of all citizens, at least the latter can express 
their political will in elections, which is not the case with trade unions (even if the individual is 
not a member of an [albeit representative] trade union, the union co-determines the level of 
his salary and other things related to his employment).
25 E.g. ecological and climate movements, human rights movements, gender equality and 
LGBTQ+ rights movements, anti-globalisation and economic movements, technology and dig-
ital movements, animal rights movements.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
55
Law and Individualism: Balancing Rights, Responsibilities, and Group Dynamics
the various consultative bodies of the government (e.g. the latter may have 
a formal status, but in practice their role is not strictly regulated, is based on 
informal functioning, and their recommendations are nonbinding. The diver-
sity of interests within and between groups poses a serious challenge to the 
regulation and implementation of rights. It is of course easier for the legal sys-
tem to work with single entities, but what is easier is not necessarily right or 
closer to reality. Law needs to find ways to include and address even the more 
complex forms of group interests; in this way, it can ensure that the different 
voices in the legal system are heard and adequately represented.
5 Options for Future Development
Having said that, it should be added that existing legal mechanisms do ad-
dress collective interests to a certain extent.26 For example, collective actions 
are an important legal instrument that allows a group of individuals with 
the same interest to enforce their rights more effectively. This mechanism, 
although complex and time-consuming, is crucial to ensuring fairness, as it 
brings together small individual claims into a stronger collective whole, of-
ten leading to more positive outcomes in the legal process. Recognition of 
collective organizations such as trade unions or specialized associations, as 
well as collective agreements, are also a step forward towards representing 
members’ interests. Such organizations can act as influential representatives 
in legal proceedings, improving the conditions for achieving adequate legal 
protection and fair treatment in litigation.
However, given the characteristics of informal group behaviour (which is not 
contained in legal norms by legal science), the law faces challenges in dealing 
with such groups. To be more realistic or socially coherent, legal frameworks 
must always adapt to the dynamic nature of modern groups; this includes col-
lective responsibility and diversity of interests. If the law is to be the founda-
tion of social order, it must be static and flexible. Legal scholarship is (or could 
be even more so, in line with the speed of its response to changes in real time 
and space) subject to change, the tracking of which ensures that law remains 
relevant in the light of an increasingly complex web of social relations and in-
26 War crimes. After the Second World War, discussions on the collective responsibility of na-
tions for war crimes emerged as a moral and ethical imperative. Nations were complicit in 
the conflicts and should consequently bear collective responsibility for atrocities. In contrast, 
the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg advocated the concept of individual criminal 
responsibility, which is crucial from the point of view of legal justice, as it prevents the blanket 
punishment of entire nations. On the other hand, the law is familiar with the concept of joint 
and several liability in the case of common causes of damage, or multiple liability for the same 
damage. Thus, post-war Germany also repaid other countries for their actions in the form of 
millions of dollars in damages. Joint and several liability. Liability for damages may be based on 
joint and several liability where two or more persons are liable for the damage caused and it is 
established that each is liable for the entire damage. This concept is derived from civil law and 
is usually governed by the law of obligations. Commercial companies. The concept of “waiver 
of legal personality” allows liability to be shifted to individual members of the company in 
certain circumstances, thus breaking with the traditional belief that liability is limited to the 
assets of the company. This approach seeks to prevent abuses where individuals, under the 
umbrella of a legal person, would abdicate responsibility for their unethical or illegal activities. 
Individuals acting under the umbrella of a company should not be immune from the conse-
quences of their actions, which encourages responsible business and ethical behaviour.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
56
Mirko Pečarič
teractions. The development of law towards the inclusion of different groups 
and individuals is not only a necessary, but an inevitable step towards a more 
cohesive society in which everyone is included in their own, personalized way. 
Development that considers both individual and collective aspects of social 
interaction can always be a competitive advantage, which requires further 
economic study.
5.1 Legal Recognition of Informal Groups
Traditional legal systems have historically favoured formal entities such as 
companies, foundations, and other legal persons. The need for legal recogni-
tion of informal groups in modern society, without formalizing them as such, 
may be a good step toward both stability and flexibility of the legal system. 
Informal groups, which include communities of interest, NGOs, and social 
movements, play a key role in the social fabric, even if they do not have a for-
mal legal status. They are an important part of civil society, whether promot-
ing social justice, contributing to environmental protection, or humanitarian 
work. Many informal groups also play an important role in social welfare, edu-
cation, and culture. The inclusion of these groups in the legal framework not 
only recognizes their value but also their legitimacy, their ability to apply for 
funding, and (at least occasionally) the legal protection necessary for their ac-
tivities. At a time when diversity and particularity are increasingly recognized 
as fundamental attributes of human society, it is crucial that the law also not 
only pursues universalistic trajectories but also responds to specific and dy-
namic contexts. It is not a question of limiting equality before the law but 
of deepening it, including by recognizing the specific needs and challenges 
faced by different segments of society. Inclusion in the legal framework is 
also a moral responsibility that always requires equality before the law for 
all. Equality is not just a principle on paper but must also be implemented 
in a way that every individual, group, or combination thereof, can exercise 
their rights, opportunities, or “pursuit of happiness” without discrimination or 
barriers. Adapting the legal system not only creates a fairer society but also 
strengthens public trust in institutions.
5.2 Development of Collective Legal Mechanisms
The development of collective legal mechanisms is essential for the more eq-
uitable and efficient functioning of the legal system. Extending the possibili-
ties for collective action in areas such as discrimination,27 consumer rights,28 or 
27 Mastercard and wage discrimination: in January 2025, Mastercard agreed to a $26 million 
settlement over a lawsuit alleging that the company systematically underpaid some 7,500 
women, black and Latino workers in the US. The lawsuit alleged that these employees were in 
lower positions and received smaller raises and fewer opportunities for promotion compared 
to white male employees. (Wiessner, 2025) McDonald’s – Scholarships for Latinos: in Decem-
ber 2024, McDonald’s was the target of a lawsuit over its HACER scholarship programme for 
Latino students. The lawsuit claims that the programme discriminates against non-Latino stu-
dents, which has sparked debates about the legality of racially or ethnically restricted schol-
arships following a recent US Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action in college 
admissions (Francis, 2025).
28 Shein – working conditions: Chinese fast fashion company Shein is facing allegations of labour 
rights violations, including child labour and poor working conditions in its factories. Although 

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
57
Law and Individualism: Balancing Rights, Responsibilities, and Group Dynamics
environmental damage29 is not only recommended but essential. This allows 
people who have individually suffered harm to come together and seek justice 
as a group, increasing the weight of their case and improving the chances of 
success in complex legal proceedings. Conversely, the so-called ‘sample col-
lective procedure’ allows official bodies to jointly deal with already lodged 
claims, in which rights or obligations are based on the same or similar factual 
and legal basis. The promotion of collective forms of action strengthens the 
economic and social power of individuals, that leads to the promotion of eco-
nomic justice, cooperation, and solidarity among community members. The in-
tegration of collective legal mechanisms and promotion of collective models 
is not only an alternative to conventional legal and economic practices, but a 
way of strengthening legal equality and economic and social justice. By adopt-
ing such approaches, we create the conditions for a more responsive and just 
society, where individuals are better protected against systemic inequities.
5.3 Mediation and Group Dispute Resolution
The introduction of mediation processes to resolve internal conflicts within 
groups (e.g., in a company tensions could arise between two departments 
due to disagreements over work tasks and communication, and management 
decides to mediate to prevent further deterioration of relations and impact 
on productivity) is not only recommended, but necessary to achieve good 
functioning and harmonious co-existence. Mediation could facilitate the uni-
fied representation of interests and facilitate cooperation in legal proceed-
ings. It is particularly relevant in the context of labour disputes and conflicts 
in local communities, where tensions often stem from unresolved misunder-
standings (e.g., in the context of the “labour dispute”). In these cases, media-
tion offers a platform for constructive dialogue, allowing the parties involved 
to clarify their positions and find common solutions. It is a more economical 
and quicker alternative than the burden of courts and lengthy legal proceed-
ings, which often do not lead to mutually satisfactory solutions. Mediation 
speeds up the conflict resolution process and builds a foundation for sustain-
able cooperation and respect between all parties involved and could there-
fore become an integral part of dispute resolution structures.
5.4 Interdisciplinary Analysis of Legal Norms
The inclusion of sociological, psychological, and economic research in the 
development of legal norms is necessary to develop more fair and effective 
legislative solutions.30 Sociological perspectives offer insights into the behav-
it is not stated whether a class action lawsuit has been filed, these allegations have sparked 
international outrage and calls for more transparency and accountability from the company 
(Saunders, 2025).
29 Starbucks – working between the fires: In January 2025, the Starbucks Workers United union 
accused the company of requiring baristas in Los Angeles to work in dangerous conditions 
while wildfires were spreading. The union claims that the company is putting profits before em-
ployee safety, which could lead to legal action for endangering workers’ health (Zilber, 2025).
30 E.g. laws addressing speed limits on roads could/should be based on research on drivers’ be-
haviour and their response to penalties. Thus, sociological research could identify the impact 
of cultural norms and social acceptability of risky behaviour in traffic, psychological research 

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
58
Mirko Pečarič
ioural patterns of individuals and groups, allowing a better understanding of 
how rules influence social structures and how these structures, in turn, influ-
ence the implementation of rules. Without this insight, decision makers risk 
adopting norms that are out of touch with reality, which may lead to their 
disapplication or even rejection by society. Psychological research reveals the 
internal motivations and reactions of individuals, which is key to predicting 
how people will react to new or changed legislation. Taking psychological 
factors into account ensures that legal frameworks are not only punitive and 
restrictive but also encourage desired behaviour through reward and positive 
reinforcement. Finally, economic analysis allows one to assess the financial 
impacts of legal norms and how they affect economic relations. Legal norms 
that do not consider economic facts may lead to unforeseen economic con-
sequences, such as a reduction in productivity or economic instability. To ex-
clude interdisciplinary research from the process of developing legal norms is 
to ignore the complexity of human society. Only through a holistic approach 
can legislators create just, effective, and sustainable legal systems that serve 
not only the letter of the law but also the needs and expectations of society.
6 Digitalization and Collective Participation
In today’s globalized world, technological innovations have a profound impact 
on all aspects of life, including the way we participate in democratic process-
es.31 Digitalization, realized through on-line platforms, and the use of artificial 
intelligence in the analysis of group interactions can also improve the field of 
participatory democracy (Noveck, 2010, 2015). On-line platforms democratize 
access to information and enable voting, discussion, and participation, not 
only increasing citizen engagement, but also making decision-making faster 
and more transparent. Artificial intelligence can play a very important role in 
analysing data on group interactions. The use of AI can improve understand-
ing of the dynamics within groups and assess its impact on legal processes. 
This can mean more informed legislative initiatives, tailored to the real needs 
and wishes of citizens. (Dignum, 2019) Digitization through online platforms 
and artificial intelligence in the analysis of collective data represent not only 
could examine the impact of warning signs, campaigns and penalties on individual behaviour, 
and economic research could analyse the cost of road accidents to the country and the effec-
tiveness of different punitive measures in reducing harmful consequences. Such an approach 
would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of road user behaviour, social impacts 
and economic consequences of transport policies. By bringing together different disciplines, 
legislation can be made fairer, more effective and more socially acceptable. Examples from 
practice are Sweden’s Vision Zero and the Netherlands’ urban neutral zones. The Swedish Vi-
sion Zero: an interdisciplinary approach has involved psychology (changing driver behaviour), 
sociology (encouraging responsible behaviour) and economics (cost analysis of infrastruc-
ture improvements), leading to a reduction in traffic fatalities) (Smart City Sweden, 2025). 
In the Netherlands, sociological research on pedestrian and cyclist movements has led to the 
creation of car-free zones, which reduce traffic accidents and improve quality of life (Bicycle 
Dutch, 2010).
31 See e.g. the Digital Agenda for Europe or the Communications from the Commission to 
the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and 
the Committee of the Regions: A Digital Agenda for Europe (COM(2010)245 final), A Digi-
tal Single Market Strategy for Europe (/* COM/2015/0192 final */), Shaping Europe’s Digital 
Future (COM/2020/67 final) and Digital Compass 2030: Europe’s path to the Digital Decade 
(COM/2021/118 final).

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
59
Law and Individualism: Balancing Rights, Responsibilities, and Group Dynamics
a major technological advance but also an increasingly indispensable instru-
ment for the modernization of democratic processes.
7 Conclusion
For most of history, legal scholarship has been primarily concerned with indi-
vidual rights and duties, overlooking the real influence of groups on individual 
behaviour and wider social relations. Today, where individuals are increasingly 
interconnected and, above all, interdependent, it is becoming apparent that 
such an approach does not allow for a comprehensive treatment of such re-
alities. The traditional individualist framework is effective in protecting fun-
damental rights but cannot comprehensively address the issue of group in-
terests and collective influences. The adaptation of legal systems to better 
address the complexity and dynamics of contemporary group entities is im-
perative. Efforts to develop more flexible, equitable, and specific legal norms 
that allow for harmonized procedures in heterogeneous group contexts, 
particularly in areas such as labour law, environmental protection, and minor-
ity protection where legal gaps exist, are essential for their effective func-
tioning. Individuals are sometimes unable to exercise their rights effectively 
without cooperation with others. Collective action and collective models of 
cooperation are some of the examples that demonstrate that it is possible 
to reconcile individual rights and collective interests within legal frameworks.
However, these practices by no means cover all aspects of group dynamics, 
especially when it comes to informal groups or less organized communities. 
Modern legal scholarship must move away from traditional individualism and 
incorporate group dynamics and social into its norms and practices. Modern 
social relationships are intertwined and complex, which requires a broader 
approach to legal regulation that not only favours the individual perspective 
but also considers the role of groups. Ignoring group influences can lead to 
flawed legal regimes that do not respond to the real needs of society. A legal 
framework that recognizes the importance of both individuals and groups is 
essential to promote fairness and equality. Achieving more balanced protec-
tion of rights and duties leads to better conflict resolution and reduced social 
inequalities. Contemporary informal legal thought in the form of articles and 
opinions should address the full range of influences that shape society, pre-
vent marginalization, and open opportunities for all members of society, while 
an inclusive formal legal structure in the form of existing regimes should rec-
ognize the complexity of human interactions and, on this basis, bring about 
change in the social fabric. More heads can do more and more hands can do 
more. And here we are back to the greatness of community.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
60
Mirko Pečarič
References
Arendt, H. (1972). Crises of the Republic: Lying in Politics, Civil Disobedience on 
Violence, Thoughts on Politics, and Revolution. New York: Harcourt Brace 
Jovanovich.
Arendt, H. (1973). The Origins of Totalitarianism. San Diego; New York; London: 
A Harvest Book.
Aristotle. (1998). Politics (C.D.C. Reeve, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing 
Company.
Asch, S.E. (1952). Social psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Barber, M. (2004). The Two Cities (2nd edition). London: Routledge.
Bicycle Dutch. (2010, September 26). Utrecht Pedestrian Zone (Netherlands). At 
<https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/utrecht-pedestrian-zone-
netherlands/>, accessed 14 January 2025.
Carpini, M.X.D. (Ed.). (2019). Digital Media and Democratic Futures. Philadelphia: 
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Desmet, M. (2022). The Psychology of Totalitarianism. London: Chelsea Green 
Publishing.
Dignum, V. (2019). Responsible Artificial Intelligence: How to Develop and Use AI 
in a Responsible Way. Cham: Springer Nature.
Durkheim, E. (1982). The Rules of Sociological Method (W.D. Halls, Trans.). New 
York: The Free Press.
Durkheim, E. (1984). The Division of Labor in Society (W.D. Halls, Trans.). New 
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ferdinand Tönnies. (2001). Community and Civil Society (J. Harris, Ed.; J. Harris & 
M. Hollis, Trans.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Festinger, L. (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes—Leon Festinger, 
1954. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.
Forsyth, D.R. (2019). Group Dynamics. Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.
Francis, T. (2025). McDonald’s Sued Over Latino Scholarships, One Week After 
Retreating on Diversity. At <https://www.wsj.com/business/mcdonalds-sued-
over-latino-scholarships-one-week-after-retreating-on-diversity-dc7a2438>, 
accessed 14 January 2025.
Glenn, P. (2004). Legal Traditions of the World: Sustainable Diversity in Law (2nd 
edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harari, Y.N. (2014). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. New York: Random 
House.
Harkins, S.G., Williams, K.D. and Burger, J.M. (2017). The Oxford Handbook of 
Social Influence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hobbes, T. (1998). Leviathan (J.C.A. Gaskin, Trans.). Oxford; New York: Oxford 
University Press.
Hooks, B. (2014). Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center (3rd edition). New 
York: Routledge.
Kant, I. (2003). Kritika praktičnega uma (R. Riha, Trans.). Ljubljana: Analecta.
Köhler, O. (1926). Kraftleistungen bei Einzel- und Gruppenarbeit. Industrielle 
Psychotechnik, 3, pp. 274–282.
Korošec, V. (1980). Rimsko pravo. Ljubljana: Pravna fakulteta Univerze Edvard 
Kardelj v Ljubljani.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
61
Law and Individualism: Balancing Rights, Responsibilities, and Group Dynamics
Kravitz, D.A. and Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), pp. 936–941. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.936
Krüger, B. (2023). Classis: Latin nouns. Cactus2000. At <https://latin.cactus2000.
de/noun/shownoun_en.php?n=classis>, accessed 6 January 2025.
Lakner, C. and Milanovic, B. (2013). Global Income Distribution: From the Fall of 
the Berlin Wall to the Great Recession. Policy Research Working Paper; No. 
6719. At <https://hdl.handle.net/10986/16935>, accessed 6 January 2025.
Locke, J. (2010). Dve razpravi o oblasti Pismo o toleranci. Ljubljana: Krtina.
MacIntyre, A.C. (2007). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Third Edition). 
Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Marx, K. (2018). Capital (Das Capital): Includes Vol.1,2,3. New Delhi: Fingerprint! 
Publishing.
Merriam-Webster. (2025). Definition of CLASSIC. At <https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/classic>, accessed 6 January 2025.
Milgram, S. (2009). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (Reprint 
edition). New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
Niemoller, M. (2025, 1946). Holocaust Memorial Day Trust | First They Came – by 
Pastor Martin Niemöller. At: <https://hmd.org.uk/resource/first-they-came-
by-pastor-martin-niemoller/>, accessed 3 May 2025.
Noveck, B.S. (2010). Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government 
Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful (Reprint edition). 
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Noveck, B.S. (2015). Smart Citizens, Smarter State: The Technologies of Expertise 
and the Future of Governing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Noveck, B.S. (2016). Could crowdsourcing expertise be the future of 
government? The Guardian. At <https://www.theguardian.com/science/
political-science/2016/nov/30/could-crowdsourcing-expertise-be-the-future-
of-government>, accessed 10 January 2025.
Polanyi, K. (2008). Velika preobrazba: Politični in ekonomski viri našega časa. 
Ljubljana: /* cf.
Pope Francis. (2013). Homily of Holy Father Francis: Visit to Lampedusa—Holy 
Mass in the ‘Arena’ sports camp. At <https://www.vatican.va/content/
francesco/en/homilies/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130708_omelia-
lampedusa.html>, accessed 10 January 2025.
Rousseau, J.-J. (2001). Družbena pogodba. Ljubljana: Krtina.
Saunders, J. (2025). Secrets of the ‘Shein village’ where kids were caught 
working in sweat shops. At <https://www.the-sun.com/lifestyle/13284122/
shein-village-china-factories-rights/>, accessed 6 January 2025.
Schein, E.H. (2016). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Hoboken: John Wiley 
& Sons.
Sherif, M. (1988). The Robbers Cave Experiment: Intergroup Conflict and 
Cooperation. [Orig. pub. as Intergroup Conflict and Group Relations]. 
Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.
Smart City Sweden. (2025). Vision Zero—Reducing Road Traffic Casualties and 
Injuries | News. At <https://smartcitysweden.com/best-practice/408/vision-
zero-reducing-road-traffic-casualties-and-injuries/>, accessed 14 January 2025.
Steiner, I.D. (1972). Group Process and Productivity. New York: Academic Press.

Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 1/2025
62
Mirko Pečarič
Sunstein, C.R. (2011). Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide 
(Reprint edition). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Sunstein, C.R. (2021). Conformity: The Power of Social Influences. New York: 
NYU Press.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (2010). Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (Reissue edition). 
Paris: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, T. (2013). The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir (1st 
edition). New York: Skyhorse.
Thompson, E.P. (2002). The Making of the English Working Class. London: 
Penguin UK.
Wiessner, D. (2025, January 14). Mastercard agrees to $26 mln settlement in 
pay bias lawsuit. Reuters. At <https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/
mastercard-agrees-26-mln-settlement-pay-bias-lawsuit-2025-01-14/>, 
accessed 14 January 2025.
Zilber, A. (2025). Starbucks requiring baristas to work in LA stores near wildfires: 
Union. At <https://nypost.com/2025/01/13/business/starbucks-requiring-
baristas-to-work-in-la-stores-near-wildfires-union/>, accessed 14 January 2025.
Zimbardo, P.G. (2008). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn 
Evil. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.