“…The global context of functional differentiation makes nation‐state constitutionalism just one of many processes of constituting political organisations which is impossible to replicate in global law and politics. Constitutional theories centred on the dynamics of politics need to be replaced by an analysis of global social polycontexturality and its constitutionalisations beyond the state and politics (Teubner , 210).…”
Section: Global Societal Self‐constitutionalisations and Fragmentatiomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If it was the central task of political constitutions to uphold the autonomy of other spheres of action against the expansion of the polity, specifically in relation to political instrumentalisation, then, in today's civil constitutions, it is presumably to guarantee the chances of articulating so‐called non‐rational logics of action against the dominant social rationalisation trend, by conquering areas of autonomy for social reflection in long‐lasting conflicts, and institutionalising them. (Teubner , 12–13)Teubner (, 220) argues that the functional dynamics of the global legal system is part of global societal constitutionalism. He thus challenges the old semantics of international law, the hierarchies of the nation state, and its sovereign constitution of both the political system and the whole nation.…”
Section: Civil Constitutions and The Risk Of Global Societal Depolitimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Teubner prefers the concept of a “regime constitution” of different sectors of global society as more inclusive than the state organisation‐driven concept of a political constitution. He even reintroduces the regime's centre/periphery differentiation, which was refuted by Luhmann as a distinction signifying segmental rather than functional differentiation, to encompass informal institutions, organisations and actors operating beyond the central formal organisation of a regime constitution (Teubner , 222–3).…”
Section: Civil Constitutions and The Risk Of Global Societal Depolitimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This requires massive interventions from politics, law and civil society: interventions, however, which, as a matter of fact, are translated into self‐limiting impulses and transformed into a regime constitution. (Teubner , 225)However, this conclusion effectively means that the self‐regulation of global societal constitutionalism is safeguarded by global societal interventions in legal rationality rather than by legal autopoiesis.…”
Section: Civil Constitutions and The Risk Of Global Societal Depolitimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This requires massive interventions from politics, law and civil society: interventions, however, which, as a matter of fact, are translated into self‐limiting impulses and transformed into a regime constitution. (Teubner , 225)…”
Section: Civil Constitutions and The Risk Of Global Societal Depolitimentioning
The article examines recent theories of legal and constitutional pluralism, especially their adoption of sociological perspectives and criticisms of the concept of sovereignty. The author argues that John Griffiths's original dichotomy of "weak" and "strong" pluralism has to be reassessed because "weak" jurisprudential theories contain useful sociological analyses of the internal differentiation and operations of specific legal orders, their overlapping, parallel validity and collisions in global society. Using the sociological methodology of legal pluralism theories and critically elaborating on Teubner's societal constitutionalism, the author subsequently reformulates the question of sovereignty as a sociological problem of complex power operations communicated through the constitutional state's organization and reconfigured within the global legal and political framework.Theories of legal pluralism are commonly perceived as critical of the very concept of sovereignty because the plurality of legal orders and regimes indicates the absence of the ultimate rule of recognition, decision-making power or the basic norm. They are equally critical of state law as a supreme legal order backed by political deliberation and decision-making, and emphasise the role of non-state legal orders, agents and organisations. Pluralistic perspectives have been adopted by mainstream jurisprudence and the discourse of legal pluralism is thus currently typical of the differentiation between the "weak" juristic concept of legal pluralism drawing on the state legal systems and the "strong" concept of legal pluralism drawing on sociological and anthropological perspectives of law (Griffiths 1986, 5-8).In this article, therefore, I pursue the goal of analysing transformations of state sovereignty in global society by critically examining theories of legal and constitutional pluralism. In the first two sections, I establish the connection between legal globalisation and theories of legal pluralism, and discuss MacCormick and Walker's theories of legal and constitutional pluralism especially in the EU context. bs_bs_banner
“…The global context of functional differentiation makes nation‐state constitutionalism just one of many processes of constituting political organisations which is impossible to replicate in global law and politics. Constitutional theories centred on the dynamics of politics need to be replaced by an analysis of global social polycontexturality and its constitutionalisations beyond the state and politics (Teubner , 210).…”
Section: Global Societal Self‐constitutionalisations and Fragmentatiomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If it was the central task of political constitutions to uphold the autonomy of other spheres of action against the expansion of the polity, specifically in relation to political instrumentalisation, then, in today's civil constitutions, it is presumably to guarantee the chances of articulating so‐called non‐rational logics of action against the dominant social rationalisation trend, by conquering areas of autonomy for social reflection in long‐lasting conflicts, and institutionalising them. (Teubner , 12–13)Teubner (, 220) argues that the functional dynamics of the global legal system is part of global societal constitutionalism. He thus challenges the old semantics of international law, the hierarchies of the nation state, and its sovereign constitution of both the political system and the whole nation.…”
Section: Civil Constitutions and The Risk Of Global Societal Depolitimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Teubner prefers the concept of a “regime constitution” of different sectors of global society as more inclusive than the state organisation‐driven concept of a political constitution. He even reintroduces the regime's centre/periphery differentiation, which was refuted by Luhmann as a distinction signifying segmental rather than functional differentiation, to encompass informal institutions, organisations and actors operating beyond the central formal organisation of a regime constitution (Teubner , 222–3).…”
Section: Civil Constitutions and The Risk Of Global Societal Depolitimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This requires massive interventions from politics, law and civil society: interventions, however, which, as a matter of fact, are translated into self‐limiting impulses and transformed into a regime constitution. (Teubner , 225)However, this conclusion effectively means that the self‐regulation of global societal constitutionalism is safeguarded by global societal interventions in legal rationality rather than by legal autopoiesis.…”
Section: Civil Constitutions and The Risk Of Global Societal Depolitimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This requires massive interventions from politics, law and civil society: interventions, however, which, as a matter of fact, are translated into self‐limiting impulses and transformed into a regime constitution. (Teubner , 225)…”
Section: Civil Constitutions and The Risk Of Global Societal Depolitimentioning
The article examines recent theories of legal and constitutional pluralism, especially their adoption of sociological perspectives and criticisms of the concept of sovereignty. The author argues that John Griffiths's original dichotomy of "weak" and "strong" pluralism has to be reassessed because "weak" jurisprudential theories contain useful sociological analyses of the internal differentiation and operations of specific legal orders, their overlapping, parallel validity and collisions in global society. Using the sociological methodology of legal pluralism theories and critically elaborating on Teubner's societal constitutionalism, the author subsequently reformulates the question of sovereignty as a sociological problem of complex power operations communicated through the constitutional state's organization and reconfigured within the global legal and political framework.Theories of legal pluralism are commonly perceived as critical of the very concept of sovereignty because the plurality of legal orders and regimes indicates the absence of the ultimate rule of recognition, decision-making power or the basic norm. They are equally critical of state law as a supreme legal order backed by political deliberation and decision-making, and emphasise the role of non-state legal orders, agents and organisations. Pluralistic perspectives have been adopted by mainstream jurisprudence and the discourse of legal pluralism is thus currently typical of the differentiation between the "weak" juristic concept of legal pluralism drawing on the state legal systems and the "strong" concept of legal pluralism drawing on sociological and anthropological perspectives of law (Griffiths 1986, 5-8).In this article, therefore, I pursue the goal of analysing transformations of state sovereignty in global society by critically examining theories of legal and constitutional pluralism. In the first two sections, I establish the connection between legal globalisation and theories of legal pluralism, and discuss MacCormick and Walker's theories of legal and constitutional pluralism especially in the EU context. bs_bs_banner
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
