Transnational Legal Pluralism

Abstract

This paper draws out the analogies and connections between long-standing legal sociological insights into pluralistic legal orders and present concerns with the fragmentation of law outside of the nation state. Within the nation-state, the discovery of legal pluralism inspired a larger contestation of concepts of legal formalism, of the alleged unity of the legal order and of the hierarchy of norms against the background of a consistently advancing process of constitutionalization. This research heightened regulators' sensitivity to blind spots and exclusionary dynamics in the design of rights, leading inter alia to wide-ranging efforts to render more effective access to justice, legal aid and legal representation. Another important consequence concerned an increased awareness of different levels and sites of norm-creation in various societal areas. Much of this is mirrored by today's quest for a just, democratic and equitable global legal order, for example in the debate about 'fragmentation of international law' or 'global administrative law'. But, while the legal pluralism debate largely unfolded in the context (and contestation) of relatively mature legal orders and institutions, such institutional frameworks and safeguards are largely absent on the international plane. As a result, the emergence of numerous norm-setting agencies, specialized courts and tribunals and regulatory networks are perceived as obstacles or impediments to the creation of a sound legal order on a global scale, rather than as inherent traits of an evolving legal order.In order to grasp the increasingly transterritorial nature of regulatory governance it is necessary to revisit the arguments in support of legal pluralism and, in particular, the legal pluralist critique of the association of law with the state. On that basis, it becomes possible to read the currently dominant narrative of the 'end of law' in an era of globalisation in a different light. Rather than describing the advent of globalisation as an end-point of legal development, the transnational perspective seeks to deconstruct the various law-state associations by understanding the evolution of law in relation and response to the development of 'world society'. The currently lamented lack of democratic accountability, say, in international economic governance, can then be perceived as a further consequence in a highly differentiated and de-territorialized society. The paper thus rejects the attempts by lawyers to re-align transnational governance actors with traditional concepts of the state or of civil society and, instead, contrasts them with various advances in sociology and anthropology with regard to the evolution of 'social norms' and 'spaces' of governance and regulation. These perspectives effectively challenge present attempts to conceptualize a hierarchically structured global legal order. This article's proposed concept of 'transnational legal pluralism' [TLP] goes beyond Philip Jessup's 1956 idea of 'transnational law', through which he sought to both...

The adventures of global standards in Russia: the implementation of FSC certification in the Russian forestry sector through the concept of global legal pluralism

“…Sometimes these different regimes are contradictory. It is possible to recognize three different situations where conflict between laws may arise: (1) a collision between the law of different states, (2) a collision between State law and international law, and (3) a collision between State law and (national or international) non-State law created by communities or other private actors (Cotterrell 2009;Michaels 2005;Zumbansen 2010). Each type of such overlapping juridical assertion creates a potentially hybrid legal space (Berman 2007).…”

An Institutional Theory of Corporate Regulation

“…180 Many commentators have increasingly called upon the recognition of this body of soft law as "transnational private regulation," 181 consolidating its "lawness" as a pluralist development in law, 182 so that its causes may be advanced and not obstructed by traditional frames for law and legality. 183 The polycentric governance space and diverse soft law instruments for securing change in corporate behavior constitute a "transnational" new governance, 184 which is characterized by diversity, inclusiveness, participation, interrelationships, 185 and the socialization of the corporation within this fabric. 186 Commentators view the development of this space as crucially enrolling the "social" dimension into governance of corporate behavior, so that such governance is not narrowly dominated by government and business.…”

Institutional Investors as Blockholders

“…IIs are also relied upon by governmental agencies for the adoption and introduction of codes recommended by these governmental agencies to institutional investors' portfolio firms. 54 Thus, as Zumbansen observed, corporate governance regulation can be seen as "transnational and hybrid in nature" 55 This reliance on IIs poses a challenge to policy making. As was noted at the outset of this article, American IIs are credited for the promotion of shareholder-oriented model of corporate law around the world, which, inter alia, includes the promotion of dispersed ownership as the optimal model for corporate ownership.…”