20.04.2013 Views

IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...

IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...

IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Legal pluralism is an approach to understanding the law which argues that legal systems<br />

are never (or very rarely) completely unified and centralized. 76 Rather, legal pluralism asserts<br />

that multiple legal orders exist within a given society’s overarching legal system. These multiple<br />

(or plural) legal orders exist alongside, and to some extent overlap with, one another. Legal<br />

pluralism counters the assumptions of legal centralism, which understands law as emanating<br />

solely from the state and which dominated legal theory until at least the 1970s.<br />

Scholars have pointed out a number of weaknesses with legal pluralism as a theoretical<br />

framework. Perhaps the strongest challenge is that if legal pluralism is everywhere—since<br />

according to scholars who adopt legal pluralism as a framework, all societies are legally pluralist<br />

to some degree—the concept loses much of its effectiveness except as a counterweight to the<br />

now generally abandoned view of legal centralism. 77 One proposed solution has been to identify<br />

societies with stronger or weaker degrees of legal pluralism. The initial understanding of strong<br />

vs. weak legal pluralism, proposed by John Griffiths, identifies weak legal pluralism as<br />

characteristic of those societies in which the state mandates different legal orders for different<br />

sectors of the population. 78 Strong legal pluralism, on the other hand, occurs when the state does<br />

not control the various legal orders within a given society and when a single population can draw<br />

on more than one of these available legal orders. 79 Griffiths (and many others) conclude that<br />

76<br />

The most oft-cited articulation of legal pluralism is John Griffiths, “What is Legal Pluralism,” Journal of Legal<br />

Pluralism 24 (1986). Legal pluralism was first proposed by legal anthropologists to describe law in colonial<br />

situations, though it has since been expanded to relate to all kinds of societies (see Brian Z. Tamanaha, A General<br />

Jurisprudence of Law and Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 115-16).<br />

77<br />

On this problem see idem, “Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global,” Sidney Law Review<br />

30 (2008): 375. As Avi Rubin puts it, seeing legal pluralism everywhere makes it a “fuzzy” concept: Rubin,<br />

Ottoman Nizamiye Courts, 60.<br />

78<br />

Griffiths, “What is Legal Pluralism,” 5-8. Griffiths considers weak (or “juristic”) legal pluralism to be a sub-set<br />

of legal centralism.<br />

79<br />

Ibid., 5, 8.<br />

27

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!