The Study of Legal Plurality Outside 'Legal Pluralism': The Future of the Discipline?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of the plurality of legal orders must abandon the pluralist ‘paradigm’. It is at best superfluous; at worst, it is confused. The first contention concerns legal pluralism as a descriptive approach to law and does not mean that all the claims of legal pluralism are wrong, but that they are poorly made by this so-called paradigm. The second concerns legal pluralism as a normative approach. The best statement of the first critique, with a demonstration of the absence of anything even approaching an agreement within pluralism regarding the notion of law or legal order, a flaw that leaves pluralism vulnerable to being criticized as panjuridicism, belongs to Tamanaha (Section II). As for the second critique, it has been barely sketched out by a handful of scholars, among them Waldron. Yet pluralism can above all be explained as a political attitude, which defines its claims and arguments so poorly that one may suspect it of being an aesthetic position. More often than not, its proponents fall into performative contradiction by, without further nuance, claiming at the same time to adhere to the Rule of Law, whose formal control principle includes an ineradicable core of legal and judicial monism (Section IV). This is because the political stance of legal pluralism is generally inexplicit and undefended. Much more than an instructive example of this is the epitomic Romano, with whom every discussion on legal pluralism should start. I have decided, however, to start with sources more familiar to my expected reader, all the better to allow a careful examination of Romano’s canonical work, supplemented by minimum intellectual-biographical information, to show perfectly, transitionally here, the shift from front-science to hidden or unconfessed political agenda. One has to choose between Romano’s two main theoretical and, as a matter of fact, pluralist theses – those of law as fact and of ‘relevance’ as a fruitful concept of legal relationships between legal orders. More exactly, the second thesis, which is more specific, refutes the first, which – properly understood as an argument against Kelsen – was meant to be the foundation of legal pluralism. My claim is that this has to be taken as symptomatic (Section III).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".