Re-Appraisal of Legal Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: Questioning the Legal Pluralism Paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The notion that multiple legal systems autonomously coexist in independent states in sub-Saharan Africa due to the interaction of the continent with foreign legal systems is theoretically flawed, misleading and an incorrect application of the concept of legal pluralism. This article examines the nature of legal pluralism in the context of transitioning independent nation-states. It contends that these nation-states, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, do not operate legally pluralistic legal systems, as often presented in scholastic works. Using system and lifecycle theories, this article argues against the prevailing conceptualization of legal pluralism in African legal systems. We argue that the prevailing conceptualization of pluralistic legal systems in sub-Saharan Africa is based on the fallacy of the undistributed middle, leading to flawed conclusions and disastrous governance outcomes. This widespread orthodoxy in legal and sociopolitical scholarship heightens perceived conflicts between imperial universalism and cultural existentialism, which has been the epicenter of legal discussion in Africa’s transitioning nations.
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 | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".