The Integrative Effects of Global Legal Pluralism

Abstract

International lawyers widely understand that legal pluralism is a fact of global life and that it can, in certain settings, be desirable. But many still approach it with some trepidation. A prominent skeptical claim is that pluralist structures lack the integrative resources that unify people around a shared governance project. This claim has been prominent with respect to two kinds of conflicts that are routine in international law: (1) conflicts that play out within particular legal arrangements, and (2) conflicts that cut across legal arrangements. For each kind of conflict, the skeptical claim is directed at the pluralist structure itself. The stated problem -- the thing that is thought to disintegrate the association -- is that competing legal positions are not reconciled or resolved but allowed to coexist, fester, and repeatedly reappear.

This book chapter uses the historic experience of the World Trade Organization to challenge that skeptical claim. Although other scholars have already argued that the claim is overdrawn, I aim to contest its central premise. I argue that ineradicable governance conflicts are not necessarily dissociative for the people who partake in them. Creating space for these people to have their conflicts in relatively constructive ways can instead be productive for the group. It is a way for them to engage together and invest in a joint governance project, despite their many disagreements, and thus to preserve the project as a going concern that binds them.

Keywords: International Law, Global Legal Pluralism, Pluralism, Conflict, Contestation, International Legal Theory, Political Philosophy, International Trade, World Trade Organization

JEL Classification: K33