规范与法律多元主义:全球视角

W. Twining
{"title":"规范与法律多元主义:全球视角","authors":"W. Twining","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197547410.013.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter sets out to demystify the topic of legal pluralism by examining the relationship between legal pluralism, normative pluralism, and general normative theory from a global perspective. The central theme is that treating legal pluralism as a species of normative pluralism decenters the state, links legal pluralism to a rich body of literature, and helps to show that some of the central puzzlements surrounding the topic can usefully be viewed as much broader issues in the general theory of norms and legal theory. A second theme is that so-called “global legal pluralism” is in several respects qualitatively different from the older anthropological and sociolegal accounts of legal pluralism and is largely based on a different set of concerns. Following the introduction in section I, section II considers normative pluralism. It explores the ambiguity of “pluralism” and some themes in general normative theory. Section III introduces the heritage of literature on legal pluralism. It presents an ideal type of social fact legal pluralism to which much, but by no means all, of the mainstream literature approximates. Some brief case studies illustrate some distinctions that are increasingly under attack. Section III suggests that social fact pluralism has achieved much in raising awareness of nonstate normative orders, but provides little guidance on issues of state policy and institutional design. Section IV considers the implications of adopting a global perspective in this context. It questions how far social fact legal pluralism is helpful in addressing a wide range of concerns raised by “globalization” and argues that the radically ambiguous idea of “global legal pluralism” is being applied to such a variety of phenomena and concerns as to be virtually meaningless.","PeriodicalId":236573,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Transnational Law","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"103","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Normative and Legal Pluralism: A Global Perspective\",\"authors\":\"W. Twining\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197547410.013.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter sets out to demystify the topic of legal pluralism by examining the relationship between legal pluralism, normative pluralism, and general normative theory from a global perspective. The central theme is that treating legal pluralism as a species of normative pluralism decenters the state, links legal pluralism to a rich body of literature, and helps to show that some of the central puzzlements surrounding the topic can usefully be viewed as much broader issues in the general theory of norms and legal theory. A second theme is that so-called “global legal pluralism” is in several respects qualitatively different from the older anthropological and sociolegal accounts of legal pluralism and is largely based on a different set of concerns. Following the introduction in section I, section II considers normative pluralism. It explores the ambiguity of “pluralism” and some themes in general normative theory. Section III introduces the heritage of literature on legal pluralism. It presents an ideal type of social fact legal pluralism to which much, but by no means all, of the mainstream literature approximates. Some brief case studies illustrate some distinctions that are increasingly under attack. Section III suggests that social fact pluralism has achieved much in raising awareness of nonstate normative orders, but provides little guidance on issues of state policy and institutional design. Section IV considers the implications of adopting a global perspective in this context. It questions how far social fact legal pluralism is helpful in addressing a wide range of concerns raised by “globalization” and argues that the radically ambiguous idea of “global legal pluralism” is being applied to such a variety of phenomena and concerns as to be virtually meaningless.\",\"PeriodicalId\":236573,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Oxford Handbook of Transnational Law\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"103\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Oxford Handbook of Transnational Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197547410.013.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Oxford Handbook of Transnational Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197547410.013.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 103

摘要

本章通过从全球视角考察法律多元主义、规范多元主义和一般规范理论之间的关系,揭开法律多元主义主题的神秘面纱。本书的中心主题是,将法律多元主义视为规范多元主义的一种,使国家偏离中心,将法律多元主义与丰富的文献联系起来,并有助于表明围绕该主题的一些核心困惑可以被视为规范和法律理论的一般理论中更广泛的问题。第二个主题是,所谓的“全球法律多元主义”在若干方面与对法律多元主义的较早的人类学和社会法学解释有质的不同,并且在很大程度上基于一套不同的关切。继第一节的介绍之后,第二节考虑规范多元化。它探讨了“多元主义”的模糊性和一般规范理论中的一些主题。第三部分介绍了法律多元主义的文献遗产。它呈现了一种社会事实法律多元主义的理想类型,许多主流文献都与之接近,但绝不是全部。一些简短的案例研究说明了一些日益受到攻击的区别。第三部分表明,社会事实多元化在提高对非国家规范秩序的认识方面取得了很大成就,但在国家政策和制度设计问题上提供的指导很少。第四节审议了在这方面采用全球观点的影响。它质疑社会事实法律多元主义在多大程度上有助于解决“全球化”所引起的广泛关注,并认为“全球法律多元主义”这一极其模糊的概念正被应用于各种各样的现象和关注,以至于实际上毫无意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Normative and Legal Pluralism: A Global Perspective
This chapter sets out to demystify the topic of legal pluralism by examining the relationship between legal pluralism, normative pluralism, and general normative theory from a global perspective. The central theme is that treating legal pluralism as a species of normative pluralism decenters the state, links legal pluralism to a rich body of literature, and helps to show that some of the central puzzlements surrounding the topic can usefully be viewed as much broader issues in the general theory of norms and legal theory. A second theme is that so-called “global legal pluralism” is in several respects qualitatively different from the older anthropological and sociolegal accounts of legal pluralism and is largely based on a different set of concerns. Following the introduction in section I, section II considers normative pluralism. It explores the ambiguity of “pluralism” and some themes in general normative theory. Section III introduces the heritage of literature on legal pluralism. It presents an ideal type of social fact legal pluralism to which much, but by no means all, of the mainstream literature approximates. Some brief case studies illustrate some distinctions that are increasingly under attack. Section III suggests that social fact pluralism has achieved much in raising awareness of nonstate normative orders, but provides little guidance on issues of state policy and institutional design. Section IV considers the implications of adopting a global perspective in this context. It questions how far social fact legal pluralism is helpful in addressing a wide range of concerns raised by “globalization” and argues that the radically ambiguous idea of “global legal pluralism” is being applied to such a variety of phenomena and concerns as to be virtually meaningless.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Global Social Indicators and their Legitimacy in Transnational Law Transnational Legal Education Out of Site: Transnational Legal Culture(s) With, Within, and Beyond the State: The Promise and Limits of Transnational Legal Ordering Normative and Legal Pluralism: A Global Perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1