A Moral Reading of Legal Pluralism

Abstract

In this article we develop an original, non-positivist conception of legal pluralism, which we then deploy to identify and evaluate a particular type of legitimacy crisis. Such crises occur when settler-states attempt unilaterally to resolve conflicts between their own legal orders and indigenous legal orders, and thus treat the relevant indigenous communities unjustly. By identifying each legal order in terms of its morally valuable instantiation of the rule of law, we emphasise their equal normative status; the legitimacy crises we identify are typified by failures to acknowledge and respect this equality on the part of settler-states. Using case studies drawn from the United States of America and Australia, this article not only advances the first non-positivist theory of legal pluralism, but also demonstrates the utility of non-positivism as an analytical tool within socio-legal jurisprudence.