Legal Pluralism & Political Legitimacy

Abstract

Using insights from analytical political philosophy and the sociology of law, this paper argues for a 'non-positivist' understanding of legal pluralism. It claims that the idea of political legitimacy - specifically as it applies to adjudication - both clarifies the concept of legal pluralism and refocuses existing debates on instances of ongoing institutional injustice. The first attempt to explain legal pluralism in non-positivist terms, our argument challenges the idea that legal pluralism pertains when there is a conflict of norms, and instead focuses on the moral quandaries faced by those experiencing a plurality of laws, and the inability of (post)colonial institutions to address these situations adequately. We argue that our analysis is particularly illuminating when it comes to questions of indigenous justice (in Asia and elsewhere), since it is in these circumstances that the issues we identify most frequently arise.