Latest Articles
Back
Meaning of Legal Pluralism
Legal pluralism means, generally speaking, that several autonomous legal systems exist besides each other although they cover the same territory or the same groups of persons or both i.e. multiple legal systems exist within a population and/or geographical area. On the sub-constitutional level state constitutions or laws have established or accepted that certain groups or parts of society may enjoy legal autonomy. In other words, are governed by legal rules developed by and applicable to them but to not the rest of society. The objective of legal pluralism is also less embracing. Even this development is simply new concerning the frequency of cases such a system is being turned to.
It is somewhat forgotten that the system of legal pluralism is the results of the development of territorial states which happened between the 16th and 19th centuries in Europe. Before this development was accomplished, the applicability of a legal norm to a specific person depended upon the ethnic affiliation of the person concerned. Only after the system of territorial states had developed, and its internal organization had been consolidated, did the governments of those states impose governing the affairs of the population in these states all told aspects. But even at the peak of the development of territorial states, some groups maintained a particular independence from full governmental control. In Europe these were, for instance, monasteries and other institutions of the church.
At present the event in some states – South Sudan has been treated intensively during this book – seems to point towards the popularity of a more pluralistic legal order, although this development is by no means coherent. Other examples are found in several states in geographical regions. However, the valuing of the merits of legal pluralism differs significantly from state to state and region to region.
The attitude towards legal pluralism changes evidently depending upon the shifting views concerning, on the one side, what makes the unity of a state – including its legal unity – desirable and on the merits of preserving or perhaps fostering ethnic, religious, cultural or other identities. Literature thinks about legal pluralism as far as ethnic, religious, cultural or other identities are concerned. It becomes evident on looking closer that even a state like Germany traditionally tolerates some legal pluralism exercised. The best example for this is in professional chambers. The concept behind this can be that such chambers should enjoy some autonomy – except for historical reasons – so as to develop and implement their professional standards. However, their activities are state controlled through the overall juridical system. This type of legal pluralism isn't the problem of relevance here.
The phenomenon of legal pluralism in some European countries comes into play in respect of immigrants, particularly from Muslim countries. The German government seems to be inclined to place an end to the current kind of parallel justice system.
Legal pluralism also occurs when different groups are governed by different laws within a country. For example- In Tanzania and India, there are special Islamic courts that address concerns in Muslim communities by following law principles. Secular courts handle the problems of other communities.
