The Effect of Globalization on the Interactions among Legal Systems: Case Studies

A special issue of Laws (ISSN 2075-471X).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (15 November 2021) | Viewed by 8252

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Faculty of Law, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA
Interests: global legal pluralism; legal jurisdiction; globalization and Law; conflicts of Law

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

We are living in dark, dark times. Many of the institutions of interlocking governance and democratic coexistence that have been carefully nurtured since 1945 are under attack. Nationalism, tribalism, xenophobia, and racism are fueling right-wing populist revolts against this legal order despite the fact that the period since 1945 has seen rises in health, longevity, prosperity, and peace that are perhaps unparalleled in human history.

Most fundamentally, we are in grave danger of losing sight of the core values that were forged out of the ashes of World War II and its unimaginable horrors. Those values include the very idea of democratic dialogue, international cooperation, protection of human rights, respect for diversity, the moral worth of each individual, the idea of limits on what nation-states can do to pursue their self-interest, and so on.

Paradoxically and tragically, this move towards greater insularity and tribalism comes at a time when many of the problems facing the world increasingly require coordinated solutions and more interaction among legal and political systems, not less. Such problems include: issues of how we will effectively maintain life on this planet (climate change, biodiversity, ecosystem losses, and water deficits); issues of how human beings will sustain themselves on it (poverty, conflict prevention, and global infectious diseases); and issues of how we will develop global cooperative rules for living together given that much human activity crosses territorial borders (nuclear proliferation, toxic waste disposal, data protection, trade rules, finance and tax regimes, and so on). These sorts of problems cannot plausibly be addressed solely within one legal system.

Yet, despite these obvious needs, we see resistance to global governance or universalistic solutions. This resistance may stem from concerns about the democratic accountability of such solutions or a belief that global solutions are intrinsically hegemonic. Indeed, an emphasis on the global might seem to give insufficient attention to the local affiliations and emotional attachments people at least sometimes hold onto most assiduously. Or universalism might be seen to trample on the ideal of diversity altogether.

Thus, the legal challenge of our time is how to build mechanisms for engagement among legal, political, or cultural systems that recognize at least a limited set of shared values and promote mutual respect, dialogue, and cooperation, without requiring all systems to be homogenized into one universalistic legal order. We must create what David Held has called “the ethical and political space which sets out the terms of reference for the recognition of people’s equal moral worth, their active agency and what is required for their autonomy and development.” But at the same time, we must recognize that the meaning of principles such as equal concern and regard, human dignity, and so on cannot be specified once and for all, separate from the diversity of traditions, beliefs, histories, and cultures that make up human societies. In the end, what we need are institutions, procedures, and practices that allow for dialogue and cooperation under conditions of diversity.

This special issue seeks to collect case studies regarding such institutions, procedures, and practices. Contributors will analyze specific efforts to manage the interaction of legal systems by building pluralism and dialogue among multiple communities into legal mechanisms. Contributors will also evaluate the effectiveness and multiple impacts (both positive and negative) of such efforts.

Prof. Paul Schiff Berman
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Laws is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Globalization
  • Legal Pluralism
  • Legal Interaction
  • Multiculturalism
  • Conflicts of Law
  • Jurisdiction
  • Responsivity
  • Margins of Appreciation
  • Subsidiarity
  • federalism
  • Hybridity

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (1 paper)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

24 pages, 344 KiB  
Article
The Limits of Arbitration Law in Addressing Cultural Diversity: The Example of Ismaili Arbitration in the United Kingdom
by Sandrine Brachotte
Laws 2021, 10(2), 47; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10020047 - 7 Jun 2021
Viewed by 6114
Abstract
This article studies religious arbitration from the perspective of global legal pluralism, which embraces both normative plurality and cultural diversity. In this context, the article considers that UK arbitration law regulates both commercial and religious arbitration while relying on a monist conception of [...] Read more.
This article studies religious arbitration from the perspective of global legal pluralism, which embraces both normative plurality and cultural diversity. In this context, the article considers that UK arbitration law regulates both commercial and religious arbitration while relying on a monist conception of arbitration. It further identifies two intertwined issues regarding cultural diversity, which find their source in this monist conception. Firstly, through the study of Jivraj v. Hashwani ([2011] UKSC 40), this article shows that the governance of religious arbitration may generate a conflict between arbitration law and equality law, the avoidance of which can require sacrificing the objectives of one or the other branch of law. The Jivraj case concerned an Ismaili arbitration clause, requiring that all arbitrators be Ismaili—a clause valid under arbitration law but potentially not under employment-equality law. To avoid such conflict, the Supreme Court reduced the scope of employment-equality law, thereby excluding self-employed persons. Secondly, based on cultural studies of law, this article shows that the conception of arbitration underlying UK arbitration law is ill-suited to make sense of Ismaili arbitration. In view of these two issues, this article argues that UK arbitration law acknowledges normative multiplicity but fails to embrace the cultural diversity entangled therewith. Full article
Back to TopTop