Abstract
Regulation of the Internet is a favorite example of legal scholars who argue that law is a globalized phenomenon (Berman 2007, p. 316; Fischer-Lescano & Teubner 2004, pp. 1010–11; Michaels 2009, p. 247). Internet law is fascinating from a legal theoretical perspective because it shows clearly that it is problematic to use state law to govern a global network, and that it is equally problematic to find international or non-state forms of law capable of regulating it adequately. It is therefore not surprising that many attempts to conceptualize problems of law and Internet do so on the basis of a theory of legal pluralism. Theories of legal pluralism take the plurality of law seriously and theorize about what legal pluralism means. This conceptual exercise is then related back to digital phenomena, which, I would argue, is a fruitful way to account for and understand Internet law. There is, however, not one way of theorizing the plurality of law. Different conceptualizations of legal pluralism are on offer, which take rather different starting points. One of the points about which theories of legal pluralism differ relates to the boundaries of legal orders: should we see these as closed systems, or as open and flexible? In this paper, I will take this issue as central to discussing the nature of legal pluralism. With respect to the topic of this volume, the question then is which conceptualization is the most convincing when it comes to understanding the pluralism of normative orders.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Arcuri, A 2013, ‘The TBT agreement and private regulation’, in Research Handbook on the WTO and Technical Barriers to Trade, eds. T Epps & MJ Trebilcock, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 485–524.
Berman, PS 2007, ‘A pluralist approach to international law’, Yale Journal of International Law, vol. 32, pp. 301–29.
Cohen, JE 2012, Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Cotterrell, R 2008, ‘Law and culture, inside and outside the nation state’, Retfaerd, vol. 31, no. 4–123, pp. 23–36.
De Been, W & Taekema, S 2013, ‘What piece of work is man: Frans de Waal and pragmatist naturalism’, Contemporary Pragmatism, vol. 10, pp. 29–59.
Dewey, J 1960, ‘Context and thought’, in On Experience, Nature and Freedom: Representative Selections, eds. RJ Bernstein, Liberal Arts Press, New York.
Fuller, Lon L 1981, ‘Human interaction and the law’, in The Principles of Social Order. Selected essays of Lon L. Fuller, ed. KI Winston, Duke University Press, Durham, pp. 211–46.
Glastra van Loon, JF 1958, ‘Rules and commands’, Mind vol. 67, pp. 514–21.
Hickman, L 1990, John Dewey’s Pragmatic Technology, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Fischer Lescano, A & Teubner, G 2004, ‘Regime-Collisions: The vain search for legal unity in the fragmentation of global law’, Michigan Journal of International Law, vol. 25, pp. 999–1046.
Hildebrandt, M 2013, The Rule of Law in Cyberspace? Available from: works.bepress.com/mireille_hildebrandt/48.
Lakoff, G & Johnson, M 1980, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Legrand, P 1997, ‘The impossibility of legal transplants’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, vol. 4, pp. 111–24.
Lessig, L 2006, Code Version 2.0, Basic Books, New York.
Melissaris, E 2009, Ubiquitous Law: Legal Theory and the Space for Legal Pluralism. Ashgate, Farnham.
Melissaris, E 2013, ‘From legal pluralism to public justification’, Erasmus Law Review, vol. 6, pp. 173–80.
Michaels, R 2009, ‘Global legal pluralism’, Annual Review of Social Science, vol. 5, pp. 243–62.
Taekema, S 2003, The Concept of Ideals in Legal Theory, Kluwer Law International, The Hague.
Taekema, S 2006, ‘Beyond common sense: Philosophical pragmatism’s relevance to law’, Retfaerd, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 22–36.
Taekema, S 2010, Het Probleem van Pragmatisme. Een Vertrekpunt voor Rechtstheorie en Rechtsmethodologie, Boom Juridische Uitgevers, The Hague.
Tamanaha, B 2001, A General Jurisprudence of Law and Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2015 Sanne Taekema
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Taekema, S. (2015). Fragments and Continuities of Law and ICT: A Pragmatist Approach to Understanding Legal Pluralism. In: de Been, W., Arora, P., Hildebrandt, M. (eds) Crossroads in New Media, Identity and Law. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137491268_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137491268_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-50444-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-49126-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Media & Culture CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)