Talk:Legal pluralism
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
More to go...[edit]
There is a lot conceptually problematic in this article. I will seek to give it a run through after May 2007. I think pluralism can only be approached by a theory by theory approach, as pluralism usually resides within the realm of postmodernity.
Plurality is considered not as JUST the official adoption of moral legal systems (natural law systems) but the inherent existence of them. Of course, no law could ever abolish a religion or a society by the stroke of a pen, therefore it is submitted that pluralism exists as a fact due to the inability of the official state law to control all the (what is thus considered) legal elements of its subjects.
E.g. Sharia councils in Great Britain.
It must also be noted pluralism is common through Africa and Asia. 82.111.240.216 18:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Jeremy
Legal pluralism is not limited to non-Western legal systems[edit]
The presentation of legal pluralism in this entry is misleading in so far as it presents its subject matter in terms of non-Western legal systems. For a more authoritative presentation of legal pluralism see the section on the Sociology of law.
Additional Meaning[edit]
Legal Pluralism can also refer to the kinds of lawyers in today's society as well as how we treat society. Eg. blind justice. It was historically assumed that justice is or should be blind. Today we recognize that being blind would not treat everyone as equals. In many jurisdictions we would permit a woman to testify against husband without facing him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.189.189 (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Legal Pluralism as a Theory of Jurisprudence[edit]
This article doesn't address "legal pluralism" as a theory of the way law is formed (in any given jurisdictions), promoted by Twining and other legal scholars... PDF: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=djcil This is an interesting area in jurisprudence, probably merits a mention or disambiguation. --71.191.141.163 (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)