No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Emmanuel Melissaris, Ubiquitous Law: Legal Theory and the Space for Legal Pluralism (2009) (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2009) [ISBN 978-0-7546-2542-1] [Ubiquitous Law]. All page references in parenthesis are to this book.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 July 2015
Extract
A broad assortment of contemporary approaches to legal and normative complexity have challenged state law’s claim of dominance and exclusivity. In Ubiquitous law: Legal Theory and the Space for Legal Pluralism (2009), Emmanuel Melissaris similarly seeks to ground the ‘legal’ in what he calls ‘shared normative commitments’. As with much ‘legal pluralism’, his focus on normativity rejects long-established conventional concepts of law. Indeed, for Melissaris, state law may not even properly qualify as ‘law’. But understood as a descriptive theory of normativity, the dynamic legal-normative web he outlines has much to recommend it. It is certainly superior to the continuing narrow concentration of jurisprudes on state law and law-like regimes. Less convincing is Melissaris’ prescriptive suggestion, with ‘critical legal pluralists’, that illustrating the degree to which legal-normative reform occurs beyond the state and its laws promises liberation. Shared normative commitments do not necessarily result in popular control as existing social structures and power relationships remain. We may be ensnared rather than emancipated. On the whole, however, Melissaris has made a sophisticated and substantial contribution to our understanding of legal and normative plurality. His book deserves to be widely read.
- Type
- Book Reviews
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 2012
References
1. Davies, Margaret, ‘The Ethos of Pluralism’ (2005) 27 Sydney LR 87 at 112.Google Scholar
2. Tamanaha, Brian, A General Jurisprudence of Law and Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Twining, William, General Jurisprudence: Understanding Law From a Global Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Cotterrell, Roger, ‘Does Legal Pluralism Need a Concept of Law?’ (2009) 19(10) Law & Pol Book Rev 774.Google Scholar
4. Tamanaha, Brian, ‘A Non-Essentialist Version of Legal Pluralism’ (2000) 27(2) J Law & Soc’y 296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and later in A General Jurisprudence of Law and Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
5. Towards a New Legal Common Sense: Law, Globalization, and Emancipation, 2nd ed, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) at 89.Google Scholar