M.E. Basile /J. Fair Bestor /D.R. Coquillette /Ch. Donahue, Jr. (eds.), Lex Mercatoria and Legal Pluralism: A Late Thirteenth-Century Treatise and its Afterlife, The Ames Foundation, Cambridge, 1998.

2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 620-623
Author(s):  
S. Schilf
1999 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 225
Author(s):  
Maryanne Kowaleski ◽  
Mary Elizabeth Basile ◽  
Jane Fair Bestor ◽  
Daniel C. Coquillette ◽  
Charles Donahue

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-290
Author(s):  
Neilesh Bose ◽  
Victor V. Ramraj

Abstract As the debate over historical antecedents to contemporary forms of lex mercatoria suggests, the nature of legal authority appears to be changing into a less familiar, more pluralistic form, even as states struggle to reassert their power. In seeking to understand this transformation in—and decentering of—the modern state's authority, we consider the multiple sources of legal authority claimed by the East India Company (1600–1757) and the way in which it positioned its legal and political legitimacy in relation to multiple and often competing centers of power in India. This article proposes the notion that the hegemony of a centralized modern state belongs only to a narrow sliver of history, hiding a much deeper pluralism within global history. In so doing, this article sets the stage for a sustained consideration of the plural nature of authority in the waxing and waning phases of the modern state.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (special) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandru BOSTAN

The paper presents the emergence and evolution of the concept of transnational law, from the Philip Jessup’s 1956 novation to the latest approaches, mainly from the western legal scholarship. In the legal writings from Romania or Republic of Moldova, the phenomenon of transnational law remains unexplored or, at best, mentioned incidental as a synonym of a modern “lex mercatoria”. Likewise, in Russian scholarship, research on transnational law bears a strong private imprint and ubiquitous reluctance may be noted. This article aims to discuss, from the perspective of legal pluralism, the loss of the state monopoly in law making, the pluralization of sources of legitimacy for transnational actors, and the reconsideration of the scope of the law, by de-territorializing it. Transnational law is seen thus not just a private regime, but as a system of normative law that transcends international or national law, acts in a distinct social space and addresses specific actors, not only private, but also public or hybrid. In Romanian legal knowledge this approach is missing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document