Skip Navigation

International Journal of Constitutional Law 2008 6(3-4):415-455; doi:10.1093/icon/mon023
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rosenfeld, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Oxford University Press and New York University School of Law. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

This article appears in the following International Journal of Constitutional Law issue: SYMPOSIUM: constitutionalism in an era of globalization and privatization [View the issue table of contents]

Rethinking constitutional ordering in an era of legal and ideological pluralism

Michel Rosenfeld*

* Justice Sydney L. Robins Professor of Human Rights, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York. Email: mrosnfld{at}yu.edu


   Abstract

We live in an increasingly pluralistic legal and ideological universe. Nation-state legal regimes are currently supplemented by numerous transnational and global orders that defy any workable hierarchy or cogent unity. As a consequence, the various applicable legal regimes are often inconsistent with one another and even, at times, mutually contradictory. This problem is compounded by the proliferation of competing ideologies and by the increasing rifts among them. This makes it seemingly impossible to reconcile all the legal norms to which one is subject or to harmonize the prevailing plurality of legal regimes within the confines of a commonly shared ideology. Based on an analysis of contemporary legal and philosophical pluralism and of the convergences among the two, the article argues that it is possible to reconcile legal and ideological pluralism by abandoning hierarchy and countenancing inconsistencies falling short of incompatibilities in a highly layered and segmented legal universe.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.