Contending Orders

Abstract

Abstract Legal pluralism matters. It shapes how people order their lives and interact with their fellow citizens and with state officials. Often in developing countries, for instance, non-state justice systems handle most disputes and operate with real autonomy from the state. Robust legal pluralism challenges conventional notions of sovereignty because it undercuts the state’s claim to a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within its territory. This book examines the role of legal pluralism in state-building, particularly efforts to establish democratic governance and the rule of law. State and non-state justice may largely work in tandem, while clashing legal systems can generate prolonged and potentially even violent conflict. The book proposes four new, distinct legal-pluralism archetypes—combative, competitive, cooperative, and benign—to better understand how legal pluralism functions in practice and how state and non-state authorities interact. It posits five main strategies used by domestic and international actors to influence the relationship between state and non-state justice systems: bridging, harmonization, incorporation, subsidization, and repression. Case studies from two countries with extensive legal pluralism, Afghanistan and Timor-Leste, illustrate why legal pluralism matters for attempts to promote democracy and the rule of law. These show divergent outcomes influenced by how the state engaged with non-justice actors: efforts in Afghanistan failed, but Timor-Leste has made impressive progress. While the case studies focus on post-conflict states, the theory presented can help improve efforts to promote the rule of law and good governance in all legally pluralist settings.