Globalisation: A Call for Contextualising Legal Research and Reframing Its Background Theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60923/issn.2724-6299/24309Keywords:
globalisation, legal positivism, legal research methods, law-in-context research, doctrinal researchAbstract
This article argues that globalisation poses a serious challenge to the traditional way of doing legal doctrinal research. Globalisation drives us towards comparison, creating comparative awareness; it creates the need to understand multidimensional legal orders; and it problematises the paradigm that the state is central to legal change. We argue that these three implications of globalisation challenge both the dominant theory of law, legal positivism, and the traditional methodology of legal research. Although our basic stance is that of theoretical and methodological pluralism, meaning that the choice of theory and methodology depends on the research problem and the approach taken to address it, we believe that it is not possible to address globalisation meaningfully with a legal positivist theory and a monodisciplinary methodology. The complexities of globalisation lead to interlinked, multidimensional legal orders that show gaps, lead to incoherence and give rise to controversies about meaning and interpretation. Dealing with these characteristics of ‘global’ law requires opening up legal theory to include a variety of sources and arguments and acknowledging the role of other actors than the state. It also requires contextualising legal research methodology because understanding the gaps, incoherences and controversies is only possible by relating legal orders to their historical, political, socio-economic and theoretical contexts.
Downloads
References
Amaya A. (2015). The Tapestry of Reason: An Inquiry into the Nature of Co-herence and Its Role in Legal Argument (Hart).
Amtenbrink F. (2008). The Multidimensional Constitutional Legal Order of the European Union - A Successful Case of Cosmopolitan Constitution-Building?, in Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 3-68.
Battin M.P. (1994). The Least Worst Death: Essays in Bioethics on the End of Life (Oxford University Press).
Benton L. (2020). Empires and Jurisdictional Politics: Legal Pluralism and the Search for Global Order, in P. S. Berman, ed. (2020), Oxford Handbook on Global Legal Pluralism (Oxford University Press), 187-199.
Berman P. S. (ed.) (2020). Oxford Handbook on Global Legal Pluralism (Oxford University Press).
Berman P. S. (2012). Global Legal Pluralism: A Jurisprudence of Law Be-yond Borders (Cambridge University Press).
Cotterrell R. (2018). Sociological Jurisprudence: Juristic Thought and Social Inquiry (Routledge).
Ehrlich E. (2002). Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law (1936) (Transaction Publishers).
Elgin C. Z. (2017). True Enough (MIT Press).
Fraser J. and Henderson L. (2022). The human rights turn in climate change litigation and responsibilities of legal professionals, in Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, vol. 40, no. 1, 3-11.
Gardner J. (2001). Legal Positivism: 5 ½ Myths, in Americal Journal of Jurisprudence, vol. 46, 199-227.
Giudice M. (2015). Understanding the Nature of Law. A Case for Construc-tive Conceptual Explanation (Edward Elgar).
Handmaker J. (2026). Legal Mobilization: Assessing the Potential and Limits of Law-based Civic Advocacy (Edward Elgar).
Hart H. L. A. (1994). The Concept of Law (1961) (Clarendon).
Jacobsen J. (2022). Legal Reform Research: Groundworks for Legal Schol-arship (Karnov Group).
Kelsen H. (2020). Reine Rechtslehre: Einleitung in die rechtswissenschaftli-che Problematik (Studienausgabe 1e Herausgabe 1934, M. Jestaedt, ed.) (Mohr Siebeck).
Krisch N. (2021). Framing Entangled Legalities beyond the State, in N. Krisch, ed., Entangled Legalities Beyond the State (Cambridge University Press).
Kuhn T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) (University of Chicago Press).
Lijphart A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Perfor-mance in Thirty-Six Countries (Yale University Press).
Mak E. (2015). Watch Out for the Under Toad: Role and Method of Interdis-ciplinary Contextualisation in Comparative Legal Research, in Erasmus Law Review, vol. 8, no. 2, 65-77.
Michaels R. (2021). Tertiary Rules, in N. Krisch, ed., Entangled Legalities Beyond the State (Cambridge University Press).
Montesquieu C.-L. de (1914). The Spirit of Laws (1758), https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_Laws_(1758)/Book_XI.
Núñez J. E. (2024). Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory (Routledge).
Otlowksi M. (2000). Voluntary Euthanasia and the Common Law (Oxford University Press).
Raz J. (1979). The Authority of Law. Essays on Law and Morality (Claren-don).
Samuel G. (2014). An Introduction to Comparative Law Theory and Method (Hart).
Scholten P. (1934). Algemeen Deel. Mr. C. Asser’s Handleiding tot de beoefening van het Nederlandsch Burgerlijk Recht 1 (W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink).
Schoukens H. (2024). Climate change litigation and the separation of powers: effective legal protection as the ultimate yardstick?, in F. Sindico et.al., eds., Research handbook on climate change litigation (Edward Elgar).
Siems M. (2022). Comparative Law (Cambridge University Press).
Solum L. and Bennett R. (2011). Constitutional Originalism: A Debate (Cornell University Press).
Taekema S. (2008). Does the Concept of Law Need Officials?, Problema 2, 157-183. https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487937e.2008.2
Taekema S. & Van der Burg W. (2024). Contextualising Legal Research. A Methodological Guide (Edward Elgar).
Van der Burg W. (2025). Rechtsfilosofie in een pluralistische wereld. Nadenken over de verantwoordelijkheid van juristen (Boom).
Van Hoecke M., ed. (2011). Methodologies of Legal Research: Which Kind of Method for What Kind of Discipline? (Hart).
Van Hoecke M., ed. (2004). Epistemology and Methodology of Comparative Law (Hart).
Waldron J. (2011). The Rule of Law and the Importance of Procedure, in J. Fleming, ed., Getting to the Rule of Law (New York University Press), 3-31.
Watson A. (1993), Legal Transplants. An Approach to Comparative Law (1974) (University of Georgia Press).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sanne Taekema, Wibren van der Burg
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
