JUSTIFICATION OF LEGAL PLURALISM IN THE MODERN WORLD

Abstract

ANNOTATION: the article is devoted to the study of the basic directions of justification of the need for legal pluralism in the modern world. It is proved that the arguments of the supporters of the concept of legal pluralism can be systematized by distinguishing the substantive legal, cultural-psychological, global-historical and pragmatic aspects of the studied issues. The substantive-legal aspect of the justification of legal pluralism is connected with the understanding of law as a phenomenon, which is not limited to state-government normative prescriptions, but also permits the existence of relatively autonomous legal systems created by different social groups. This approach is most consistently advocated by representatives of the sociological school, social anthropology and the communicative theory of law. The cultural-psychological aspect of the justification of legal pluralism is connected with the fact that in modern society exist a significant number of ethno-cultural communities, each of which has a special understanding of equality, freedom, justice and order. Ignoring the cultural and religious diversity of the population by the state can lead to informal regulatory practices, shadow law and shadow justice. The global-historical aspect of the justification of legal pluralism reflects the impact of globalization, information technology, postmodern philosophy on the development of state and law. In the world today, there are many organizations with their own legal order and the ability to exert legal influence over different entities, regardless of their nationality. The pragmatic aspect of the justification of legal pluralism is oriented towards ensuring the effectiveness of legal regulation, since centralized state-government regulation does not always ensure the proper achievement of the objectives of law. This thesis is illustrated by the example of Latin American law. It is concluded that each of these aspects is sufficiently substantiated, and together they form a reliable "framework" of the scientific justification for the need for legal pluralism in the modern world.