메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
원광대학교 법학연구소 원광법학 원광법학 제26권 제3호
발행연도
2010.1
수록면
405 - 426 (22page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
This article, an abridged Korean translation of “Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global” by Brian Z. Tamanaha, explains about the conceptual problem plaguing legal pluralism and introduces a probable solution. Based on this conclusion, it devises a framework which categorizes the legal pluralism phenomena and further explores how these categories clash to what results. Legal pluralism has been heralded by scholars of legal anthropology,legal sociology, comparative law and international law as the theory elucidating the daunting multiplicity of legal orders. But despite all this attention, legal pluralism was marked by conceptual confusion from the very beginning. Participants of legal pluralism come from different disciplines,bringing different concepts and orientations to the subject. Also theorists were not able to agree on a single definition of law for social scientific purposes. If law is defined too broadly, it becomes impossible to discern from other social relationships. This article suggests a solution by regarding law as a “folk concept”; in other words law is what people think of as law. This simple approach can be expanded into a framework that divides the phenomena of legal pluralism into the following six categories: Official legal systems; Customary/Cultural normative systems; Religious/Cultural normative systems; Economic/Capitalist normative systems; Functional normative systems; Community/Cultural normative systems. A single social arena can have one or more of these legal orders;co-existing legal orders tend to clash with each other for supremacy in redundant areas. Most often official legal systems tend to clash with the other five normative systems mentioned above. In such situations, the official legal system copes with the conflict in either of three ways. First,the official legal system might disallow the competing system but take no action to repress it. Second, the official legal system might absorb the competing system. Third, the official legal system might denounce the competing system, and then actively execute that claim. But if the competing system is more prominent in the social arena than the official legal system, the above methods might not operate as expected. Other from the prior systematic approach, the conflict between normative systems can be viewed from the perspective of individuals and groups. Strategic actors resort to the legal system that aligns with their cause and in making this decision they consider the barriers that exist in connection with each system. The forgoing framework brings on the same plane much of what is discussed by scholars interested in legal pluralism. Now with the conceptual problem of legal pluralism resolved, this framework will work as a practical tool in handling the plurality of law in all societies.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (17)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0