The margin of appreciation, domestic irregularity and domestic court rulings in ECHR environmental jurisprudence: Global legal pluralism in action

Global legal pluralism is concerned, inter alia, with the growing multiplicity of normative legal orders and the ways in which these different orders intersect and are accommodated with one another. The different means used for accommodation will have a critical bearing on how individuals fare within them. This article examines the recent environmental jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights to explore some of the means of reaching an accommodation between national legal orders and the European Convention. Certain types of accommodation – such as the margin of appreciation given to states by the Court – are well known. In essence, such mechanisms of legal pluralism raise a presumptive barrier which generally works for the state and against the individual rights-bearer. However, the principal focus of the current article is on a less well-known, recent set of pluralistic devices employed by the Court, which typically operate presumptively in the other direction, in favour of the individual. First, the Court looks to instances of breaches of domestic environmental law (albeit not in isolation); and second, it places an emphasis on whether domestic courts have ruled against the relevant activity. Where domestic standards have been breached or national courts have ruled against the state, then, presumptive weight is typically shifted towards the individual.

Working with legal pluralism: widowhood, property inheritance and poverty alleviation in urban Senegal

This article explores the role of women's inheritance and ownership of property in urban Senegal. It shows how being able to inherit and own property promotes the economic and emotional security of widows and their children in urban areas, and discusses the challenges posed by legal pluralism in working on poverty alleviation and social protection in the city.

Cosmopolitan citizenship and pathologies of pluralism

There are two interconnected questions obscured in the contemporary discourse of legal pluralism. The first concerns the legitimacy of the various forms of pluralism. The second concerns their pathology. If we accept that law does not issue from a unitary source, the problem becomes to characterize the kinds of pluralism in which we find ourselves and to discern their principles of legitimacy. It cannot be taken for granted that they are all legitimate, that is to say, that they can both articulate and fulfill founding principles of justification. That leads to the second question. To celebrate all legal pluralism simply by drawing attention to it as anobservable, documented fact, without considering whether that pluralism conduces to the just and the good, is like speaking of the pluralism of the body’s mechanisms without asking whether any given complex of cells is malignant or benign.