{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023001095290251915, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.935064935064935, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Do we really need a ‘pluralist jurisprudence’?

ABSTRACT The quest for a pluralist jurisprudence must account for the fact that legal pluralism is actually a long-standing feature of European law, one that has been with us constantly for over two millennia, and which for all of its history does not seem to have caused any real jurisprudential problems until now. This gives rise to the question, ‘why is there now suddenly a need for such a jurisprudence?’ This essay suggests that the reason is because transnationalization and the hollowing-out of the Westphalian state have caused issues of legal pluralism to become political issues and not just legal issues. But can political issues really be addressed using a ‘jurisprudential’ lens? Possibly so, but if so, it will have to be a jurisprudential lens that looks very different from those we commonly associate with ‘jurisprudence’ as we practice it today.