Private Law Theory

ABSTRACT
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.

Sanne Taekema and Wibren van der Burg, Globalisation: A Call for Contextualising Legal Research and Reframing Its Background Theory, Athena – Critical Inquiries in Law, Philosophy and Globalization, 6(1), 1-37 (2026).