Theoretical reflections on legal pluralism and global constitutionalism: their possible reconciliation in an alternative model of plural constitutionalism

Over the past few decades, the complex process of globalization have dissolved the traditional concept of state sovereignty and neutralized the clear distinction between national and international law. Thus, legal scholarship has formulate alternative conceptual schemes to frame the fragmentation of the new global legal order. In the paper, I focus on the two typically antithetical approaches of legal pluralism and global constitutionalism. Legal pluralism emphasizes the diversity and the multiplicity of the global legal realm, while global constitutionalism is traditionally related to concepts of unity and hierarchy, whose paradigmatic reference is the state. The aim of the inquiry is to establish a theoretical basis and provide the conceptual tools to reconcile the two opposite approaches, first describing the main traits of each model, and then hypothesizing a hybrid model of plural constitutionalism. In the end, I will raise the question, from a constitutional but open point of view, whether it is really worth continuing to adopt a constitutional prospect. Alternative models (the GAL approach, for instance) may provide more suitable solutions for the complexity of the global legal world. However, at the end, a multiple model that reconciles different approaches, in correspondence to the multiplicity of the current global society, could be the best option.