Publication details
Víceúrovňová právní argumentace: proč pluralita není pluralismus
| Title in English | Multilevel Legal Argumentation: Why Plurality and Pluralism Are Not the Same |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Year of publication | 2025 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Pravnik |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| web | Open access článku |
| Keywords | legal pluralism; unity of the legal order; Court of Justice of the EU; Constitutional Court; national courts; preliminary references |
| Description | Abstract: The article examines whether the Europeanisation of the Czech legal order has led to the establish- ment of legal pluralism, i.e. a heterarchy in which multiple legal norms claim priority and multiple actors claim the last word. The author focuses on the distinction between plurality and pluralism, arguing that although the Czech legal order contains legal norms from multiple sources, it retains its unity and hierarchical struc- ture; therefore, it cannot be a pluralistic system. Using examples from Czech case law and taking into account the EU legal principles of direct effect and supremacy, the author demonstrates that the Czech legal order operates in an environment of legal plurality, but not pluralism, since – with very rare exceptions – it is always possible to determine which legal norms should govern a given situation. Exceptions to this proposition, such as the saga of Czechoslovak pensions, are so specific and rare that they cannot call into question the main claim about the uniformity of the Czech legal order. Although the plurality of legal sources requires lawyers to be familiar with different legal systems and thus poses an epistemic challenge, it does not lead to heter- archy or a breakdown of the unity of the legal order. |
| Related projects: |