Return of the Personality of Law (Part 2)

In this second part of my reading of “Personality of Law or Ius Speciale Militum? Around the Origins of the Leges Barbarorum”, by Loschiavo, I will start with a bit of a digression, looking at yet another article I stumbled on to, which illustrates the same point, pluralism is breaking down the state monopoly on law, and no one can stop it. The work, “The Legal Self-Regulation of Religious Groups: Tackling the Challenges of Legal Pluralism in Theory and Practive” by F.C. Gonzolez, was written in 2016. The value of the work isn’t its conclusions, which are mostly legalese and post-modernist nonsense, but how the author identified and treats the social fact of pluralism and its catastrophic impact on the legal order in such a sensible and matter-of-fact way. It seems it was common knowledge, before the WWII concensus, that pluralism and representative government were incompatible concepts. That is certainly what John Stuart Mill wrote in 1861. So what happened? Memory holed it seems in the rush to multiculturalism and globalism. I’ll then resume my reading of Loschiavo’s Leges Barbarum, from where I left off, with the Ostrogothic Kingdom. If you haven’t listened to part 1, do so before listening to Part 2.