Almanac of law. Issue 17 (2026), pages 377–381.

DOI: 10.33663/2524-017X-2026-17-377-381

Nykolyna K. V.
Legal-technical characteristics of the application of law in conditions of legal pluralism

The article examines how the legal technique of law application (judicial and administrative decision-making) transforms under legal pluralism, where several normative orders simultaneously structure behaviour: national legislation, international treaties and case-law, soft-law instruments, transnational corporate compliance standards, technical standards, and platform rules. It is argued that the classical statist model of “fact–norm subsumption” is insufficient for maintaining legal certainty in polycentric regulatory environments. The central function of contemporary law application therefore shifts towards coordinating competing normative regimes and legitimising decisions that may be produced or pre-filtered by non-state actors and digital infrastructures.

Methodologically, the study combines doctrinal (formal-legal) analysis with comparative reasoning and analytical synthesis. The paper refines a working definition of the legal technique of law application as a set of rules and operations that guide: 1) identification and selection of applicable norms across multiple sources; 2) interpretation and reconciliation of norms in cases of conflict; 3) procedural framing and argumentative justification of individual decisions; 4) handling digital evidence and algorithmically mediated facts; and 5) safeguarding procedural guarantees of access to remedies and appeal.

The methodological tension created by plural sources is explained through inter-legality: judges and authorities increasingly operate in an interpretive space where different legal rationalities overlap. In this context, conforming (harmonising) interpretation is presented as a key technique for integrating international and European standards without dismantling domestic legislative architecture. The dynamics of law application are described through three dimensions: an institutional dimension (growth of quasi-regulatory capacities of platforms, banks and compliance units), a procedural dimension (relocation of rights and duties into digital ‘access procedures’ and interfaces), and a collision dimension (more frequent conflicts between public norms and private/technical standards).

As recommendations, the article proposes a coordination framework based on: clear competence and delegation rules defining the permissible autonomy of self-regulation and co-regulation; external judicial review and regulatory oversight; minimum transparency and due-process standards for private decisions that affect rights; and proportionality and evidentiary requirements, especially in algorithmised procedures. Practical implications are illustrated by EU digital governance (the Digital Services Act logic) and Ukrainian examples of hybrid regulation in digitalised domains. The conclusions emphasise that legitimacy of law-application outcomes depends not only on source hierarchy, but on coordination quality, procedural fairness, reason-giving and effective remedies in a plural legal landscape.

Keywords: legal pluralism; law application; legal technique; inter-legality; conflict-of-laws analysis; conforming interpretation; due process; digitalisation; algorithmised decision-making; co-regulation.

 References

1. Shutak I. D., Onyshchuk I. I. Yurydychna tekhnika: navch. posibnyk dlia vyshchykh navch. zakl. Ivano-Frankivsk: Laboratoriia akademichnykh doslidzhen pravovoho rehuliuvannia ta yurydychnoi tekhniky, 2013. 496 s. (in Ukr.).
2. Manko D. Yurydychni tekhnolohii: poniattia y osoblyvosti i spivvidnoshennia iz sumizhnymy katehoriiamy. Naukovyi visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho Seriia «Yurysprudentsiia». 2019. No 37. S. 6–9 (in Ukr.).
3. Kulinich O.O. Metodolohichni aspekty yurydychnoi tekhniky u pravotvorchosti ta pravozastosuvannia. Elektronne naukove vydannia «Analitychno-porivnialne pravoznavstvo». Vypusk № 03. S. 142–146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2025.03.1.19 (in Ukr.).
4. Turner , Wiber MG. Legal pluralism and science and technology studies: Exploring sources of the legal pluriverse. Science, Technology & Human Values. 2022. 48(3). 457–474R. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211069659
5. Ehrlich E. Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law, transl. W. Moll. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. 1936. 541r.
6. Griffiths What is legal pluralism? The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unoficial Law. vol. 18, no. 24. 1986. pp. 1–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.1986.10756387
7. Shchambura V. Kontseptsiia yurydychnoho pliuralizmu yak osnova doslidzhennia neofitsiinoho prava. Pravovyi chasopys Donbasu. № 1 (66). 2019. S. 33–40 (in Ukr.).
8. Walker Legalising inter-legality. European Law Open. 2022; 1. 216–227R. DOI: doi:10.1017/elo.2022.4
9. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act). (Rehlament 2022/2065 vid 19 zhovtnia 2022 roku pro yedynyi rynok tsyfrovykh posluh i vnesennia zmin do Dyrektyvy 2000/31).

Дата першого надходження рукопису до видання: 07.03.2026
Дата прийнятого до друку рукопису після рецензування: 09.04.2026
Дата публікації: 30.04.2026