ANALYSING COUNTER HEGEMONISM AND GLOBAL LEGAL PLURALISM: THROUGH THE LENS OF NARMADA VALLEY STRUGGLE

Abstract

The international norms-municipal framework nexus is of prime importance in this globalization era. The brawniness of such nexus is directly proportional to extent of compliance of international norms in domestic framework and the proliferation of this nexus at international, municipal, and local levels involves challenging intricacies and debates of multi-level governance, global constitutionalism, amongst others. There are few important aspects that need attention. Firstly, the recent past has witnessed an upsurge in questioning the percolation of international norms into domestic conditions or, in other words, it questions the extent of internalization of international norms in domestic legal order. The groundwork of this inquiry is based on the transitioning “global legal pluralist” order. Also, second important analysis arises from the “norm-mediator” role of the courts, especially the Apex Court. The form in which international norms internalize within the nation depends on deployment method chosen by these norm mediators, which can, ironically, hamper the interests of the very same individuals for whom they were made. For instance, the larger public utility of building a dam could hold priority over the human rights of several displaced people for the “norm-mediators” given the circumstances. Thirdly, how this interpretation of norms affects the perception of justice for development induced displaced section. And, lastly, how far the above factors affect the “bottom up” process underlying the counter hegemonic globalization. Thus, the present article dissects this discussion through the lens of Narmada Valley struggle.