The Convergence and Contours of World Common Law: A Transnational Legal Research Framework
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64229/qx5g1c73Keywords:
World Common Law, Transnational Law, Legal Convergence, Comparative Law, Lex Mercatoria, International Arbitration, Human Rights, Legal Harmonization, Global Governance, Legal Research MethodologyAbstract
The traditional paradigm of legal research, confined within the sovereign boundaries of nation-states, is increasingly inadequate in an interconnected world. This article posits the emergence of a "World Common Law" – not as a monolithic legal code, but as a dynamic and complex transnational legal order. This order is characterized by the convergence of legal principles, the harmonization of norms through international institutions, and the diffusion of legal reasoning across jurisdictions. The article begins by deconstructing the concept, distinguishing it from historical and theoretical notions of a global law and tracing its philosophical underpinnings from legal pluralism and constitutionalism. It then provides a detailed exploration of the primary drivers of this convergence, including economic globalization, the digital revolution, the rise of global challenges, and the critical role of non-state actors. A central contribution of this work is the proposal of a novel, comprehensive methodological framework for researching this World Common Law, which integrates doctrinal, comparative, empirical, and computational approaches. This framework is designed to systematically analyze the interplay between national courts, international tribunals, and non-state actors in the formation of transnational legal norms. The article further illustrates this framework through two in-depth case studies: the evolution of the Lex Mercatoria (Modern Law Merchant) in international commercial arbitration and the development of transnational human rights jurisprudence, with a specific focus on the right to a healthy environment. A dedicated section critically examines the significant challenges and critiques facing this nascent legal order, including jurisdictional fragmentation, democratic deficits, cultural hegemony, and enforcement gaps. The conclusion synthesizes the findings and proposes concrete future directions for research and practice, arguing that understanding and navigating the World Common Law is not merely an academic exercise but a critical competency for the 21st-century legal professional, policymaker, and global citizen.
References
[1]Maria Cahill, Theorizing subsidiarity: A Rejoinder to Gareth Davies, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 15, Issue 1, 1 January 2017, Pages 231–234, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mox006
[2]Cunningham, Lawrence A., Berkshire versus KKR: Intermediary Influence and Competition (2015). Forthcoming in University of Chicago Law Review Dialogue (2015) , GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2015-40, GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2015-40, Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University Working Paper No. 210, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2669547 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2669547
[3]Jeffries, John C., Disaggregating Constitutional Torts (May 2000). UVA School of Law, Public Law Working Paper No. 00-4, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=224795 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.224795
[4]Jan Klabbers, Dystopian legalities: A reply to Nico Krisch, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 20, Issue 1, January 2022, Pages 507–513, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moac015
[5]Koh, Harold Hongju. Review of Why Do Nations Obey International Law?, by Abram Chayes, Antonia Handler Chayes, and Thomas M. Franck. The Yale Law Journal 106, no. 8 (1997): 2599–2659. https://doi.org/10.2307/797228.
[6]Ladeur, Karl-Heinz, 'Global Administrative Law: A Transnational Perspective', in Peer Zumbansen (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Transnational Law (2021; online edn, Oxford Academic, 14 Apr. 2021), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197547410.013.7, accessed 27 Oct. 2025.
[7]Merry, S. E. (2006). Transnational human rights and local activism: Mapping the middle. American Anthropologist, 108(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2006.108.1.38
[8]Michaels, R. (2009). Global legal pluralism. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5, 243–262.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172311
[9]Park, W. W. (2006). Arbitration of international business disputes: Studies in law and practice. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199297572.001.0001
[10]Roberts, Anthea, and Martti Koskenniemi, Is International Law International? (New York, 2017; online edn, Oxford Academic, 19 Oct. 2017), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190696412.001.0001, accessed 20 Oct. 2025.
[11]Shaffer, G., & Ginsburg, T. (2012). The empirical turn in international legal scholarship. The American Journal of International Law, 106(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.106.1.0001
[12]Boh, I. (1993). Epistemic Logic in the Later Middle Ages (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203976685
[13]Bradford, Anu, The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World (New York, 2020; online edn, Oxford Academic, 19 Dec. 2019), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190088583.001.0001, accessed 15 Oct. 2025.
[14]Felix E Torres, Economic and Social Rights, Reparations and the Aftermath of Widespread Violence: The African Human Rights System and Beyond, Human Rights Law Review, Volume 21, Issue 4, December 2021, Pages 935–961, https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngab017
[15]Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), News from the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), Uniform Law Review, Volume 27, Issue 4, December 2022, Pages 622–631, https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/unad005
[16]Anaya SJ, Anghie A. Introduction to the Symposium on the Impact of Indigenous Peoples on International Law. AJIL Unbound. 2021;115:116-117. doi:10.1017/aju.2021.11
[17]Poulsen L, Waibel M. Boilerplate in International Economic Law. AJIL Unbound. 2021;115:253-257. https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/aju.2021.33
[18]Elisabeth Perham, Elisabeth Perham, Review of Ruth Rubio-Marín and Helen Irving eds., Women as Constitution-Makers: Case Studies from the New Democratic Era, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 19, Issue 2, April 2021, Pages 763–768, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moab057
[19]Matthew S Erie, Mapping the Cosmopolitan Legal Imaginary: Recent Chinese Scholarship on Dispute Resolution, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Volume 70, Issue 1, March 2022, Pages 210–221, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac027
[20]Gordon GJ. Legal and Cultural Construction of the Maori Corporate Person. Law & Social Inquiry. 2023;48(1):50-63. doi:10.1017/lsi.2022.45
[21]Daniel Lee, Delegating Sovereignty: Chapter 5: Governing Sovereignty: Negotiating French Absolutism in Europe, European Journal of International Law, Volume 32, Issue 3, August 2021, Pages 981–986, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chab084
[22]Turner C, Swaine A. ALIGNING PARTICIPATION AND PROTECTION IN THE WOMEN, PEACE AND SECURITY AGENDA. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 2023;72(2):477-508. doi:10.1017/S002058932300009X
[23]Petros C Mavroidis, André Sapir, State Capitalism in the GATT/WTO Legal Order, Journal of International Economic Law, Volume 26, Issue 1, March 2023, Pages 154–165, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad001
[24]Weinberger, Lael. “The Relationship between Sphere Sovereignty and Subsidiarity.” In Michelle Evans and Augusto Zimmermann, Eds., Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity, 2014. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8810-6_4.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Peter Mavroidis, Andrew Liu (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.