ABILA CLE Webinar Reflections (6/6) | Paolo Davide Farah | Epistemic Governance, Legal Pluralism, and the Reconfiguration of Global Order
This post is part of a reflection series following the ABILA CLE Webinar Indigenous Legal Orders, Legal Pluralism, and the Coloniality of Method Across Comparative Law, International Law, IP, and Trade Governance, co-sponsored by ABILA Committee on International Law, China, and the Reconfiguration of the Global Order, which I had the opportunity to conceptualize, propose, coordinate, moderate, and participate in as part of the ABILA CLE Webinar Series. The webinar explored how Indigenous legal orders challenge dominant legal epistemologies, reshape debates in international law and governance, and invite us to rethink legal pluralism in an increasingly multipolar world.
The full reflection and webinar summary are available at https://paolofarah.wordpress.com/2026/06/02/indigenous-legal-orders-legal-pluralism-and-the-coloniality-of-method-in-global-governance-reflections-from-the-abila-cle-webinar/
In my own contribution to the discussion, I sought to connect the various interventions through the concept of epistemic governance and its implications for legal pluralism and global governance:
Who decides what counts as law, knowledge, expertise, authority, and legitimacy?
This question lies at the heart of what I describe as epistemic governance: the processes through which certain forms of knowledge become recognized, institutionalized, and treated as authoritative while others remain marginalized.
From this perspective, Indigenous legal orders challenge us to reconsider some of the foundational assumptions of international law, comparative law, and global governance.
Legal pluralism invites us to move beyond the assumption that law exists only through states. Contemporary governance already recognizes a wide variety of normative systems operating beyond traditional sovereign structures. Examples include the lex mercatoria, international commercial arbitration, the lex sportiva, religious legal systems, transnational corporate governance regimes, and various forms of private ordering.
If these systems can exercise normative authority, why are Indigenous legal orders so often required to justify their legitimacy?
This question becomes particularly visible in disputes involving cultural heritage and Indigenous sovereignty. During the webinar, I discussed examples such as the Hopi Katsina Dolls controversy, which illustrates the tensions that emerge when Indigenous spiritual and customary norms encounter legal systems grounded in different assumptions regarding property, ownership, and authority.
These debates are not merely technical legal questions. They raise broader concerns about legal geography, legal cartography, representation, participation, expertise, and power. They force us to ask whether many legal categories presented as universal may in fact reflect particular historical experiences that have become normalized through institutions of global governance.
In an increasingly multipolar world, Indigenous legal orders are not peripheral questions. They are central to understanding how law can become more inclusive, representative, and responsive to diverse forms of human experience.
These themes connect closely with several of my publications, including:
- Conflict between Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights: A Case Study on Intangible Cultural Heritage
94 Oregon Law Review 125 (2015) - When John Locke Meets Lao Tzu: The Relationship between Intellectual Property, Biodiversity and Indigenous Knowledge and the Implications for Food Security
33 Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum 297 (2024) - Epistemic Governance, available on SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6487038
Together, these works explore the intersections among intellectual property, Indigenous knowledge, cultural heritage, biodiversity, legal pluralism, and the evolving structures of global governance.
Many thanks again to Professors Chidi Oguamanam, Elena Baylis, Sergio Alberto Gramitto Ricci, and Dana G. Jones for contributing to such a rich and stimulating conversation.
Readers interested in a more detailed discussion, including a comprehensive post-webinar reflection, an overview of the principal themes explored during the event, and additional context regarding the speakers’ interventions, can access the full report here: https://paolofarah.wordpress.com/2026/06/02/indigenous-legal-orders-legal-pluralism-and-the-coloniality-of-method-in-global-governance-reflections-from-the-abila-cle-webinar/
For additional background on the intellectual framework of the webinar, the event concept, speaker information, and suggested readings by the panelists, please see:
https://paolofarah.wordpress.com/2026/04/06/abila-cle-webinar-series-indigenous-legal-orders-legal-pluralism-and-the-coloniality-of-method-in-global-governance/
Watch the Webinar Recording
For those interested in viewing the full discussion, the recording of the webinar is available here:
#EpistemicGovernance #LegalPluralism #IndigenousLegalOrders #ComparativeLaw #InternationalLaw #GlobalGovernance #LegalGeography #LegalCartography #IndigenousKnowledge #CulturalHeritage #IntellectualProperty #Multipolarity
Paolo Davide Farah, Paolo Farah