pluralism ignores conflicts of laws as a discipline, which is a problem, in his view, as the former lacks the precision of the latter.48 Whether or not the reader is persuaded by Michaels’s arguments, his chapter makes the underlying challenge faced by global legal pluralism of herding cats of many stripes into one cohesive and inclusive conversation. Despite (or perhaps because of) the abundant challenges with which it grapples, this edited volume offers much food for thought, not only for those who would situate themselves within the global legal pluralist camp, but for scholars of international law more broadly. Berman has engaged a broad range of perspectives—descriptions, critiques, paths forward—on global legal pluralism, and the contributors have pushed against existing boundaries in international legal scholarship in a variety of interesting and productive ways. Though such an ambitious and capacious conversation might not always lead to harmonious and cohesive discourse, even its discordant notes provide insights as to the role legal scholars might play in moving the discipline of international law in more global, pluralist, and potentially emancipatory direction.

中文翻译：

---

重述和超越：美国外交关系法的过去、现在和未来。由 Paul B. Stephan 和 Sarah H. Cleveland 编辑。纽约：牛津大学出版社，2020 年。十一，587。索引。

多元主义忽略了作为一门学科的法律冲突，在他看来，这是一个问题，因为前者缺乏后者的精确性。 48 无论读者是否被迈克尔斯的论点所说服，他的章节都提出了全球法律面临的潜在挑战将多种类型的猫放牧到一个有凝聚力和包容性的对话中的多元化。尽管（或者可能是因为）它所面临的大量挑战，这本编辑过的书提供了许多值得思考的东西，不仅对于那些将自己置身于全球法律多元化阵营的人，而且对于更广泛的国际法学者来说。伯曼就全球法律多元化，提出了广泛的观点——描述、批评、前进道路 贡献者以各种有趣和富有成效的方式突破了国际法律学术的现有界限。尽管这样一场雄心勃勃且内容广泛的对话可能并不总是会带来和谐而有凝聚力的话语，但即使是其不和谐的注释也提供了关于法律学者在推动国际法学科朝着更加全球化、多元化和潜在解放方向发展方面可能发挥的作用的见解。