Research on norms in international relations has recently focused increasingly on the localisation and translation of normative patterns. While there is a strong interest in studying local diversity as embedded in global contexts, the question of how to accomplish this still poses a methodological challenge. In order to make visible the different global, national, local, and situational dimensions of diffusion processes, this article applies the technique of ‘zooming in’ on the respective levels. The article studies the case of a mixed court in Shanghai at the end of the nineteenth century. The court is both a special court in the context of extraterritoriality and a representative case of hybrid normativity and decision making. As this article shows, the practices of the mixed court are not reducible to its single foreign, national or local components. On the contrary, it represents an original normative institution combining various normative and procedural elements. In describing this hybrid institution, the article refers to the concept of multinormativity, understood as an extension of what has been discussed as legal pluralism, since it does not take Western concepts of the law as a major point of reference.

This article proposes an alternative to more standard, neoclassical theories concerned with the proceduralisation of constituent power. It argues that more established theories of proceduralisation are insufficiently aligned to the sociological realities in which constituent power is located and expressed, and their residual fixation on the premises of classical constitutionalism impedes adequate understanding of constituent power in the global constitutional order of contemporary society. On this basis, the article offers a sociological examination of constituent power, which attempts to grasp constituent power in its objectively existing procedural form. In particular, it claims that constituent power now exists as an inner-legal function, activated through procedures within an increasingly differentiated legal system: whereas in classical theory constituent power was a primary political source of constitutional norms, it now appears only as a secondary expression of norms already contained within the global legal system. Rather than renouncing the idea of constituent power, however, the article uses its sociological focus to observe new procedural openings for the activation of constituent agency, adapted to the material/sociological fabric of contemporary society.