Constitutional monism and legal monism – the idea that there is a clear hierarchy of institutions and rules within a constitutional or legal order – have proved to be inadequate theories for conceptualizing contemporary constitutional and legal orders. This panel explores pluralism, an alternative to monism, from the descriptive, normative and explanatory angles. It examines both constitutional and legal pluralism, exposes variations within the concept of pluralism itself, and draws on the experiences in Europe, Southeast Asia, and China and Hong Kong. Neo and Bui‘s paper proposes the concept of “state constitutional pluralism“. Barber and Chan‘s paper argues that the form of legal pluralism found within the European Union can and should be transposed to conceptualize the China-Hong Kong relationship. Petersen‘s paper analyzes why courts may be more cooperative or isolationist in some instances than others, accounting for why legal pluralism may or may not emerge.