The term legal pluralism is probably one of the most interesting and at the same time controversial concepts in the literature on sociology of law and legal theory. Interesting and controversial, because it has elicited a debate about monopolistic claims by states on the creation and maintenance of law, and on the legitimate use of force, as well as about the meaning and scope of the term law. The intensity of the debate makes us easily forget that there have been numerous studies from the perspective of legal pluralism that have provided profound insights into the complex relationship between law and behaviour. This research is characterized by a high degree of regional, thematic and methodological diversity. The importance of the term legal pluralism lies more in the insights from empirical research than in the sometimes rather sterile, confused and strongly ideological debates around the meaning and scope of the term itself. This contribution provides a sketch of the term legal pluralism and the political and theoretical debates that have been carried out. Then follows a brief overview of some of the important substantive insights derived from empirical research in this field, with special emphasis on legal anthropology in the Netherlands. See for overviews Vanderlinden 1971, Galanter, 1981 Merry 1988, J. Griffiths 1986, F. von Benda-Beckmann 1988a, K. von Benda-Beckmann and Strijbosch 1986, Allott and Woodman 1985, Greenhouse and Strijbosch 1993, Woodman 1995, Renteln and Renteln 1994, Rouland 1994, Belley 1998, for Japan see Chiba 1989.