The internationalization of Community Law in the EU has led to the development of new centers of legal production outside the European legal space such as CAN. This process has stimulated a two -dimensional global phenomenon of legal pluralism: on the one hand there is the creation of alternative regional integration models and on the other hand, the emergence of a discussion on national level about the constitutional and administrative identity of States under supranational legal systems. The comparison between different jurisprudences shows an expansion of legal pluralism in Latin America and in the EU, as much as in a national or regional scale than in a constitutional or administrative scale. Such pluralism demands the construction of a regional coordination-harmonization rather than a standardization of the legal world as envisaged by the WTO's economic Law, the doctrine of Global Administrative Law or the constitutional providing of global standards. Comparative jurisprudence explains how the national and regional judges’ “spontaneous and unrestrained” dialogue reveals the conflicting relationship between the beneficial owner of the world market (WTO) and the protection of public order at a regional level. The thesis addresses the problem of pluralism through the comparative analysis of both the ECJ's and the ACJ's jurisprudences. First, from a constitutional point of view, the notion of “power-knowledge of the judge” (replacing the concept of judicial activism) suggests the understanding of the community judge as the protector of the national legal pluralism to address a new complex configuration of legal authority at a supranational level. Secondly, from an administrative point of view, the notion of regional governability (replacing the concept of global governance) demands the judicial nationalization of regional economic powers to place it under the control of law. The aim is to imagine the regional public law capable of nationalizing the regional authorities as counter-powers regulating the market to face the lack of legal definition of the global governance.