The article engages with the recent studies on multilevel regulation. The starting point for the argument is that contemporary multilevel regulation—as most other
studies of (postnational) rulemaking—is limited in its analysis. The limitation concerns its monocentric approach that, in turn, deepens the social illegitimacy of
contemporary multilevel regulation. The monocentric approach means that the study of multilevel regulation originates in the discussions on the foundation of modern
States instead of returning to the origins of rules before the nation State was even created, which is where the actual social capital underlying (contemporary) rules can
be found, or so I wish to argue.

My aim in this article is to reframe the debate. I argue that we have an enormous reservoir of history, practices, and ideas ready to help us think through contemporary
(social) legitimacy problems in multilevel regulation: namely all those practices which preceded the capture of law by the modern State system, such as historical
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practices.