Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:03:25.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative Law and Jurisprudence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Geoffrey Samuel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article will propose that comparative law as a discipline should now consolidate itself as an independent subject with its own internal structure. This is not to say that its teachers and professors should abandon, or at least fully abandon, their “gift of freedom”.1 Nor is it to confuse comparative law with other more specific law subjects which may be taught in a comparative way.2 What this article will propose is that comparative law be envisaged as a subject basically operating at two levels (or consisting of two parts). At one level it consists of the now considerable literature on the subject, including of course the work which envisages the subject in terms of legal families. At another level, however, comparative law should be envisaged as being concerned with the theoretical underpinning of the terms “comparative” and “law”. This part, in other words, would deal with these terms as instruments of knowledge. What is it to have knowledge of “law”? And what contribution does “comparison” make to this epistemo-logical question?

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , October 1998 , pp. 817 - 836
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Cf. Kahn-Freund, O., “Comparative Law as an Academic Subject” (1966) 82 L.Q.R. 40, 41.Google Scholar

2. Cf. Markesinis, B., “Comparative Law—A Subject in Search of an Audience” (1990) 53 M.L.R. 1, 21.Google Scholar

3. For details of the debate see De Witte, B., “The Convergence Debate” (1996) 3 M.J. 105.Google Scholar See in particular Legrand, P., “European Legal Systems are Not Converging” (1996) 45 I.C.L.Q. 52Google Scholar, “Against a European Civil Code” (1997) 60 M.L.R. 44.Google Scholar

4. Legrand, P., “How to Compare Now” (1996) 16 L.S. 232, 238.Google Scholar See also “Comparative Legal Studies and a Commitment to Theory” (1995) 58 M.L.R. 262.Google Scholar

5. Freeman, M. D. A., Lloyd's Introduction to Jurisprudence (6th edn, 1994), p.6.Google Scholar

6. Legrand, all articles cited, supra nn.3 and 4.

7. Dworkin, R., Law's Empire (1986), pp.228–238.Google Scholar

8. Although Dworkin's law as interpretation would be viewed sympathetically within the context of what is now being called “new legal hermeneutics”: Manuel Calvo García, Los fundamentos del método jurídico: una revisión crítica (1994), pp.167–215.Google Scholar

9. See e.g. Müller, F., Jurisrische Methodik (1993).Google Scholar

10. On the definition of “jurisprudence”, in its Anglo-American sense, see Freeman op. cit. supra n.5, at pp.1–20.Google Scholar

11. Bell, J., “Introduction: Legal Theory and the Anglo-Saxon World”, in Van Hoecke, M.. What is Legal Theory? (1985). pp.11–25.Google Scholar

12. Bergel, J.-L., Théorie générale du droit (2nd edn, 1989), pp.3–5.Google Scholar

13. Orianne, P., Apprendre le droit: Eléments pour une pédagogie juridique (1990), pp.73–76.Google Scholar

14. Ibid.

15. Bergel, , op. cit. supra n.12, at p.4.Google Scholar

16. Zweigert, K. and Kötz, H., An Introduction to Comparative Law (2nd revd. edn, 1992), p.5 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

17. Watson, A., Legal Transplants (1974), p.2Google Scholar (emphasis added). But see now Legrand, P., “The Impossibility of ‘Legal Transplants’” (1997) 4 M.J. 111.Google Scholar

18. Watson, idem, p.4.

19. David, R., “Sources of Law”, International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Vol.II, chap.3, para.391.Google Scholar

20. See e.g. Zweigert, and Kötz, , op. cit. supra n.16, at pp.76–122, 138–211.Google Scholar

21. Stein, P., “The Tasks of Historical Jurisprudence”, in MacCormick, N. and Birks, P. (Eds), The Legal Mind: Essays for Tony Honoré (1986), pp.293et seq.Google Scholar

22. See e.g. Dworkin, , op. cit. supra n.7, at p.14.Google Scholar

23. Hohfeld, W. N., Fundamental Legal Conceptions (1919).Google Scholar

24. See e.g. Tuck, R., Natural Rights Theories (1979), pp.5–31.Google Scholar

25. See e.g. Laurent, A., Histoire de l'individualisme (1993), pp.21–24.Google Scholar

26. Kelley, D. R., “Gaius Noster. Substructures of Western Social Thought” (1979) 84 American Historical Rev. 619.Google Scholar

27. Treitel, G., Remedies for Breach of Contract (1988).Google Scholar

28. Zweigert and Kötz, op. cit. supra n.16.

29. Sacco, R., “Legal Formants: A Dynamic Approach to Comparative Law” (1991) 39 A.J.C.L. 1, 2.Google Scholar

30. Legrand, (1995), op. cit. supra n.4.Google Scholar

31. Legrand, P., Comparatists-at-Law and the Contrarian Challenge (Inaugural Lecture, University of Tilburg, 1995), p.4.Google Scholar

32. Samuel, G., “Science, Law and History: Historical Jurisprudence and Modern Legal Theory” (1990) 41 N.I.L.Q. 1.Google Scholar

33. See e.g. White v. Jones [1995] A.C. 207 where counsel for both parties included an eminent comparatist.Google Scholar

34. See e.g. Bergel, op. cit. supra n.12.

35. Bell, J., “Comparative Law and Legal Theory”, in Krawietz, W., MacCormkk, N. and Henrik von Wright, G. (Eds), Prescriptive Formality and Normative Rationality in Modem Legal Systems: Festschrift for Robert Summers (1995), pp.23–31.Google Scholar

36. Idem, p.31.

37. Idem, p.20.

38. Idem, p.26.

39. Granger, G.-G., La science et les sciences (2nd edn, 1995). p.111.Google Scholar

40. Idem, p.99.

41. Granger, G.-G., Essai d'une philosophie du style (2nd edn, 1988), pp.276–277.Google Scholar

42. [1947] A.C. 156.Google Scholar

43. [1964] 2 Q.B. 806.Google Scholar

44. Samuel, G., The Foundations of Legal Reasoning (1994), pp.76–79.Google Scholar

45. Brown, L. Neville and Bell, J., French Administrative Law (4th edn, 1993), p.184.Google Scholar

46. Samuel, , Foundations, supra n.44, pp.78–79.Google Scholar

47. Kelley, D. R., The Human Measure: Social Thought in the Western Legal Tradition (1990). p.49.Google Scholar

48. Rayar, L., “Translating Legal Texts: A Methodology” (Conference Paper, Euro-forum, Apr. 1993).Google Scholar

49. Markesinis, op. cit. supra n.2.

50. Weir, T., “Contracts in Rome and England” (1992) 66 Tulane L.R. 1615.Google Scholar

51. Markesinis, , op. cit. supra n.2, at p.21.Google Scholar

52. Ibid.

53. Weir, , op. cit. supra n.50, at p.1616.Google Scholar

54. Dworkin, , op. cit. supra n.7, at p. 10.Google Scholar

55. Legrand, (1995), op. cit. supra n.4, at p.264.Google Scholar

56. Sacco, R. in Legrand, P., “Questions à Rodolfo Sacco” [4–1995] R.I.D.C 943, 952.Google Scholar

57. Idem, p.944.

58. Barreau, H., L'épistémologie (3rd edn, 1995), p.51.Google Scholar

59. Piaget, J., L'épaistémologie génétique (4th edn, 1988), p.103.Google Scholar

60. Granger, G.-G., La raison (10th edn, 1993), p.58.Google Scholar

61. Sacco, R., La comparaison jundique au service de la connaissance du droit (1991), p 8.Google Scholar

62. Blanché, R., L'épistémologie (3rd edn, 1983), p.65.Google Scholar

63. Villa, V., La science du droit (1990), p.84.Google Scholar

64. Atias, C., Épistémologie juridique (1985), p.40.Google Scholar

65. Woman's Own, 31 Oct. 1987.Google Scholar

66. See e.g. Jackson v. Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1468; Cass.civ. 19.2.1997, J.C.P. 28.5.97.22848 note Viney (see in particular the opinion of the Advocate General).Google Scholar

67. See recently Fitzpatrick v. Sterling Housing Association Ltd [1997] 4 All E.R. 991.Google Scholar

68. On which see Samuel, , op. cit. supra n.44, at pp.35–37Google Scholar; Samuel, G. and Rinkes, J., Law of Obligations and Legal Remedies (1996), pp.4–6.Google Scholar

69. Jolowicz, H. F., Roman Foundations of Modem Law (1957), p.134.Google Scholar

70. Samuel, , op. cit. supra n.44, at pp.89–133.Google Scholar

71. See e.g. Bergel, J.-L., “Le processus de transformation des décisions de justice en normes juridiques” (1993) 18 Revue de la Recherche Juridique 1055.Google Scholar But cf. Ivainer, T., L'interprétation des faits en droit (1988).Google Scholar

72. J.3.13 pr.

73. Indeed the Romans themselves collected together legal maxims (regulae juris), although the first of such maxims denies that knowledge of law is to be found in the maxims: D.50.17.1. See generally Stein, P., Regulue Iuris (1966).Google Scholar

74. Samuel, G., “Classification of Obligations and the Impact of Constructivist Epistemol-ogies” (1997) 17 L.S. 448.Google Scholar

75. Bergel, , op. cit. supra n.12, at p.269.Google Scholar

76. Idem, p.270.

77. [1953] 3 W.L.R. 773 (QBD)Google Scholar; [1954] 2 Q.B. 182 (CA)Google Scholar; [1956] A.C. 218.Google ScholarDiscussed Samuel, , op. cit. supra n.44, at pp.199–202Google Scholar; Samuel, and Rinkes, , op. cit. supra n.68, at pp.21–24.Google Scholar

78. [1980] A.C 827.Google Scholar Discussed Samuel, idem, pp.205–207; Samuel and Rinkes, idem, pp.126–127.

79. Delacour, J., Le cervcau et l'esprit (1995), p.35.Google Scholar

80. Idem, pp.35–36.

81. Bechtel, W. and Abrahamsen, A., Connectionism and the Mind (1991), p.227.Google Scholar

82. Atias, C., Épistémologie du droit (1994), p.119.Google Scholar

83. See e.g. Kerchove, M. Van de and Ost, F., Le droit ou les paradoxes du jeu (1992).Google Scholar

84. See e.g. Samuel, G., “The Impact of European Integration on Private Law—A Comment” (1998) 18 LS 167.Google Scholar

85. For an overview see e.g. Zweigert, and Kötz, , op. cit. supra n.16, at pp.1–75.Google Scholar

86. Cf. Samuel, , op. cit. supra n.74,.Google Scholar

87. Samuel, and Rinkes, , op. cit. supra n.68, at pp.354–356.Google Scholar

88. Joerges, C., “The Impact of European Integration on Private Law: Reductionist Perceptions, True Conflicts and a New Constitutional Perspective” [1997] E.L.J. 378.Google Scholar

89. Blanché, , op. cit. supra n.62, at p.120.Google Scholar

90. Atias, , op. cit. supra n.64, at pp.31–36.Google Scholar

91. Samuel, and Rinkes, , op. cit. supra n.68, at pp.24–26.Google Scholar

92. Cf. Anderson, B., “The Case for Re-Investigating ‘The Process of Discovery’” (1995) 8 Ratio Juris 330.Google Scholar

93. Delacour, , op. cit. supra n.79, at pp.34–42.Google Scholar

94. Bunge, M., Épistémologie (1983, trans. Donadieu, H.), p.53.Google Scholar

95. Idem, p.57.