Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T16:46:38.798Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

European Legal Systems are not Converging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Pierre Legrand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the late 1940s, economic considerations relating to the globalisation of world markets have led an ever larger group of Western European countries to unite in the quest for a supra-national legal order which, in time, generated the European Community. Most of these countries' legal orders claim allegiance to what anglophones are fond of labelling the “civli law” tradition,1 although two common law jurisdictions joined the Community in the early 1970s. The European Community's early decision to promote economic integration (and, later, other types of integration) through harmonisation or unification has involved, at both Community and national levels (for the implementation of Community rules in the member States carries the adoption of national rules in all member States), a process of relentless “juridification”; law, in the guise of legislatively or judicially enacted rules, has assumed the role of a “steering medium”.2 This development was foreseeable: once the interaction among European legal systems had acted as a catalyst for the creation of a supra-system,3 the need to achieve reciprocal compatibility between the infra-systems and the supra-system naturally fostered the development of an extended network of interconnections (such as regulations and directives) which eventually raised the question of further legal integration in the form of a common law of Europe.4

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 52 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1996

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. For a helpful definition of the “civil law” tradition allowing for a differentiation between those legal systems that belong to it and those that do not, see Alan, Watson, The Making of the Civil Law System (1981), p.4. Although Watson's criterion of “civility” is narrower, it is arguable that the Scandinavian countries form part of the civil law world, if as peripheral constituents: see Jacob W. F. Sundberg, “Civil Law, Common Law and the Scandinavians” (1969) 13 Scandinavian Studies in Law 179.Google Scholar

2. Jürgen, Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol.II: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason (trans, by Thomas, McCarthy, 1987), p.365.Google Scholar

3. I refer to the notion of “systematicity” in its dynamic or relative sense. A system is a complex amalgam where order and disorder—or determinacy and indeterminacy—constantly interact. The system is but the continually reinvented product of that interaction. Although largely self-referential, it is neither normatively nor cognitively closed. It is porous. See generally Michel van de Kerchove and Françis Ost, Le système juridique entre ordre el désordre (1988). An English translation has appeared: Legal System Between Order and Disorder (trans, by Iain, Stewart, 1994). Cf. Charles Sampford. The Disorder of Law (1994), who argues that law cannot be understood as a system because it is inherently disorderly.Google Scholar

4. For a useful reflection on autocatalytic sets, see Waldrop, M. Mitchell, Complexity (1992), pp.125–126.Google Scholar

5. Wolfgang, Mincke, “Practical and Prepositional Knowledge as the Basis of European Legal Education”, in Bruno De, Witte and Caroline, Forder (Eds), The Common Law of Europe and the Future of Legal Education (1992), p.285. Cf. the arrangement of cognitive models by Rom Harré into “sentential” and “iconic”: The Principles of Scientific Thinking (1970).Google Scholar

6. But cf. Reinhard, Zimmermann, “Roman Law and European Legal Unity”, in Hartkamp, A. S. et al. (Eds), Towards a European Civil Code (1994), p.65.Google Scholar

7. Friedman, Lawrence M. and Gunther, Teubner, “Legal Education and Legal Integration: European Hopes and American Experience”, in Mauro, Cappelletti, Monica, Seccombe and Joseph, Weiler (Eds), Integration Through Law, Vol.I: Methods, Tools and Institutions, Bk.3: Forces and Potential for a European Identity (1986), p.374.Google Scholar

8. Resolution (of the European Parliament) on Action to Bring into Line the Private Law of the Member States (1989) OJ. C158/400 (26 May 1989).

9. Resolution (of the European Parliament) on the Harmonisation of Certain Sectors of the Private Law of the Member States (1994) O.J. C205/518 (6 May 1994).

10. E.g. Hartkamp et al., op. tit. supra n.6; Giuseppe Gandolfi, “Pour un code européen descontrats” (1992) Rev. trim. dr. civ. 707. See also Antonino Cella, “Un codice dei contratti per l'Europa: il colloquio di Pavia” (1991) Rivista di diritto civile 779; G. Cordini, “Colloque sur la future codification européenne en matière d'obligations et de contrats” (1991) Rev. int. dr. comp. 894, where the authors summarise various interventions in favour of codification in Europe made at a colloquium devoted to an examination of the question.

11. See Ole, Lando, “Principles of European Contract Law” (1992) 56 RabelsZ. 261.Google Scholar

12. Harvey McGregor, Contract Code (1993). Cf. Law Reform Commission of Victoria, An Australian Contract Code (1992), Discussion Paper No.27, where the whole of contract law is reduced to 27 (brief) provisions.

13. Gerard-René de Groot, “European Education in the 21st Century”, in De Witte and Forder, op. tit. supra n.5, at p.11.

14. Idem, p.7.

15. Idem, pp.24–25.

16. Glenn, H. Patrick, “La civilisation de la common law” (1993) Rev. int. dr. comp. 559, 567 (“un rapprochement de plus en plus constant”).Google Scholar

17. ibid (“L'idée d'un nouveau ius commune européen va accélérer cette tendance vers le rapprochement”).

18. Markesinis, B. S., “Learning from Europe and Learning in Europe”, in his (Ed.), The Gradual Convergence (1994), p.30.Google Scholar

19. Other illustrations include Xavier Lewis, “L'européanisation du common law”, in Pierre, Legrand (Ed.), Common law d'un siècle l'autre (1992), p.275Google Scholar; Levitsky, Jonathan E., “The Europeanizalion of the British Legal Style” (1994) 42 A.J.Comp.L. 347.Google Scholar

20. Volkmar, Gessner and Angelika, Schade, “Conflicts of Culture in Cross-Border Legal Relations: The Conception of a Research Topic in the Sociology of Law”, in Mike, Featherstone (Ed.), Global Culture (1990), p.265.Google Scholar

21. Markesinis, B. S., “Bridging Legal Cultures” (1993) 27 Israel L.R. 363, 382.Google Scholar

22. Konrad, Zweigert and Hein, Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law (2nd rev. edn trans. by Tony, Weir, 1992), p.36.Google Scholar

23. The notion of “brittleness” is applied to rules in William Bechtel and Adele Abrahamsen, Connectionism and the Mind (1991), pp.17 and 208.1 am grateful to my colleague, Geoffrey Samuel, for bringing this book to my attention.

24. Isabelle, Stengers, “Le pouvoir des concepts”, in Stengers and Judith Schlenger, Les concepts scientifiques (1991). pp.63–64.Google Scholar

25. Clifford, Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (1993), p.7. The author borrows the terms from Gilbert Ryle, “The Thinking of Thoughts: What is ‘Le Penseur’ Doing?”, in his Collected Papers, Vol.II: Collected Essays: 1929–1968 (1971), p.480.Google Scholar

26. See Geert Hofstede, Culture's Consequences (1984), pp.14–16.

27. See Pierre, Legrand, “Sigla Law”, in Bridge, John W. et al. (Eds), Common Law Studies for the XIVth International Congress of Comparative Law, Vol.II (1994), p.518.Google Scholar

28. E.g. Friedman, and Teubner, , op. cit. supra n.7, at pp.372–374Google Scholar; Gordon, Robert W., “Critical Legal Histories” (1984) 36 Stanford L.R. 57, 90. See also Algirdas Julien Greimas, Sémiotique el sciences sociales (1976), p.80.Google Scholar

29. Christian, Atias, Epistémologie du droit (1994), p.31 (“Isoler une disposition légale, c'est peut-être le moyen d'en permettre I'analyse; c'est surtout en dissoudre la signification récite”).Google Scholar

30. Max, Weber, Economy and Society (Guenther, Roth and Claus, Wittich (Eds), Vol.II 1978), pp.784–792.Google Scholar

31. Clifford, Geertz, “Local Knowledge: Fact and Law in Comparative Perspective”, in his Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology (1983), p.214.Google Scholar

32. I draw on Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern (trans. by Catherine Porter, 1993).

33. A similar phenomenon is at work within law itself (that is, en abyme) where it takes the form of the departmentalisation of the legal mind.

34. John, Law, “Introduction: Monsters, Machines and Sociotechnical Relations”, in his (Ed.), A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (1991), p.18.Google Scholar

35. Friedman and Teubner, op. cit. supra n.7, at p.373.

36. Claude, Lévi-Strauss and Didier, Eribon, De près et de loin (1988), p.165 (“on a mis dans la tête des gens que la société relevait de la pensée abstraite alors qu'elle est faite d'habitudes, d'usages, et qu'en broyant ceux-ci sous les meules de la raison, on pulvérise des genres de vie fondés sur une longue tradition, on réduit les individus à l'état d'atomes interchangeables et anonymes”).Google Scholar

37. Hans-Georg, Gadamer, Truth and Method (2nd edn, trans. by Joel, Weinsheimer and Marshall, Donald G., 1993), p.xxiv.Google Scholar

38. See, on the concept of “epistemological barrier” (“obstacle épistémologique”). Gaston Bachelard, La formation de l'esprit scientifique (14th edn, 1989)Google Scholar, passim. For an application to law, see generally Michel Miaille, Une introduction critique au droit (1976), pp.37–68.Google Scholar

39. John Merryman (1987) 35 A.J.Comp.L. 438, 441 (letter to the editor).

40. As is appropriately remarked by Donald Kelley—and in contradistinction to scholars, such as Helmut Going and Reinhard Zimmermann, advocating a second jus commune— there never was a jus that was truly commune: “In terms of civil science Common Law was not only the ius proprium of England; it had in effect seceded from the ius commune of the European Community”: The Human Measure: Social Thought in the Western Legal Tradition (1990), p.182.Google ScholarSee also Simpson, A. W. B., “The Survival of the Common Law System”, in his Legal Theory and Legal History. Essays on the Common Law (1987), p.394Google Scholar: “University law, with th[e] exception [of equity], never had any profound influence upon the common law system, and to say this is the same as to say that there was never a reception”; David, Ibbetson and Andrew, Lewis, “The Roman Law Tradition”, in Lewis, and Ibbetson, (Eds), The Roman Law Tradition (1994), p.9.Google ScholarBut see Helmut, Coing, “European Common Law: Historical Foundations”, in Mauro, Cappelletti (Ed.), New Perspectives for a Common Law of Europe (1978), p.31; Zimmermann, op. tit. supra n.6, at pp.68–69. Cf. John Henry Merryman and David S. Clark, Comparative Law: Western European and Latin American Legal Systems: Cases and Materials (1978), pp.104–105: “The idealization of… the jus commune is at the bottom of a special attitude which might be called ‘the nostalgia of the civil lawyer.’ It refers to a desire to reestablish A jus commune—a common law of mankind—in the West… a similar nostalgia is not a part of the culture of the common law.”Google Scholar

It is worth noting, incidentally, that the use of the expression “jus commune” is not free from controversy. See generally Harold J. Berman and Charles J. Reid, “Roman Law in Europe and the jus commune”, in Scintillae iuris: Studi in memoria di Gino Gorla, Vol.II (1994), p. 1008, where the authors discern, from the 11th century onwards, three “jus commune” in European legal history.

41. I am not denying the existence of a long-standing and important influence of the civil law tradition on English law. Clearly, English law did not develop in the insular way in which it continues to be represented by an important current of English legal scholarship. This question has benefited from much scholarly interest in recent years. See, for an effective demonstration of the argument, Michele, Graziadei, “Changing Images of the Law in XIXth Century English Legal Thought (The Continental Impulse)”, in Mathias, Reimann (Ed.), The Reception of Continental Ideas in the Common Law World 1820–1920 (1994). See also e.g. Gino Gorla and Luigi Moccia, “A ‘Revisiting’ of the Comparison Between ‘Continental Law’ and ‘English Law’ (16th–19th Century)” (1981) 2 J. Leg. Hist. 143; Luigi Moccia, “English Law Attitudes to the ‘Civil Law’” (1981) 2 J. Leg. Hist. 157. But to say that there has been an influence of the civil law tradition on English law at the level of rules, concepts, substantive and adjectival law, and institutional bodies (which is the point effectively made by authors like Graziadei) says nothing as regards an eventual epistemological convergence.Google Scholar

42. See, for a general reflection on why law is an unsatisfactory tool of European integration, Christian Mouly, “Le droit peut-il favoriser l'intégration européenne?” (1985) Rev. int. dr. comp. 895.

43. Hofstede, op. cit. supra n.26, at p.16.

44. See Martin Krygier, “Law as Tradition” (1986) 5 Law and Philosophy 237; “The Traditionality of Statutes” (1988) 1 Ratio Juris 20.

45. Cf. James, Gleick, Chaos (1987), pp.169–170.Google Scholar

46. Scheuch, Erwin K., “The Development of Comparative Research: Towards Causal Explanations”, in else, Øyen (Ed.), Comparative Methodology (1990), pp.29–30.Google Scholar

47. Ugo, Mattei, Common Law: 11 diritto anglo-americano (1992), p.302.Google Scholar

48. English law is indeed presented as such in Idem, p.19.

49. It is important to stress that hot all the conclusions that follow would apply equally forcefully to the US, notably on account of a greater measure of constitutionalisation of private law and of the existence of a stronger culture of rights in American law. See e.g. James, Gordley, “‘Common Law’ v. ‘Civil Law’: una distinzione che va scomparendo?”, in Paolo, Cendon (Ed.). Scritti in onore di Rodolfo Sacco, Vol.I (1994). p.559, where the author argues that American private law, at least in terms of its basic structure, is more systematic than is generally acknowledged.Google Scholar

50. See Robert, BlanchéL'épistémologie (3rd edn, 1983), p.65, who argues that every science obligatorily passes through descriptive, inductive and deductive phases before finally reaching an axiomatic stage.Google Scholar

51. See generally Geoffrey, Samuel, The Foundations of Legal Reasoning (1994), pp.171–207.Google Scholar

52. Idem, p.195.

53. Gilbert, Ryle, “Knowing How and Knowing That”, in his op. cit. supra n.25, at p.212.Google Scholar

54. Weber, , op. cit. supra n.30, at pp.656–657.Google Scholar

55. Simpson, , “The Common Law and Legal Theory”, in his op. cit. supra n.40, at p.381.Google Scholar

56. Tony, Weir, “The Common Law System”, in International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Vol.II: The Legal Systems of the World: Their Comparison and Unification, Chap.2: “Structure and the Divisions of the Law” (René, David (Ed.) n.d.), No.82, p.77.Google Scholar

57. [1983] 2 A.C. 192, 201 (HL). See also e.g. Miliangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd (1976) A.C. 443, 481 (HL) (per Lord Simon): “the training and qualification of a judge is to elucidate the problem immediately before him, so that its features stand out in stereoscopic clarity”.

58. Weir, op. cit. supra n.56, at No.83, p.78.

59. Neil, MacCormick, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (1978), p.40.Google Scholar

60. [1984] 3 All E.R. 897, 903 (CA).

61. [1947] A.C. 156, 175 (HL).The reference is, of course, to Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law (1881), p.1.

62. Weir, op. cit. supra n.56, at No.84, p.79.

63. Bernard, Rudden, “Torticles” (1991–92) 6/7 Tulane Civ.L. Forum 105, 110. See also Alan, Watson, Legal Transplants (2nd edn, 1993), p.70.Google Scholar

64. Barnes, Thomas G. (Ed.), The Book of the General Lawes and Libertyes Concerning the Inhabitants of the Massachusets (1975; reprint from the 1648 edn). For Watson, Idem, p.66, this is “the earliest code of the modern Western legal world”.Google Scholar

65. Samuel, , op. cit. supra n.51, at p.192.Google Scholar

66. Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 A.C. 548 (HL).

67. Thomas Mackay Cooper, “The Common and the Civil Law—A Scot's View” (1950) 63 Harv.L.R. 468, 470.

68. See Frederick, Schauer, Playing by the Rules (1991), pp.174–187Google Scholar; Simpson, , op. cil. supra n.55, at pp.362–382.Google Scholar

69. Roger, Cotterrell, The Politics of Jurisprudence (1989), p.22.Google Scholar

70. O. W. Holmes, “Codes, and the Arrangement of the Law” (1931) 44 Harv.L.R. 725, 728 (reprint from the 1870 publication).

71. Schauer, , op. cit. supra n.68, at p.175.Google Scholar

72. W. T. Murphy, “The Oldest Social Science? The Epistemic Properties of the Common Law Tradition” (1991) 54 M.L.R. 182, 205.

73. Schauer, , op. cit. supra n.68, at p.178.Google ScholarSee also Joseph, Vining, The Authoritative and the Authoritarian (1986), p.45: “What are called ‘the rules laid down by a decision’ are verbal formulations of the reasons relied upon by a decision maker in making the decision. Those reasons are values, importances; any decision maker acting in a particular role necessarily gives relative weights to them in making a particular decision.”Google Scholar

74. Howard v. Duke of Norfolk (1681) 2 Swans. 454, 468; 36 E.R. 690, 695 (per Nottingham LC).

75. Jeremy, Bentham. A Comment on the Commentaries (1928; reprint. 1976), p.125.Google Scholar

76. Edward Coke, “The Preface to the Reader”. 1 Co.Rep. I at xxvii (being the preface to the first of a collection of reports published between 1600 and 1616).

77. Cf. Samuel, , op. cit supra n.51, at p.146.Google Scholar

78. Roberts Petroleum Ltd v. Bernard Kenny Ltd, supra n.57, at p.201.

79. See Samuel, , op. cit. supra n.51, at pp.147–151 referring to Hall v. Lorimer [1992] 1 W.L.R. 939, 944 (Mummery J) and Re Rowland [1963] Ch. 1, 10–11 (Lord Denning MR), respectively.Google Scholar

80. Masterson v. Holden [1986] 3 All E.R. 39, 43 (Glidewell L.J).

81. Robert Goff, “The Search for Principle” (1983) 59 Proc. British Academy 169, 183.

82. Samuel, , op. cit. supra n.51, at p.192.Google Scholar

83. Lawson, F. H., “‘Das subjektive Recht’ in the English Law of Torts”, in his Selected Essays, Vol.I: Many Laws (1977), p.180.Google Scholar

84. Jacques, Ghestin and Gilles, Goubeaux, Traité de droit civil: Introduction générale (3rd edn, 1990), No.163, p.122 (“prérogatives individuelles”).Google Scholar

85. Geoffrey Samuel “‘Le droit subjectif’ and English Law” (1987) Camb.L.J. 264, 286.

86. Durham v. Spence (1870) L.R. 6 Ex. 46, 48 (Pigott B).

87. [1965] 1 Q.B. 232, 242–243 (Diplock L.J).

88. Kingdom of Spain v. Christie, Manson & Woods Ltd [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1120. 1129 (Browne-Wilkinson V-C).

89. F. v. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council [1991] 2 W.L.R. 1132 (CA).

90. Rudden, , op. cit. supra n.63, at p.123, refers to the “futility of relying at common law on a right rather than a wrong”.Google Scholar

91. See Atiyah, P. S., Pragmatism and Theory in English Law (1987), pp.18–26.Google Scholar

92. See Alan, Ryan, “The British, the Americans, and Rights”, in Lacey, Michael J. and Knud, Haakonssen (Eds), A Culture of Rights (1991), p.366. In the course of his argument, this author explains the obsolescence of the Declaration of Rights of 1689 and the limited impact of the European Convention on Human Rights of 1951. See also, on the latter point, Ronald Dworkin, A Bill of Rights for Britåin (1990), passim.Google Scholar

93. Colin, Turpin, British Government and the Constitution (2nd edn, 1990), p.59.Google Scholar

94. Ryan, , op. cit. supra n.92, at p.391.Google Scholar

95. Idem, p.370 (emphasis original).

96. Dicey, A. V., Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th edn, 1959), p. 199.Google Scholar

97. Jean-Louis Sourioux, Introduction au droit (1987), No.27, p.34 (“I'une des créations de la conscience juridique réfléchie”).

98. Ghestin and Goubeaux, loc. cit. supra n.84 (“l'usage quotidien du terme [et] le rôle qu'il joue dans la plupart des raisonnements”). See generally e.g. Jean Dabin, Le droit subjectif (1952).

99. Edward Coke, “Deo, Patriae, Tibi”, 8 Co.Rep. IV at iv (being the preface to the eighth of a collection of reports published between 1600 and 1616). See also e.g. William, Blackstone. Commentaries on the Laws of England Vol.I (1979), p.67: “in our law the goodness of a custom depends upon it's having been used time out of mind; or, in the solemnity of our legal phrase, time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. This it is that gives it it's weight and authority; and of this nature are the maxims and customs which compose the common law, or lex non scripta, of this kingdom” (reprint from the 1765 edn).Google Scholar

100. Edward Coke, “To the Reader”, 3 Co.Rep. II at xii (being the preface to the third idem)

101. Montesquieu, , De l'esprit des lois, in Oeuvres complètes (Roger, Caillois (Ed.) 1951), Vol.II, p.227 (“bom without a mother”) (reprint from the 1748 edn).Google Scholar

102. Kelley, , op. cit. supra n.40, at p.167.Google Scholar

103. R. v. Almon [1765] Wilm. 243, 254; 97 E.R. 94, 99 (per Wilmot J).

104. Peter, Goodrich, Languages of Law (1990), p.215.Google Scholar

105. Idem, p.229.

106. Idem, p.217.

107. For the “enthymeme” as a rhetorical device, see Peter Goodrich, Reading the Law (1986), pp.190–191.Google Scholar

108. Goodrich, , op. cit. supra n.104, at p.226.Google Scholar

109. Murphy, , op. cit. supra n.72, at p.202.Google Scholar

110. See Pocock, J. G. A., The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law (1987), p. 19.Google Scholar

111. The Prior of Bermondsey v. The Parson of Fivehead (1342) Y.B. 16 Edw. III, 1, 86, 90 (No.25). The law-French version reads: “Nous ne voloms ne ne pooms chaunger les auncienes usages” (at 91). An interesting point of etymology arises from a note which indicates that one of the five extant manuscripts on which the report is based records “chalanger” as the second verb of the sentence.

112. Matthew, Hale, The History of the Common Law of England (Gray, Charles M. (Ed.) 1971). p.40 (reprint from the 1713 edn).Google Scholar

113. Calvin's Case (1608) 7 Co.Rep., IV, 1a, 3b; 77 E.R. 377, 381 (per Lord Coke).

114. In re Harrison's Share Under a Settlement [1955] Ch. 260, 283 (Roxburgh J).

115. Gadamer, . op. cit. supra n.37, at p.86.Google Scholar

116. Pocock, , op. cit. supra n.110, at p.18.Google Scholar

117. Contra: Reinhard Zimmermann, “Der europaïsche Charakter des englischen Rechts” (1993) I Zeitschrift für Europaïsches Privatrechl 4. The argument is summarised in his op. cit. supra n.6, at pp.75–80. See also Ibbetson, and Lewis, , op. cit. supra n.40, at pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

118. Otto Kahn-Freund, “Common Law and Civil Law—Imaginary and Real Obstacles to Assimilation”, in Cappelletti, op. cit. supra n.40, at p.160.Google Scholar

119. See, for the use of “gouvernementalité”. Daniel, Defert and François, Ewald (Eds). Michel Foucault: Dits et écrits 1954–1988. Vol.III: 1976–1979 (1994). p.655.Google Scholar

120. Vining, , op. cit. supra n.73, at pp.54–55.Google Scholar

121. Greimas, , op. cit. supra n.28, at p.74.Google Scholar

122. Didier, Eribon, Faul-il brûler Dumézil? (1992), p.291 (“Si j'allais chez les anthropophages, je tâcherais d'en savoir le plus possible sur eux, mais je resterais loin de la marmite”).Google Scholar

123. Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (2nd edn, 1986), pp.38–39.Google ScholarSee also Mondher, Kilani, L'invention de l'autre (1994), pp.40–41.Google Scholar

124. Gadamer, loc. cit supra n.37. See also Roy, Wagner, The Invention of Culture (2nd edn, 1981), pp.39–40.Google Scholar

125. Alasdair, MacIntyre, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (1988), p.370.Google Scholar

126. Gadamer, , op. cit. supra n.37, at p.17.Google Scholar

127. Richard, Sennett, Authority (1980), p.143.Google Scholar

128. Ibid.

129. Michael, Walzer, Interpretation and Social Criticism (1987), p.39 (emphasis original).Google ScholarSee also Ronald, Dworkin, Law's Empire (1986), p.14.Google Scholar

130. Lerminier, E., Philosophie du droit (2nd edn, 1835), p.290 (“Le caractère de chaque peuple ne saurait être familier qu'à un indigène”).Google Scholar

131. Pierre, Legendre, Jouir du pouvoir: Traité de la bureaucratie patriote (1976), p.58 (“un Américain, même très savant, ne saurait entrer dans le discours des institutions en usage sur le continent européen sans courir le risque de tous les experts; ce discours lui demeure aussi fermé que pouvait l'être, aux oreilles coloniales, le discours nègre”).Google Scholar

132. Paul, Feyerabend, Farewell to Reason (1987), pp.104–105.Google Scholar

133. Said, Edward W., Culture and Imperialism (1993), p.261.Google Scholar

134. Idem, p.32.

135. This passage is a long—and close—paraphrase of Ann Rosalind Jones, “Writing the Body: Toward an Understanding of l'écriture féminine” (1981) 7 Feminist Studies 247, 255–256. Said refers to a similar argument by the writer, Wole Soyinka, as regards the concept of “négritude” in the context of the European–African opposition: Idem, p.229.

136. Said, Idem, p.31.

137. Hannah, Arendt, unpublished address, 1975, cited in Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World (1982), p.xi.Google Scholar

138. Italian law is itself but a representation concocted by Italian lawyers. See Pierre Legrand (1994) Camb.L.J. 607 (bk. rev. of Atias, op. cit. supra n.29).

139. Roderick Munday, “The Common Lawyer's Philosophy of Legislation” (1983) 14 Rechtstheorie 191.

140. Roscoe, Pound, “What is the Common Law?”, in The Future of the Common Law (1937). p.18.Google Scholar

141. Margaret, Masterman, “The Nature of a Paradigm”, in Imre, Lakatos and Alan, Musgrave (Eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (1970), p.59.Google ScholarMasterman claims that in Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edn, 1970) the author ascribed 21 different meanings to the word. In his reply to critics. Kuhn acknowledges the ambiguity of his usage: “Reflections on my Critics”, in Lakatos and Musgrave, Idem, pp.271–272.Google Scholar

142. Jorge Arditi. “Geertz, Kuhn and the Idea of a Cultural Paradigm” (1994) 45 Brit J. Sociology 597, 614.

143. Arguably, this situation offers an instance of a wider cultural phenomenon. The intensity of contact between cultural groups often has the paradoxical consequence that it stimulates cultural diversity by confirming group members in their own identity. See Geert, Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations (1991), p.238Google Scholar; Michel de, Certeau, La culture au pluriel (1974), pp. 127–128.Google Scholar

144. Edward Coke, “To the Reader”, 4 Co.Rep. II at x (being the preface to the fourth of a collection of reports published between 1600 and 1616).

145. Jackson, Bernard S., “‘Legal Visions of the New Europe’: lus Gentium, lus Commune, European Law”, in Jackson, and McGoldrick, D. (Eds), Legal Visions of the New Europe (1993), p.34.Google Scholar

146. Fritz Pringsheim, “The Inner Relationship Between English and Roman Law” (1935) Camb.L.J. 347, 348.

147. Idem, p.365.

148. See Jolowicz, H. F., Lectures on Jurisprudence (Jolowicz, J. A. (Ed.) 1963), pp.127–129.Google Scholar

149. Montesquieu, , op. tit. supra n.101 (sub “Dossier de l'Esprit des Lois”), at p. 1025 (“ce n'est point le corps des lois que je cherche, mais leur âme”). These words are taken from a folder which Montesquieu had entitled “Choses qui n'ont pu entrer dans la Composition des Lois” (“Materials that could not fit into the writing of The Spirit of Laws”).Google Scholar

150. Richard, Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth (1991). p.206.Google Scholar