Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

More Current Debates

  • Chapter
The Enigma of Comparative Law

  • 320 Accesses

Abstract

Among the many current comparative law debates now taking place, a few stand out. Some of these have been referred to already as sub-themes of the Theme Comparative Law. Alongside these, there are two others that occupy most comparative lawyers. One relates to the question, ‘What is the field of study for comparative law?’ Comparative lawyers stand on either side of the private law/public law divide, though the dividing line is itself becoming slightly blurred. The second debate, which is related to the convergence debate, is on how to regard the creation of ius commune novum and the common law of human rights. This sub-theme looks at these two debates. Both are handled through our customary two Variations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. A. Harding and E. Orucu, ‘Preface’ in id (eds) Comparative Law in the 21 st Century (London, Kluwer Law International, 2002), p. ix.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See the plea by A. Harding, ‘Comparative Public Law: Some Lessons from South East Asia’ in Ibid., pp. 254–256.

    Google Scholar 

  3. I have treated this subject also elsewhere. See E. Orucii, ‘Approaching Public Law as a Mixed System’ (2002) Juridical Review, 131–142.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. Bell, ‘Comparing Public Law’ in Harding & Oriicii (eds), above note 1, p. 246.

    Google Scholar 

  5. M. Cappelletti, Judicial Review in the Contemporary World (Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  6. See contributions to E. Orucu (ed)Judicial Comparativism in Human Rights Cases, United Kingdom Comparative Law Series Vol: 22 (London, UKNCCL/BIICL, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  7. G. della Cananea, ‘Beyond the State: The Europeanization and Globalization of Procedural Administrative Law’ (2003) 9 European Public Law, 563 at p. 564.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. Bell, ‘Mechanisms for Cross-fertilisation of Administrative Law in Europe’ ch. 11 in J. Beatson and T. Tridimas (eds) New Directions in European Public Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 1998) p. 149.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. Schwartze (ed) Administrative Law under European Influence (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1996) and J. Schwartze, ‘Towards a Common European Public Law’ (1995) 1 European Public Law, 232.

    Google Scholar 

  10. The Judge Over Your Shoulder: A Guide to Judicial Review for UK Government Administration (March 2000, Treasury Solicitor’s Office), available at htpp://www.open.gov.uk/tsd/judge.htm

    Google Scholar 

  11. Factortame Ltd. v Secretary of State for Transport Case C-213/89 [1990] ECR 1–2433,; note by A,G. Toth, 27 Common Market Law Review (1990), 573.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik Suderdithmarschen AG v. Hauptzollamt Itzehoe, and Zuckerfabrik Soest GmBH v. Hauptzollamt Paderbon [1991] ECR 1–415; case note by H.G. Schermers, 29 Common Market Law Review (1992), 133.

    Google Scholar 

  13. R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex. p. Coughlan [2000] 2 W.L.R. 622 at 647.

    Google Scholar 

  14. K. Zweigert and H. Kotz, An Introduction to Comparative Law, 3rd edn., trans. T. Weir (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1998), p.3.

    Google Scholar 

  15. E.M. Clive, ‘Scottish Family Law’, in J. Grant (ed) Independence and Devolution: The Legal Implications for Scotland (Edinburgh, Green, 1976), 162, at p. 173.

    Google Scholar 

  16. I. Ward, ‘The Limits of Comparativism: Lessons from UK-EC Integration (1995) 2 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 23 at p. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Another slant to the above would be to stress differences arising from similarities or similarities arising from differences. From this the comparative lawyer can move on to generalization.

    Google Scholar 

  18. T. Koopmans, Towards a New “Ius Commune’”, in: B. de Witte and C. Forder (eds.), The common law of Europe and the future of legal education (Deventer, Kluwer; Metro, 1992) p. 49.

    Google Scholar 

  19. V.G. Curran, ‘On the Shoulders of Schlesinger: The Trento Common Core of European Private Law Project’ Vol. 2 [2002] No.2 Aricle 2 Global Jurist Frontier (The Berkeley Electronic Press), p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. Bogdan, Comparative Law (Goteborg, Kluwer Tano, 1994), p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See V.G., Curran ‘Dealing in Difference: Comparative Law’s Potential for Broadening Legal Perspective’, (1998) 46 American Journal of Comparative Law, 657, and N.V. Demleitner, ’Challenge, Opportunity and Risk: An Era of Change in Comparative Law’, (1998) 46American Journal of Comparative Law, 647.

    Google Scholar 

  22. See E. Oriicii, ‘Unde Venit, Quo Tendit Comparative Law’, in Harding & Orucii (eds), above note 1, pp. 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  23. R. Schlesinger, The Past and Future of Comparative Law’, (1995) 43 American Journal of Comparative Law, All at p.All.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See Invercargill City Council v Hamlin [1996] 1 All ER, 773 (PC).

    Google Scholar 

  25. R. Zimmermann, ‘Savigny’s legacy: Legal history, comparative law, and the emergence of a European legal science’, (1996) 112 Law Quarterly Review, 557, at p. 602. Later published in: T.G. Watkin, The Europeanisation of Law, United Kingdom Comparative Law Series Vol: 18, (London, UKNCCL/BIICL, 1998) pp. 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  26. L. Moccia, ‘Historical Overview on the Origins and Attitudes of Comparative Law’, in: Witte & Forder (eds.), above note 25, p. 609.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Boizard v Commission 63+64/79 [1980] ECR 3002, (Advocate-General Warner).

    Google Scholar 

  28. H. Coing, The sources and characteristics of the ius commune’, (1986) 19Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa, 483–489, at p. 487.

    Google Scholar 

  29. See for instance, P. de Cruz, ‘Legal Transplants: Principles and Pragmatism in Comparative Family Law’, in: Harding & Oriicii (eds) above note 1, 101–120; K. Boele-Woelki (ed) Perspectives for Unification and Harmonisation of Family Law in Europe (Antwerp-Oxford- New York, Intersentia, 2003) and contributions to that volume.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Much has been written in this field. See for instance, contributions in de Witte & Forder (eds), above note 25.

    Google Scholar 

  31. A. Watson, ‘A Common Private Law for Europe?’9 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 4 (2002), p. 330.

    Google Scholar 

  32. The Preamble of the Resolution of 26 May 1989, OJEC No. C 158/401 of June 26 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  33. See for some of the results: W. van Gerven, J. Lever and P. Larouche (eds.), Tort law, Common Law of Europe Casebooks (Oxford, Hart Publishers, 2000); H. Schulte-Nolke, R. Schulze and J. Jones (eds.), A Casebook on European Consumer Law (Oxford, Hart Publishers, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  34. See for instance, A. Ogus, ‘Competition Between National Legal Systems: A Contribution of Economic Analysis to Comparative Law’, (1999) 48 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 405.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See J.M. Smits, ‘The Harmonisation of Private Law in Europe: Some Insights from Evolutionary Theory’, (2002) 31 Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, pp. 79–99.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Also see T. Hartlief, ‘Towards a European Private Law? A Review Essay’,Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 1 (1994), 166 at p. 175.

    Google Scholar 

  37. For an overview of the methods and the achievements so far see, E. Hondius, ‘Towards a European Ius commune: The Current Situation in other Fields of Private Law’ in: Boeke- Woelki (ed) above note 40, pp. 118–140; and for an assessment of various methods proposed for creating a European private law, see J.M. Smits, ’How to Take the Road Untravelled? European Private Law in the making: A Review Article’, 6 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 1 (1999), pp. 25–46.

    Google Scholar 

  38. An interesting example of common law penetrating a civilian Code is St Lucia however. See D. White, ‘Some problems of a hybrid legal system: a case study of St. Lucia’ (1981) 30 International and Comparative law Quarterly, pp. 862–881.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See for instance P. Legrand, ‘Against a European Civil Code’ (1997)Modern Law Review, 44.

    Google Scholar 

  40. For past encounters of English common law with the civilian tradition see, E. Orucu, Critical Comparative Law: Considering Paradoxes for Legal Systems in Transition, Nederlandse Vereniging Voor Rechtsvergelijking No: 59 (Deventer, Kluwer, 1999), pp. 34–43.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Joined cases of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and other:; Fox v Spousal (Midlands) Ltd and Matthews v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1978) Ltd and others [2002] UKHL 22, [2002] 3 All ER 305.

    Google Scholar 

  42. See Bennett v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court and another, [1993]3 All ER, 138 (HL).

    Google Scholar 

  43. E. Oriicii, ‘Comparative Law in British Courts’, in: U. Drobnig and S. Van Erp (eds.), The Use of Comparative Law by Courts, (London, Kluwer Law International, 1999), at p. 257. For the case see Attorney General of New Zealand v Ortiz and other [1082] 3 All ER 432

    Google Scholar 

  44. See, A.A.Oba, ‘Islamic Law as Customary Law: The Changing Perspective in Nigeria’, (2002) 51 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, pp. 817–850.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Uwais CJN, Kutigi, Ogbweghu and Onu, JJSC, reported by ibid., p. 839.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See G. van Niekerk, ‘The convergence of legal systems in Southern Africa’ (2002) XXXV Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa, pp. 308–318.

    Google Scholar 

  47. See U. Baxi, The Future of Human Rights, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002), p. vi.

    Google Scholar 

  48. See W. Twining, Globalisation and Legal Theory (London, Butterworths, 2000) pp. 47, 50, 88.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Cf. R. Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations, Roman Frontiers of the Civilian Tradition (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  50. M.Hilf, ‘The role of comparative law in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Communities“ in: The Limitation of Human Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law (Cowansville, Les Edition Yvon Blais, 1986), p. 550.

    Google Scholar 

  51. K. Lenaerts, ‘Interlocking Legal Orders in the European Union and Comparative Law’, (2003) 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 873–906, at pp. 878–879

    Google Scholar 

  52. For example see M. Bussani, ‘Current Trends in European Comparative Law: The Common Core Approach’ (1998) 21Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 785.

    Google Scholar 

  53. R. Hyland, ‘Comparative Law’ Chapter 11 in D. Patterson (ed.) A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 1996) pp. 193–197.

    Google Scholar 

  54. P. Legrand, Fragments on Law-as-Culture (Deventer, W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, 1999) p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  55. D.J. Ibbetson, ‘A Reply to Professor Zimmermann’ in Watkin (ed), above note 33, p. 224.

    Google Scholar 

  56. S. Weatherill, ‘Can There be Common Interpretation of European Private law’, (2002) 31 Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, 139 at pp. 159, 160.

    Google Scholar 

  57. See generally, P. Legrand who makes six claims that ius commune is largely irrelevant to the debate on contemporary problems of European legal integration, that what integration is to occur will take place only through legislation, that this will only highlight further the summa differentia between the common law and the civil law, that this is epistemological rather than substantive, that this shows itself in systematization, the nature of rules and the role of facts, and that this summa differentia is irreducible., ‘Legal Traditions in Western Europe: The Limits of Commonality’, in: R. Jagtenberg, E. Orucii and A. de Roo (eds.), Transfrontier Mobility of Law (Deventer, Kluwer Law International, 1995), pp. 63–84..

    Google Scholar 

  58. See J.M. Smits, ‘A European Private Law as a Mixed System’ (1998) 5 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 328; J.M. Smits, ’The Harmonisation of Private Law in Europe: Some Insights from Evolutionary Theory’ (2002) Georgia. Journal of International & Comparative Law, p. 81.

    Google Scholar 

  59. B de Sousa Santos, Toward a New Legal Common Sense, 2nd edn. (London; Butterworths, 2002) p. 271.

    Google Scholar 

  60. P.G. Monateri, ‘The “Weak” Law: Contaminations and Legal Cultures’ in Italian National Reports to the XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, Bristol 1998 (Milano, Guiffre, 1998), 84 at pp. 89–90.

    Google Scholar 

  61. V.G. Curran, ‘Cultural Immersion, Difference and Categories in U.S. Comparative Law’, (1998) 46 American Journal of Comparative Law, 43, at p. 91.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Wouter Snijders considers this hope for the ‘invisible hand’ as he calls it, as the second of his ’Castles in Spain’ and says that though as a metaphor the theory seems interesting, it is unrealistic. See W. Snijders, Building a European Contract Law; five Fallacies and two Castles in Spain, Ius Commune Lectures on European Private Law No: 9 (Maastricht, Metro, 2003), pp. 7–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Esin Örücü
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Örücü, E. (2004). More Current Debates. In: The Enigma of Comparative Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-5596-2_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-5596-2_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-04-13989-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-5596-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation