inhoudsopgave
inhoudsopgave...............................................................................................................................................................1
LECTURE 1 : introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 7
AN OVERVIEW OF THIS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 7
(1) THE CONCEPT OF COMPARATIVE LAW........................................................................................................... 8
(2) THE RESEARCH OBJECT : what is law?...............................................................................................................10
LAW...........................................................................................................................................................................10
NATURAL LAW THEORY............................................................................................................................12
POSITIVE LAW...............................................................................................................................................12
LEGAL REALISM........................................................................................................................................... 14
OBJECT : MICRO V. MACRO LEGAL COMPARISON...................................................................................18
OBJECT : NATIONAL V. INTER(N)NATIONAL.............................................................................................. 21
NATIONAL V. INTERNATIONAL —.........................................................................................................21
INTER-NATIONAL V. INTERNAL-NATIONAL —................................................................................ 23
(3) THE RESEARCH METHOD : components........................................................................................................... 24
COMPONENTS.......................................................................................................................................................24
COMPARATIVE LAW V. LEGAL HISTORY..................................................................................................... 25
SOCIOLOGY, ANTHROPOLOGY, LEGAL THEORY ~ relation of CL with other disciplines.................27
THE SOCIOLOGY OF LAW.........................................................................................................................27
LEGAL ANTHROPOLOGY/ETHNOLOGY...............................................................................................28
LEGAL THEORY (JURISPRUDENCE)....................................................................................................... 28
LECTURE 2 + 3 : origins and development............................................................................................................. 30
OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................................................................31
ANTIQUITY.................................................................................................................................................................... 31
1ST HALF OF THE MIDDLE AGES (500-1000)......................................................................................................... 32
2ND HALF OF MIDDLE AGES (1000-1500)............................................................................................................... 33
Rechtsvergelijking -1-
, 1) LEGAL STUDIES................................................................................................................................................ 35
THE NEW AGE (1500-1800)...........................................................................................................................................36
RATIONALISM....................................................................................................................................................... 37
EMPIRICISM...........................................................................................................................................................38
18TH CENTURY : LEGAL EVOLUTION...................................................................................................................39
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY : sporadic legal comparison.......................................................................................... 41
19TH CENTURY : legislative comparison.................................................................................................................. 42
19TH CENTURY : scientific comparison.................................................................................................................... 46
1900 : THE BIRTH OF MODERN COMPARATIVE LAW.......................................................................................49
THE INTERWAR ERA................................................................................................................................................... 50
2ND HALF 20TH CENTURY TO TODAY................................................................................................................. 52
1) INTERNATIONALISATION & GLOBALISATION OF COMPARATIVE LAW/LEGAL RESEARCH52
2) RECENT COUNTER-REACTION...................................................................................................................53
LECTURE 4 + 5 : applications...................................................................................................................................55
COMPARATIVE LAW & INTERNATIONAL LAW..................................................................................................56
1) PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW.................................................................................................................60
2) APPLICATION OF FOREIGN LAW...............................................................................................................62
3) COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.................................................................................................63
4) COMPARATIVE LAW & LAW-MAKING...................................................................................................... 66
5) COMPARATIVE LAW IN CASE LAW : general............................................................................................69
6) COMPARATIVE LAW IN JURISPRUDENCE : examples........................................................................... 69
RECEPTION & LEGAL TRANSPLANTS................................................................................................................... 72
1) RECEPTION........................................................................................................................................................ 72
2) LEGAL TRANSPLANTS....................................................................................................................................72
3) LEGAL IRRITANT..............................................................................................................................................74
HARMONISATION & UNIFICATION : general.......................................................................................................75
1) UNIFICATION....................................................................................................................................................75
UNIFICATION US......................................................................................................................................... 75
INTERNATIONAL UNIFICATION : HARD LAW...................................................................................77
INTERNATIONAL UNIFICATION : SOFT LAW.................................................................................... 77
THE ROLE OF COMPARATIVE LAW....................................................................................................... 78
2) HARMONISATION............................................................................................................................................78
PRIVATE LAW IN THE EU.......................................................................................................................................... 79
RESEARCH...................................................................................................................................................................... 80
1) DESIGN................................................................................................................................................................ 80
START LECTURE 7........................................................................................................................................................ 82
2) ORIGINALITY.................................................................................................................................................... 82
NORMATIVE LEGAL STUDIES & COMPARATIVE LAW.............................................................84
POSITIVE LEGAL RESEARCH : law v. doctrine.......................................................................................................86
1) POSITIVE LEGAL DOCTRINE....................................................................................................................... 86
HOLMES...........................................................................................................................................................86
POUND.............................................................................................................................................................86
Rechtsvergelijking -2-
, 2) POSITIVE LEGAL DOCTRINE X COMPARATIVE LAW..........................................................................86
DIDACTIC VALUE OF COMPARATIVE LAW........................................................................................................ 87
LECTURE 4 : micro-legal comparison..................................................................................................................... 89
THE SELECTION OF THE SYSTEMS TO BE COMPARED.................................................................................. 90
COMPARABILITY & THE BASIS FOR COMPARISON......................................................................................... 91
1) DOES THE COMPARISON MAKE SENSE?..................................................................................................91
2) COMMON DENOMINATOR : tertium comparationis................................................................................ 92
DOGMATIC LEGAL COMPARISON......................................................................................................................... 93
FUNCTIONAL COMPARISON................................................................................................................................... 94
FUNCTIONAL METHOD.............................................................................................................................................95
THE PRESUMPTION OF SIMILARITY ~ praesumptio similitudinis.................................................................. 96
FUNCTIONAL AND DOGMATIC COMPARISON.................................................................................................98
HOW TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTING RULE....................................................................................................... 101
THE OBJECT OF COMPARISON : law and doctrine.............................................................................................103
THE KNOWLEDGE OF FOREIGN LAW.................................................................................................................106
THE KNOWLEDGE OF FOREIGN LAW.................................................................................................................107
THE COMMON CORE METHOD............................................................................................................................ 107
LAW AND LANGUAGE.............................................................................................................................................. 109
SOURCES OF LAW...................................................................................................................................................... 110
LEGISLATION IN CIVIL LAW CONTEXT............................................................................................................ 111
LEGISLATION IN COMMON LAW CONTEXT....................................................................................................111
THE PRECEDENT IN COMMON LAW.................................................................................................................. 115
CASE LAW IN CIVIL LAW CONTEXT....................................................................................................................118
STATUTE IN COMMON LAW.................................................................................................................................. 119
STATUTE AND INTERPRETATION IN CIVIL LAW...........................................................................................120
DOCTRINE AS A SOURCE OF LAW (opinio juris)................................................................................................ 121
COMPARING................................................................................................................................................................ 122
lecture 9 : macro-legal comparison......................................................................................................................... 125
THE CONCEPT OF MACRO-LEGAL COMPARISON......................................................................................... 125
THE UTILITY OF MACRO LEGAL COMPARISON.............................................................................................126
THE CONCEPT OF LEGAL SYSTEM...................................................................................................................... 128
TAXONOMIES.............................................................................................................................................................. 129
CRITERIA...................................................................................................................................................................... 130
1) EXTERNAL AND DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................................130
2) GENEALOGY.................................................................................................................................................... 131
3) TYPOLOGY....................................................................................................................................................... 135
ZWEIGERT & KÖTZ : STYLE.....................................................................................................................137
4) LEGAL CULTURE............................................................................................................................................139
6) LEGAL TRADITION........................................................................................................................................142
COMMON LAW AND CIVIL LAW : ideal type.......................................................................................................145
IDEAL TYPES V. REALITY : “MIXTURES”............................................................................................................147
lecture : law as culture.............................................................................................................................................. 152
Rechtsvergelijking -3-
, LAW AS CULTURE...................................................................................................................................................... 152
1) INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS............................................................................................................................ 152
PHILOSOPHICAL ROOTS....................................................................................... 152
PHENOMENOLOGY...................................................................................................................................153
PSYCHOANALYSIS......................................................................................................................................154
CRITICAL THEORY.................................................................................................................................... 155
COMPARING................................................................................................................................................................ 157
A CRITIQUE OF OBJECTIVITY...............................................................................................................................157
DIFFERENCE................................................................................................................................................................ 158
REMNANTS OF COLONIALISM..............................................................................................................................159
DECOLONIALITY....................................................................................................................................................... 160
lecture 12 : interdisciplinarity................................................................................................................................. 164
THINKING AS A LAWYER : legal alienation.......................................................................................................... 164
AN EXTERNAL PERSPECTIVE : Bourdieu sociology of the legal field............................................................. 165
THE LEGAL FIELD......................................................................................................................................................167
COHESION OF LEGAL INTERPRETATION......................................................................................................... 167
MANUFACTURING UNIVERSALITY.....................................................................................................................167
CONSTRUCTING THE SYMBOLIC.........................................................................................................................168
THE DOCTRINAL ENTITY....................................................................................................................................... 168
CLS and CIVIL LAW.................................................................................................................................................... 169
LAW & IDEOLOGY...................................................................................................................................................... 170
CRITIQUE OF THE CODE.........................................................................................................................................170
FREEDOM AND CONSTRAINT IN ADJUDICATION........................................................................................ 171
LAWYERS.......................................................................................................................................................................171
COMPARATIVE LAW & CULTURAL STUDIES ~ JAMES...................................................................................171
DEFINING CULTURE.........................................................................................................................................171
CULTURAL STUDIES......................................................................................................................................... 171
BETWEEN LAW AND CULTURE.....................................................................................................................172
THE INTERPRETATION ACTS........................................................................................................................ 172
EXPRESSION AND LEGAL PRACTICE.......................................................................................................... 172
GROUNDING LAW IN DEATH........................................................................................................................ 172
DEFINING AUTHENTICITY............................................................................................................................ 172
CONCLUDING REMARKS.................................................................................................................................173
COMPARATIVE LAW AND POLITICS ~ Louis..................................................................................................... 173
SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................................173
IMPACT OF POLITICS....................................................................................................................................... 174
COMPARATIVE LAW X COMPARATIVE POLITICS..................................................................................175
INSTRUMENTALIZATION............................................................................................................................... 175
CONCLUDING..................................................................................................................................................... 175
COMPARATIVE LAW & CRIMINOLOGY.............................................................................................................. 176
model question : exam..............................................................................................................................................178
READINGS LECTURE 1..............................................................................................................................................180
Rechtsvergelijking -4-
,READINGS LECTURE 2..............................................................................................................................................181
READINGS LECTURE 3.......................................................................................................182
Rechtsvergelijking -5-
,inleiding
PRAKTISCH
> opnames
> studiemateriaal : slides, readings (zie ufora) –> op voorhand lezen. om de twee weken. (minstens één
week op voorhand online).
> examen : schriftelijk gesloten boek, open vragen/inzichtvragen/essayvraag/ … → voorbeeldvragen op
Ufora.
> communicatie : highlight op Ufora/aankondigingen
WAT
> focus on theoretical aspects of law
> zelf denken en engagen met vergelijkingen om ze later hopelijk te kunnen gebruiken
> waarom theorie/waarom vergelijken/waarom nuttig om te vergelijken
Rechtsvergelijking -6-
,LECTURE 1 : introduction
AN OVERVIEW OF THIS INTRODUCTION
LEARNING OBJECTIVE — comparative law wordt gezien als een subject. main principe van ieder
subject of veld of wetenschap is dat je georganiseerde kennis hebt als kern.
— we gaan proberen “recht” als georganiseerde kennis/organized knowledge bekijken, niet als een
georganiseerde praktijk of hearsay niet of mythe.
— only one particular tradition of law : civilian law/continental tradition that looks at law as a field of
science.
— within legal discourse, from the outside of the legal field → through sociologist, anthropologist, …
they would contest that law is science, because this would require a method.
LEARNING MATERIAL — zie de teksten.
- DAVID : one of the other influential authors of comparative law. especially in french. we will
later see what type of comparisons
- GREEN : text that is a bit beyond only comparative law. pushes you to think about legal
theory.
> we look at law as organized knowledge (not : practice or things we do). approaching something that
looks like an object. it is not something that is out there, but law is a bit more complicated than that.
> there are many points of divergence in the way to look at comparative law.
OVERVIEW OF THE LECTURE CONTENT
(1) the concept of comparative law
(2) the research object
(3) the research methodology → types of comparison
Rechtsvergelijking -7-
, (1) THE CONCEPT OF COMPARATIVE LAW
→ way of understanding by comparing or making it better in the future
→ how it historically grew to what it is today
COMPARISON OF LAW/LEGAL COMPARISON — what defines objective law into subjective rights.
the overlap is not a historical mistake, there are historical reasons for that.
VB in the UK you have the opposition between law x right. this has not always been the case, there is
a reason for that.
● subjective right : special power one has. > in UK there is a distinction >< in Roman law there
is a right to law (lex).
it is not … —
… comparative law in itself is NOT an objective law ⇒ it is not a branch of law, it is not a system in
itself. it is not a part of the law of a legal system.
… comparative law is not IPR ⇒ it doesn’t have any normative legal dimension. that is why it is
misleading if you’re thinking about comparative law; it sounds like civil law, … but it has not to do
with the other law-fields/law-branches.
VB in french it sounds as if the law is being or has been compared. “there is only one law and that is
being compared”
it is … —
… something that doesn’t place you within the legal system, but it looks as an observer from the
outside of the legal system. more jurisprudence, than any specific branches in the legal system. it is
not part from the legal system in itself. → moet je relativeren, it is never about just one legal order.
● SO — there is need of more than one legal order.
… a comparison of law
VB you go into contract with businesses (most is regulated by BE law, others things by European law).
data protection in cross border transactions ; then you are putting into contact various legal orders.
the moment you have a contract for Erasmus, then you are putting both the legal orders together.
VB you take the train from Brussels to the UK. when you cross border control then you are going to
comparison of law. how do you explain that something is a valid passport → you are putting into
contact 2 legal orders.
◊ sometimes it is more difficult; more legal orders in one space.
Rechtsvergelijking -8-
,◊ you are engaging with foreign elements or from a different legal order. → BE is a very interesting
place. French speaking judges have the same BE law, but there is something different. they refer to
other forms of doctrinal understanding (f.i. French law whereas Dutch speaking part refers to Dutch
law).
WHAT — it is an intellectual activity. it is more some sort of process or interaction. an activity to
which you are engaging.
— better way to name is probably legal comparison or compared law or comparison of legal systems,
…
● BUT — it is an intellectual activity but it is also a research method!!! → the idea that law is a
science, the idea that as a science law has methods and makes law scientific and makes it
possible that there is scientific discourse with the method being “comparison”.
● VB ZWEIGERT — “comparative law is perhaps the best method to make law scientific” : by
engaging with and comparing the law, we are moving away from our own national knowledge
and law. we see law in a variety of forms.
— once you step out of BE law or Romanian law ; then you will acknowledge that there is not
something specific to these specific laws, but that there is something specific to law as such.
◊ is there something as law as such? — in a sense lawyers have something in common in all these
countries. if you’re thinking about the history of this discipline (in the 1900s) first convention of
comparative law. the world was going into the direction of progress. → organised knowledge
→ law can be a science, and perhaps comparative law as a matter can be seen as the science
→ then you will see that some things in law are not only inter-national.
BEFORE WWI — this was a time of progress, people believed in science, it was before WWI. after
WWI people stopped believing in science. they found that law could be understood better by
comparing and science.
POST 1945 — idea of comparative law is questionable, more a pragmatic approach. they are looking
for the possibility of universal law. still areas that try to find harmonising possibilities of law.
VB humanitarian law ; there are some values that connect us as human beings, comparative law
could help us see that.
… science is a discourse on reality. science is not reality as such. it is just a way to represent reality in
an organised manner. the way of organising this is determined
- by reason : f.e. the scientific matters, we are keeping in touch with the object of research.
- OR by the scientific community : you might have methods of knowing, but you also need
someone to tell you what it is. all by yourself you might be wrong.
VB the piece of chalk. when you look at them together, by looking at them together you are going to
find some information. this might have some value ⇒ when you are looking at the whole and you
have knowledge of all of them, then you might have an idea about what law is in human reality.
Rechtsvergelijking -9-
, WHY DO WE CALL IT THAT WAY? — there are historical reasons. this field has been named like
this since 1900.
— questions of language (= semantics) are not only superficial : as lawyers you can play with words OR
you can’t play with words from other law orders.. → most legal concepts take a linguistic form and
those are not always the same in different languages.
VB BE constitution >< NE have their own constitution : might be the same ones, but they might have
different names
VB contract in English >< contrat in French … : it looks similar, sounds kind of the same. but there
might be a different meaning or have different consequences. some things might be a french contract,
but not an English contract.
◊ it would make things easier if we had one legal grammar/one legal system across the world. > we
don’t have that, this can either be a problem OR be a richness, various ways of seeing law.
(2) THE RESEARCH OBJECT : what is law?
> what does make a comparative exercise meaningful. what do we compare? → this is going to push
into domain of comparative law and jurisprudence.
> importance of the question : we are going to discuss comparative law. more complicated questions
and more theories.
LAW
> main problem in law is that we don’t really know what to compare. when people are studying
biology or a bacteria, they know what they have to study, it is there, they can see it with their eyes.
● BUT — if sociologists are going to engage with comparative study of the consumption of
hamburgers in France. they will start with observational studies, they can ask people about
the practice of consuming hamburgers → they know that the practice is there.
● BUT — if you ask about contract law in France. they are going to give different answers
about the existence of social practice of contracts. → maybe there is something more than
that, how are we sure that the person is a lawyer, how do you know that something is part of
the French constitution, you see a written document, how do you know if it is entirely part of
the constitution or if it is really in force.
● OR — in the UK it is not written, so how do you know if it is part of the constitution, how are
you sure that this legal system actually exists? -> you cannot rationally construct that it is there or
it is true.
◊ in the history there were things written in the constitution but weren’t actually true.
◊ if you are not sure if it exists, how do you know how to compare or how to study it?
Rechtsvergelijking - 10 -
inhoudsopgave...............................................................................................................................................................1
LECTURE 1 : introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 7
AN OVERVIEW OF THIS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 7
(1) THE CONCEPT OF COMPARATIVE LAW........................................................................................................... 8
(2) THE RESEARCH OBJECT : what is law?...............................................................................................................10
LAW...........................................................................................................................................................................10
NATURAL LAW THEORY............................................................................................................................12
POSITIVE LAW...............................................................................................................................................12
LEGAL REALISM........................................................................................................................................... 14
OBJECT : MICRO V. MACRO LEGAL COMPARISON...................................................................................18
OBJECT : NATIONAL V. INTER(N)NATIONAL.............................................................................................. 21
NATIONAL V. INTERNATIONAL —.........................................................................................................21
INTER-NATIONAL V. INTERNAL-NATIONAL —................................................................................ 23
(3) THE RESEARCH METHOD : components........................................................................................................... 24
COMPONENTS.......................................................................................................................................................24
COMPARATIVE LAW V. LEGAL HISTORY..................................................................................................... 25
SOCIOLOGY, ANTHROPOLOGY, LEGAL THEORY ~ relation of CL with other disciplines.................27
THE SOCIOLOGY OF LAW.........................................................................................................................27
LEGAL ANTHROPOLOGY/ETHNOLOGY...............................................................................................28
LEGAL THEORY (JURISPRUDENCE)....................................................................................................... 28
LECTURE 2 + 3 : origins and development............................................................................................................. 30
OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................................................................31
ANTIQUITY.................................................................................................................................................................... 31
1ST HALF OF THE MIDDLE AGES (500-1000)......................................................................................................... 32
2ND HALF OF MIDDLE AGES (1000-1500)............................................................................................................... 33
Rechtsvergelijking -1-
, 1) LEGAL STUDIES................................................................................................................................................ 35
THE NEW AGE (1500-1800)...........................................................................................................................................36
RATIONALISM....................................................................................................................................................... 37
EMPIRICISM...........................................................................................................................................................38
18TH CENTURY : LEGAL EVOLUTION...................................................................................................................39
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY : sporadic legal comparison.......................................................................................... 41
19TH CENTURY : legislative comparison.................................................................................................................. 42
19TH CENTURY : scientific comparison.................................................................................................................... 46
1900 : THE BIRTH OF MODERN COMPARATIVE LAW.......................................................................................49
THE INTERWAR ERA................................................................................................................................................... 50
2ND HALF 20TH CENTURY TO TODAY................................................................................................................. 52
1) INTERNATIONALISATION & GLOBALISATION OF COMPARATIVE LAW/LEGAL RESEARCH52
2) RECENT COUNTER-REACTION...................................................................................................................53
LECTURE 4 + 5 : applications...................................................................................................................................55
COMPARATIVE LAW & INTERNATIONAL LAW..................................................................................................56
1) PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW.................................................................................................................60
2) APPLICATION OF FOREIGN LAW...............................................................................................................62
3) COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.................................................................................................63
4) COMPARATIVE LAW & LAW-MAKING...................................................................................................... 66
5) COMPARATIVE LAW IN CASE LAW : general............................................................................................69
6) COMPARATIVE LAW IN JURISPRUDENCE : examples........................................................................... 69
RECEPTION & LEGAL TRANSPLANTS................................................................................................................... 72
1) RECEPTION........................................................................................................................................................ 72
2) LEGAL TRANSPLANTS....................................................................................................................................72
3) LEGAL IRRITANT..............................................................................................................................................74
HARMONISATION & UNIFICATION : general.......................................................................................................75
1) UNIFICATION....................................................................................................................................................75
UNIFICATION US......................................................................................................................................... 75
INTERNATIONAL UNIFICATION : HARD LAW...................................................................................77
INTERNATIONAL UNIFICATION : SOFT LAW.................................................................................... 77
THE ROLE OF COMPARATIVE LAW....................................................................................................... 78
2) HARMONISATION............................................................................................................................................78
PRIVATE LAW IN THE EU.......................................................................................................................................... 79
RESEARCH...................................................................................................................................................................... 80
1) DESIGN................................................................................................................................................................ 80
START LECTURE 7........................................................................................................................................................ 82
2) ORIGINALITY.................................................................................................................................................... 82
NORMATIVE LEGAL STUDIES & COMPARATIVE LAW.............................................................84
POSITIVE LEGAL RESEARCH : law v. doctrine.......................................................................................................86
1) POSITIVE LEGAL DOCTRINE....................................................................................................................... 86
HOLMES...........................................................................................................................................................86
POUND.............................................................................................................................................................86
Rechtsvergelijking -2-
, 2) POSITIVE LEGAL DOCTRINE X COMPARATIVE LAW..........................................................................86
DIDACTIC VALUE OF COMPARATIVE LAW........................................................................................................ 87
LECTURE 4 : micro-legal comparison..................................................................................................................... 89
THE SELECTION OF THE SYSTEMS TO BE COMPARED.................................................................................. 90
COMPARABILITY & THE BASIS FOR COMPARISON......................................................................................... 91
1) DOES THE COMPARISON MAKE SENSE?..................................................................................................91
2) COMMON DENOMINATOR : tertium comparationis................................................................................ 92
DOGMATIC LEGAL COMPARISON......................................................................................................................... 93
FUNCTIONAL COMPARISON................................................................................................................................... 94
FUNCTIONAL METHOD.............................................................................................................................................95
THE PRESUMPTION OF SIMILARITY ~ praesumptio similitudinis.................................................................. 96
FUNCTIONAL AND DOGMATIC COMPARISON.................................................................................................98
HOW TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTING RULE....................................................................................................... 101
THE OBJECT OF COMPARISON : law and doctrine.............................................................................................103
THE KNOWLEDGE OF FOREIGN LAW.................................................................................................................106
THE KNOWLEDGE OF FOREIGN LAW.................................................................................................................107
THE COMMON CORE METHOD............................................................................................................................ 107
LAW AND LANGUAGE.............................................................................................................................................. 109
SOURCES OF LAW...................................................................................................................................................... 110
LEGISLATION IN CIVIL LAW CONTEXT............................................................................................................ 111
LEGISLATION IN COMMON LAW CONTEXT....................................................................................................111
THE PRECEDENT IN COMMON LAW.................................................................................................................. 115
CASE LAW IN CIVIL LAW CONTEXT....................................................................................................................118
STATUTE IN COMMON LAW.................................................................................................................................. 119
STATUTE AND INTERPRETATION IN CIVIL LAW...........................................................................................120
DOCTRINE AS A SOURCE OF LAW (opinio juris)................................................................................................ 121
COMPARING................................................................................................................................................................ 122
lecture 9 : macro-legal comparison......................................................................................................................... 125
THE CONCEPT OF MACRO-LEGAL COMPARISON......................................................................................... 125
THE UTILITY OF MACRO LEGAL COMPARISON.............................................................................................126
THE CONCEPT OF LEGAL SYSTEM...................................................................................................................... 128
TAXONOMIES.............................................................................................................................................................. 129
CRITERIA...................................................................................................................................................................... 130
1) EXTERNAL AND DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................................130
2) GENEALOGY.................................................................................................................................................... 131
3) TYPOLOGY....................................................................................................................................................... 135
ZWEIGERT & KÖTZ : STYLE.....................................................................................................................137
4) LEGAL CULTURE............................................................................................................................................139
6) LEGAL TRADITION........................................................................................................................................142
COMMON LAW AND CIVIL LAW : ideal type.......................................................................................................145
IDEAL TYPES V. REALITY : “MIXTURES”............................................................................................................147
lecture : law as culture.............................................................................................................................................. 152
Rechtsvergelijking -3-
, LAW AS CULTURE...................................................................................................................................................... 152
1) INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS............................................................................................................................ 152
PHILOSOPHICAL ROOTS....................................................................................... 152
PHENOMENOLOGY...................................................................................................................................153
PSYCHOANALYSIS......................................................................................................................................154
CRITICAL THEORY.................................................................................................................................... 155
COMPARING................................................................................................................................................................ 157
A CRITIQUE OF OBJECTIVITY...............................................................................................................................157
DIFFERENCE................................................................................................................................................................ 158
REMNANTS OF COLONIALISM..............................................................................................................................159
DECOLONIALITY....................................................................................................................................................... 160
lecture 12 : interdisciplinarity................................................................................................................................. 164
THINKING AS A LAWYER : legal alienation.......................................................................................................... 164
AN EXTERNAL PERSPECTIVE : Bourdieu sociology of the legal field............................................................. 165
THE LEGAL FIELD......................................................................................................................................................167
COHESION OF LEGAL INTERPRETATION......................................................................................................... 167
MANUFACTURING UNIVERSALITY.....................................................................................................................167
CONSTRUCTING THE SYMBOLIC.........................................................................................................................168
THE DOCTRINAL ENTITY....................................................................................................................................... 168
CLS and CIVIL LAW.................................................................................................................................................... 169
LAW & IDEOLOGY...................................................................................................................................................... 170
CRITIQUE OF THE CODE.........................................................................................................................................170
FREEDOM AND CONSTRAINT IN ADJUDICATION........................................................................................ 171
LAWYERS.......................................................................................................................................................................171
COMPARATIVE LAW & CULTURAL STUDIES ~ JAMES...................................................................................171
DEFINING CULTURE.........................................................................................................................................171
CULTURAL STUDIES......................................................................................................................................... 171
BETWEEN LAW AND CULTURE.....................................................................................................................172
THE INTERPRETATION ACTS........................................................................................................................ 172
EXPRESSION AND LEGAL PRACTICE.......................................................................................................... 172
GROUNDING LAW IN DEATH........................................................................................................................ 172
DEFINING AUTHENTICITY............................................................................................................................ 172
CONCLUDING REMARKS.................................................................................................................................173
COMPARATIVE LAW AND POLITICS ~ Louis..................................................................................................... 173
SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................................173
IMPACT OF POLITICS....................................................................................................................................... 174
COMPARATIVE LAW X COMPARATIVE POLITICS..................................................................................175
INSTRUMENTALIZATION............................................................................................................................... 175
CONCLUDING..................................................................................................................................................... 175
COMPARATIVE LAW & CRIMINOLOGY.............................................................................................................. 176
model question : exam..............................................................................................................................................178
READINGS LECTURE 1..............................................................................................................................................180
Rechtsvergelijking -4-
,READINGS LECTURE 2..............................................................................................................................................181
READINGS LECTURE 3.......................................................................................................182
Rechtsvergelijking -5-
,inleiding
PRAKTISCH
> opnames
> studiemateriaal : slides, readings (zie ufora) –> op voorhand lezen. om de twee weken. (minstens één
week op voorhand online).
> examen : schriftelijk gesloten boek, open vragen/inzichtvragen/essayvraag/ … → voorbeeldvragen op
Ufora.
> communicatie : highlight op Ufora/aankondigingen
WAT
> focus on theoretical aspects of law
> zelf denken en engagen met vergelijkingen om ze later hopelijk te kunnen gebruiken
> waarom theorie/waarom vergelijken/waarom nuttig om te vergelijken
Rechtsvergelijking -6-
,LECTURE 1 : introduction
AN OVERVIEW OF THIS INTRODUCTION
LEARNING OBJECTIVE — comparative law wordt gezien als een subject. main principe van ieder
subject of veld of wetenschap is dat je georganiseerde kennis hebt als kern.
— we gaan proberen “recht” als georganiseerde kennis/organized knowledge bekijken, niet als een
georganiseerde praktijk of hearsay niet of mythe.
— only one particular tradition of law : civilian law/continental tradition that looks at law as a field of
science.
— within legal discourse, from the outside of the legal field → through sociologist, anthropologist, …
they would contest that law is science, because this would require a method.
LEARNING MATERIAL — zie de teksten.
- DAVID : one of the other influential authors of comparative law. especially in french. we will
later see what type of comparisons
- GREEN : text that is a bit beyond only comparative law. pushes you to think about legal
theory.
> we look at law as organized knowledge (not : practice or things we do). approaching something that
looks like an object. it is not something that is out there, but law is a bit more complicated than that.
> there are many points of divergence in the way to look at comparative law.
OVERVIEW OF THE LECTURE CONTENT
(1) the concept of comparative law
(2) the research object
(3) the research methodology → types of comparison
Rechtsvergelijking -7-
, (1) THE CONCEPT OF COMPARATIVE LAW
→ way of understanding by comparing or making it better in the future
→ how it historically grew to what it is today
COMPARISON OF LAW/LEGAL COMPARISON — what defines objective law into subjective rights.
the overlap is not a historical mistake, there are historical reasons for that.
VB in the UK you have the opposition between law x right. this has not always been the case, there is
a reason for that.
● subjective right : special power one has. > in UK there is a distinction >< in Roman law there
is a right to law (lex).
it is not … —
… comparative law in itself is NOT an objective law ⇒ it is not a branch of law, it is not a system in
itself. it is not a part of the law of a legal system.
… comparative law is not IPR ⇒ it doesn’t have any normative legal dimension. that is why it is
misleading if you’re thinking about comparative law; it sounds like civil law, … but it has not to do
with the other law-fields/law-branches.
VB in french it sounds as if the law is being or has been compared. “there is only one law and that is
being compared”
it is … —
… something that doesn’t place you within the legal system, but it looks as an observer from the
outside of the legal system. more jurisprudence, than any specific branches in the legal system. it is
not part from the legal system in itself. → moet je relativeren, it is never about just one legal order.
● SO — there is need of more than one legal order.
… a comparison of law
VB you go into contract with businesses (most is regulated by BE law, others things by European law).
data protection in cross border transactions ; then you are putting into contact various legal orders.
the moment you have a contract for Erasmus, then you are putting both the legal orders together.
VB you take the train from Brussels to the UK. when you cross border control then you are going to
comparison of law. how do you explain that something is a valid passport → you are putting into
contact 2 legal orders.
◊ sometimes it is more difficult; more legal orders in one space.
Rechtsvergelijking -8-
,◊ you are engaging with foreign elements or from a different legal order. → BE is a very interesting
place. French speaking judges have the same BE law, but there is something different. they refer to
other forms of doctrinal understanding (f.i. French law whereas Dutch speaking part refers to Dutch
law).
WHAT — it is an intellectual activity. it is more some sort of process or interaction. an activity to
which you are engaging.
— better way to name is probably legal comparison or compared law or comparison of legal systems,
…
● BUT — it is an intellectual activity but it is also a research method!!! → the idea that law is a
science, the idea that as a science law has methods and makes law scientific and makes it
possible that there is scientific discourse with the method being “comparison”.
● VB ZWEIGERT — “comparative law is perhaps the best method to make law scientific” : by
engaging with and comparing the law, we are moving away from our own national knowledge
and law. we see law in a variety of forms.
— once you step out of BE law or Romanian law ; then you will acknowledge that there is not
something specific to these specific laws, but that there is something specific to law as such.
◊ is there something as law as such? — in a sense lawyers have something in common in all these
countries. if you’re thinking about the history of this discipline (in the 1900s) first convention of
comparative law. the world was going into the direction of progress. → organised knowledge
→ law can be a science, and perhaps comparative law as a matter can be seen as the science
→ then you will see that some things in law are not only inter-national.
BEFORE WWI — this was a time of progress, people believed in science, it was before WWI. after
WWI people stopped believing in science. they found that law could be understood better by
comparing and science.
POST 1945 — idea of comparative law is questionable, more a pragmatic approach. they are looking
for the possibility of universal law. still areas that try to find harmonising possibilities of law.
VB humanitarian law ; there are some values that connect us as human beings, comparative law
could help us see that.
… science is a discourse on reality. science is not reality as such. it is just a way to represent reality in
an organised manner. the way of organising this is determined
- by reason : f.e. the scientific matters, we are keeping in touch with the object of research.
- OR by the scientific community : you might have methods of knowing, but you also need
someone to tell you what it is. all by yourself you might be wrong.
VB the piece of chalk. when you look at them together, by looking at them together you are going to
find some information. this might have some value ⇒ when you are looking at the whole and you
have knowledge of all of them, then you might have an idea about what law is in human reality.
Rechtsvergelijking -9-
, WHY DO WE CALL IT THAT WAY? — there are historical reasons. this field has been named like
this since 1900.
— questions of language (= semantics) are not only superficial : as lawyers you can play with words OR
you can’t play with words from other law orders.. → most legal concepts take a linguistic form and
those are not always the same in different languages.
VB BE constitution >< NE have their own constitution : might be the same ones, but they might have
different names
VB contract in English >< contrat in French … : it looks similar, sounds kind of the same. but there
might be a different meaning or have different consequences. some things might be a french contract,
but not an English contract.
◊ it would make things easier if we had one legal grammar/one legal system across the world. > we
don’t have that, this can either be a problem OR be a richness, various ways of seeing law.
(2) THE RESEARCH OBJECT : what is law?
> what does make a comparative exercise meaningful. what do we compare? → this is going to push
into domain of comparative law and jurisprudence.
> importance of the question : we are going to discuss comparative law. more complicated questions
and more theories.
LAW
> main problem in law is that we don’t really know what to compare. when people are studying
biology or a bacteria, they know what they have to study, it is there, they can see it with their eyes.
● BUT — if sociologists are going to engage with comparative study of the consumption of
hamburgers in France. they will start with observational studies, they can ask people about
the practice of consuming hamburgers → they know that the practice is there.
● BUT — if you ask about contract law in France. they are going to give different answers
about the existence of social practice of contracts. → maybe there is something more than
that, how are we sure that the person is a lawyer, how do you know that something is part of
the French constitution, you see a written document, how do you know if it is entirely part of
the constitution or if it is really in force.
● OR — in the UK it is not written, so how do you know if it is part of the constitution, how are
you sure that this legal system actually exists? -> you cannot rationally construct that it is there or
it is true.
◊ in the history there were things written in the constitution but weren’t actually true.
◊ if you are not sure if it exists, how do you know how to compare or how to study it?
Rechtsvergelijking - 10 -
