Guiding questions:
Week 1: Legal Traditions/Families and Legal Pluralism
1. What can be gained from engaging in comparative legal analysis?
Aims of comparative law:
• sentimentalists: to create understanding for other people and to ensure peaceful
coexistence between different countries
• to achieve uniformity (is seen as an advantage, but uniformity also has disadvantages: if
there are more differences between legal systems the chance of progress is greater,
uniformity is not always achieved using comparative law it can also be achieved through the
prestige of a system)
• acquisition of knowledge (comparative law assumes the plurality of legal rules and
institutions, the study looks at this to identify differences and similarities)
• purely academic interest
• gaining knowledge about another legal system
• to acquire a better understanding of our own legal system: if you compare the legal system
in your country with one from another and you find differences and similarities you will gain
more knowledge about your own legal system
• to engage with how the law could be: you see how others may have approached such
situations
- Lex Lata (positive law, the law as it is) & Lex Ferenda (what the law can be, future law)
• to gain a holistic understanding of law in a globalized world
• comparative law can give a more comprehensive idea of the law and explain how it works
in an increasingly globalized world
Gaining knowledge about another legal system: this way the lawyer is better able to advise
on a case involving different legal systems and comparative law gives us an insight into our
own system which helps us to understand it better, this can contribute to the development of
critical perspectives on the law and the jurist is enabled to imagine how the law could be
different from what it is at present
2. Are comparative lawyers limited to comparing national legal systems?
Comparative law tradition = setting similar elements of two or more legal systems against
each other to identify similarities and differences
-> can be between national legal systems but comparisons can also be made on a state level
This is not necessarily limited to comparing two or more national legal systems.
-> you can also compare law from the middle east and European law or law now and law
many years ago in the same place
No, they aren’t limited to comparing national legal systems, they can also make comparisons
on a state level, compare law in the same place in different years, etc.
3. What is meant by legal pluralism?
it is a situation in which behavior is influenced by more than one legal system. It is the
opposite of legal centralism: law is created by the state and is enforced by a fixed set of state
institutions.
4. What is a legal family?
,Legal families:
• to structure and better understand the different legal systems, they are grouped into
different categories or ‘legal families’: ‘a conceptual and methodological tool of the
comparative lawyer’
• seeks to identify common groups into which similar legal practices are categorized
according to certain criteria, e.g. civil law and common law
5. Are legal families fixed entities?
The demarcation and classification of legal systems is increased on historical and political
factors and are therefore not timeless, the future may bring new legal families, so today’s
categorization may be seen as outdated.
So legal families are not fixed entities
6. What is understood to be the most prominent common denominator adopted by
comparative lawyers?
The value of rule-comparison (micro-comparison) has been contested (betwist) by some
authors, who consider comparisons based on substantive rules to be trivial.
However, most comparative legal research is rules oriented and it is a relatively small group
of legal scientists who prefer solely to focus on macro-comparison.
John H. Merryman maintains that law cannot be reduced to a system of rules and that the
factors that deserve to be studied and compared if one wants to engage in serious
scholarship in comparative law are rather: legal extension, legal penetration, legal culture,
legal institutions, legal processes, legal actors, legal processes, secondary rules, legal
expense
In Merryman’s view, substantive rules of law ‘are prominently absent from this list of legal
systems components’.
7. Why would a critical perspective be useful for lawyers?
Max Rheinstein’s dictum;
Try to forget you ever studied law. Never approach a problem in the way in which you would
approach it at home, you are likely to go astray.
- The subjective approach is juxtaposing in the sense that, good knowledge of one’s
legal system exponentially facilitates the understanding and study of foreign law.
8. What factors could you imagine contribute to differences between legal systems?
- Political Considerations: the political system that underlies a national legal system, the
leader of the country, e.g. a dictator, has a lot of influence on the legal system in that country
and the legal system is there for its citizens. What the citizens vote for also determines the
legal system
- Economic Considerations: consider the importance that will be placed on the right of
property and government intervention in a nation that advances free market capitalism
- Religion
- History (e.g. the French Revolution where the monarchy of absolution was abolished for the
establishment of a French Republic)
- Geographical Factors (e.g. laws aimed at protecting and preserving natural areas)
9. What is one critique against the dominance of functionalism in comparative law?
, Functionalism = ‘only a law that fulfills the same function can be compared’ This concept is
based on the idea that legal systems arose, among other things to provide solutions to very
practical problems.
presumption similitudinis: the assumption of an agreement (when a legal comparison is
undertaken, it is assumed that the different legal systems are similar because they have
arisen in part to provide solutions to practical problems: assumption makes comparative law
possible)
-> one could argue that such an assumption is problematic, because it suggests that
conclusions are questionable when no similarities are found and that may not always be the
case
Criticising Functionalism
• A primary criticism is the assumption that law has a function - that it serves to rationally
solve certain social problems:
‘This assumption can be contested by asserting that such a function can hardly be
determined in a meaningful way. A legal norm can have many different functions; what is
decisive is for whom, against whom, with respect to what values these functions are fulfilled,
determined by what decision-makers, under what conditions, how, and with what effects.’
• A further objection draws on the argument that law often does not rationally solve problems
– are laws effective in their function?
Criticising Functionalism
-> difference between function and purpose
• Another assumption of the functional method can be seen as problematic, namely that two
legal institutions can only be compared if they fulfil the same social functions.
• This would mean that a comparison would fail at the outset if the function under review
were not universal. E.g. Same-sex marriages are assigned different social meanings in
different societies.
• Further, different nations have different problems and needs, depending on social structure,
culture, and the idea of state power.
• Critics also claim that the functional method does not say enough about the actual process
of comparison and the specific research strategies which should be used.
• There can be no objectively and neutrally formulated problems that can be used as tertium
comparationis, as whatever turns a factual situation into a legal problem already contains a
value judgement inescapably rooted in the national legal system and thereby in the
ethnocentric political (usually Western ideology) ideology of the comparatist, thus legitimising
and fostering Western hegemony and domination
10. What do you think is meant by the contingency of law?
-> contigency = onvoorspelbaarheid
It means that the law can’t be predicted
-> omdat het van zo veel omstandigheden af hangt en uit de geschiedenis is gebleken dat de
wet dus niet voorspelbaar is
Daarom is het nodig om je rechtssysteem te vergelijken met andere rechtssystemen, omdat
het onzeker is hoe je rechtssysteem eruit ziet
Week 2: Civil Law
Week 1: Legal Traditions/Families and Legal Pluralism
1. What can be gained from engaging in comparative legal analysis?
Aims of comparative law:
• sentimentalists: to create understanding for other people and to ensure peaceful
coexistence between different countries
• to achieve uniformity (is seen as an advantage, but uniformity also has disadvantages: if
there are more differences between legal systems the chance of progress is greater,
uniformity is not always achieved using comparative law it can also be achieved through the
prestige of a system)
• acquisition of knowledge (comparative law assumes the plurality of legal rules and
institutions, the study looks at this to identify differences and similarities)
• purely academic interest
• gaining knowledge about another legal system
• to acquire a better understanding of our own legal system: if you compare the legal system
in your country with one from another and you find differences and similarities you will gain
more knowledge about your own legal system
• to engage with how the law could be: you see how others may have approached such
situations
- Lex Lata (positive law, the law as it is) & Lex Ferenda (what the law can be, future law)
• to gain a holistic understanding of law in a globalized world
• comparative law can give a more comprehensive idea of the law and explain how it works
in an increasingly globalized world
Gaining knowledge about another legal system: this way the lawyer is better able to advise
on a case involving different legal systems and comparative law gives us an insight into our
own system which helps us to understand it better, this can contribute to the development of
critical perspectives on the law and the jurist is enabled to imagine how the law could be
different from what it is at present
2. Are comparative lawyers limited to comparing national legal systems?
Comparative law tradition = setting similar elements of two or more legal systems against
each other to identify similarities and differences
-> can be between national legal systems but comparisons can also be made on a state level
This is not necessarily limited to comparing two or more national legal systems.
-> you can also compare law from the middle east and European law or law now and law
many years ago in the same place
No, they aren’t limited to comparing national legal systems, they can also make comparisons
on a state level, compare law in the same place in different years, etc.
3. What is meant by legal pluralism?
it is a situation in which behavior is influenced by more than one legal system. It is the
opposite of legal centralism: law is created by the state and is enforced by a fixed set of state
institutions.
4. What is a legal family?
,Legal families:
• to structure and better understand the different legal systems, they are grouped into
different categories or ‘legal families’: ‘a conceptual and methodological tool of the
comparative lawyer’
• seeks to identify common groups into which similar legal practices are categorized
according to certain criteria, e.g. civil law and common law
5. Are legal families fixed entities?
The demarcation and classification of legal systems is increased on historical and political
factors and are therefore not timeless, the future may bring new legal families, so today’s
categorization may be seen as outdated.
So legal families are not fixed entities
6. What is understood to be the most prominent common denominator adopted by
comparative lawyers?
The value of rule-comparison (micro-comparison) has been contested (betwist) by some
authors, who consider comparisons based on substantive rules to be trivial.
However, most comparative legal research is rules oriented and it is a relatively small group
of legal scientists who prefer solely to focus on macro-comparison.
John H. Merryman maintains that law cannot be reduced to a system of rules and that the
factors that deserve to be studied and compared if one wants to engage in serious
scholarship in comparative law are rather: legal extension, legal penetration, legal culture,
legal institutions, legal processes, legal actors, legal processes, secondary rules, legal
expense
In Merryman’s view, substantive rules of law ‘are prominently absent from this list of legal
systems components’.
7. Why would a critical perspective be useful for lawyers?
Max Rheinstein’s dictum;
Try to forget you ever studied law. Never approach a problem in the way in which you would
approach it at home, you are likely to go astray.
- The subjective approach is juxtaposing in the sense that, good knowledge of one’s
legal system exponentially facilitates the understanding and study of foreign law.
8. What factors could you imagine contribute to differences between legal systems?
- Political Considerations: the political system that underlies a national legal system, the
leader of the country, e.g. a dictator, has a lot of influence on the legal system in that country
and the legal system is there for its citizens. What the citizens vote for also determines the
legal system
- Economic Considerations: consider the importance that will be placed on the right of
property and government intervention in a nation that advances free market capitalism
- Religion
- History (e.g. the French Revolution where the monarchy of absolution was abolished for the
establishment of a French Republic)
- Geographical Factors (e.g. laws aimed at protecting and preserving natural areas)
9. What is one critique against the dominance of functionalism in comparative law?
, Functionalism = ‘only a law that fulfills the same function can be compared’ This concept is
based on the idea that legal systems arose, among other things to provide solutions to very
practical problems.
presumption similitudinis: the assumption of an agreement (when a legal comparison is
undertaken, it is assumed that the different legal systems are similar because they have
arisen in part to provide solutions to practical problems: assumption makes comparative law
possible)
-> one could argue that such an assumption is problematic, because it suggests that
conclusions are questionable when no similarities are found and that may not always be the
case
Criticising Functionalism
• A primary criticism is the assumption that law has a function - that it serves to rationally
solve certain social problems:
‘This assumption can be contested by asserting that such a function can hardly be
determined in a meaningful way. A legal norm can have many different functions; what is
decisive is for whom, against whom, with respect to what values these functions are fulfilled,
determined by what decision-makers, under what conditions, how, and with what effects.’
• A further objection draws on the argument that law often does not rationally solve problems
– are laws effective in their function?
Criticising Functionalism
-> difference between function and purpose
• Another assumption of the functional method can be seen as problematic, namely that two
legal institutions can only be compared if they fulfil the same social functions.
• This would mean that a comparison would fail at the outset if the function under review
were not universal. E.g. Same-sex marriages are assigned different social meanings in
different societies.
• Further, different nations have different problems and needs, depending on social structure,
culture, and the idea of state power.
• Critics also claim that the functional method does not say enough about the actual process
of comparison and the specific research strategies which should be used.
• There can be no objectively and neutrally formulated problems that can be used as tertium
comparationis, as whatever turns a factual situation into a legal problem already contains a
value judgement inescapably rooted in the national legal system and thereby in the
ethnocentric political (usually Western ideology) ideology of the comparatist, thus legitimising
and fostering Western hegemony and domination
10. What do you think is meant by the contingency of law?
-> contigency = onvoorspelbaarheid
It means that the law can’t be predicted
-> omdat het van zo veel omstandigheden af hangt en uit de geschiedenis is gebleken dat de
wet dus niet voorspelbaar is
Daarom is het nodig om je rechtssysteem te vergelijken met andere rechtssystemen, omdat
het onzeker is hoe je rechtssysteem eruit ziet
Week 2: Civil Law
