Samenvatting comparative law 2025-26

2025 - 2026 Comparative law
Prof. Dr. Cosmin Cercel




Artikel
Niet te kennen
Overgeslagen in les
Rechtspraak
Voorbeeld

,General information - Learning method


GENERAL INFORMATION
Lectures:
- Tuesdays – 1pm – 5h30pm
- Auditorium E1 Coupure;
- There will be class recording;
- Teaching in English
Study materials:
- to be downloaded from Ufora (B001269C - Comparative Law)
- slides
- the reader: scholarly articles, and book chapters/book sections
- lecture handouts – the content of the slides in a pdf following a word document format of lecture
notes
- Self study (!) Do think about taking notes (experience and processing during physical presence in
lectures)

LEARNING METHOD

Lectures:
students may interrupt at any time to ask questions or start a discussion
read in advance = highly recommended!
occasional preparation required: follow Ufora agenda
Final assessment
- written ‘closed books’ exam
- limited number of open questions
- theoretical knowledge with insight into the relations between concepts and/or methods
- essay style - sample exam in Ufora course site (in the following weeks);

TEAM

Course Convener:
Prof Dr Cosmin Cercel (LLB Bucharest; LLB Sorbonne; LLM Sorbonne; PhD Sorbonne)
- (ex) University of Nottingham
- PI ERC CoG EMERGE
lokaal 06.02.100.045 (near the Non Bis In Idem library)
Contact hours: during break, after lecture or by appointment ()
Assistance:
mr DAVID DELEFORTRIE (): by appointment
mr ELIAS DESSANTIS () : by appointment
mr Louis Bremont; mr Mihai Claudiu Dragomirescu; mr James Hannaford; mr Grigorij Tschernjawskyj; ms
Anna Piekarska Krzeska
Administrative support: Ms ISABEL SNICK, room 06.02.100.044 (Office - Legal History Institute

EMERGE

Emergency as a process that has long lasting effects on legal cultures.




Pagina 1 van 68

,General information - emerge


CONTENTS

General information ..................................................................................................................... 1
Learning method ..................................................................................................................................1
team ............................................................................................................................................1
emerge ............................................................................................................................................1

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 overview ...............................................................................................................................6
1.2 The concept of comparative Law ............................................................................................6
1.3 The research object...............................................................................................................6
1.3.1 What is law? .........................................................................................................................6
1.3.1.1 H.L.A Hart – law as a system of rules (common law mindset) ................................7
1.3.1.2 Hans Kelsen’s grundnurm (our way of thinking) ....................................................8
1.3.2 Object: micro- v. macro-legal comparison ..............................................................................9
1.3.3 Object: national v. inter(n-)national ........................................................................................9
1.4 research method ................................................................................................................ 10
1.4.1 components ....................................................................................................................... 10
1.4.2 Comparative law v legal history ............................................................................................ 11
1.4.3 Sociology, anthropology, legal theory ................................................................................... 11
1.4.3.1 The Sociology of law studies: the relationship between law and society ............... 11
1.4.3.2 Legal anthropology/ethnology: universal law ...................................................... 12
1.4.3.3 Legal theory (in English also jurisprudence): what is law ..................................... 12
1.5 Course content overview ..................................................................................................... 12
1.5.1 Target competences ........................................................................................................... 12

2 Origings & development ................................................................................................13
2.1 overview ............................................................................................................................. 13
2.2 Antiquity (pre 500) ............................................................................................................... 13
2.3 1st half of the Middle Ages (500-1000) .................................................................................. 13
2.4 2nd half of the middle ages (1000 – 1500) ............................................................................... 14
2.4.1 overview ............................................................................................................................. 14
2.4.2 legal developments ............................................................................................................. 14
2.5 The new age (1500 – 1800) ................................................................................................... 15
2.5.1 Rene Descartes .................................................................................................................. 16
2.6 18th century......................................................................................................................... 17
2.6.1 Legal evolution.................................................................................................................... 17
2.6.2 sporadic legal comparison .................................................................................................. 17
2.6.3 MONTESQUIEU (1689-1755) in L'ésprit des lois (1748)........................................................... 18
2.6.4 IMMANUEL KANT: 1724-1804 ............................................................................................... 18
2.6.4.1 critique of pure reason ...................................................................................... 18
2.6.4.2 morality and law ............................................................................................... 19
2.6.5 development of german idealism ......................................................................................... 19
2.6.5.1 G.W.F. HEGEL: 1770-1831 ................................................................................ 19
2.6.5.2 philosophy of right ............................................................................................ 19
2.7 19 century......................................................................................................................... 20
th

2.7.1 Legislative comparison ........................................................................................................ 20



Pagina 2 van 68

,General information - emerge


2.7.1.1 Codification ..................................................................................................... 20
2.7.1.2 Exegetical school ............................................................................................. 20
2.7.1.3 Historical school .............................................................................................. 20
2.7.2 Scientific comparison ......................................................................................................... 20
2.7.2.1 MARX & ENGELS ............................................................................................... 20
2.8 1900: the birth of modern comparative law ........................................................................... 21
2.8.1.1 Congrès International de Droit Comparé in Paris (31 July - 4 August 1900) ............ 21
2.8.1.2 2 lines of research ............................................................................................ 21
2.9 The interwar era .................................................................................................................. 22
2.10 2nd half of 20th century to today ............................................................................................. 22
2.10.1 Internationalisation & globalization of comparative law/legal research .................................. 22
2.10.2 Recent counter-reaction ..................................................................................................... 23
2.10.3 Example: Law and identity ................................................................................................... 23

3 Applications..................................................................................................................24
3.1 Comparative law and (public) international law .................................................................... 25
3.2 Comparative law and private international law (pil) ............................................................... 26
3.2.1 application of foreign law..................................................................................................... 27
3.3 comparative constitutional law ............................................................................................ 27
3.3.1 What type of research is done in this area? ........................................................................... 27
3.3.2 Contextualism, expressivism, self-reflection ........................................................................ 28
3.4 comparative law and law-making ......................................................................................... 28
3.4.1 general ............................................................................................................................... 29
3.4.2 examples............................................................................................................................ 29
3.4.2.1 Belgium & France (gastspreker) ......................................................................... 29
3.4.2.2 Common law.................................................................................................... 30
3.4.3 reception & legal transplants ............................................................................................... 31
3.4.3.1 legal transplants and legal irritants .................................................................... 32
3.4.4 harmonization and unification ............................................................................................. 32
3.4.4.1 pros and cons .................................................................................................. 33
3.4.4.2 national unification ........................................................................................... 33
3.4.4.3 unification in the usa ........................................................................................ 34
3.4.4.4 international unification .................................................................................... 35
3.4.4.5 unification: the role of comparative law ............................................................. 36
3.4.5 private law in the eu ............................................................................................................ 36
3.4.5.1 27 (national) systems ........................................................................................ 36
3.4.5.2 european private law: achievements ................................................................. 37
3.5 comparative research ......................................................................................................... 37
3.5.1 research design .................................................................................................................. 37
3.5.2 originality............................................................................................................................ 38
3.6 normative legal studies & comparative law ........................................................................... 38
3.6.1 positive legal research: law vs doctrine ................................................................................ 38
3.6.2 positive legal doctrine and comparative law ......................................................................... 39
3.6.3 Didactic value of comparative law ........................................................................................ 39



Pagina 3 van 68

,General information - emerge


4 Micro – (legal) comparison (!!) ........................................................................................40
4.1 Overview of this chapter ...................................................................................................... 40
4.2 the selection of the systems to be compared ........................................................................ 40
4.3 Comparability & the basis for comparison ............................................................................ 41
4.3.1 Dogmatic legal comparison ................................................................................................. 41
4.3.2 Functional comparison ....................................................................................................... 42
4.3.2.1 The functional method ...................................................................................... 42
4.3.3 the presumption of similarity: Praesumptio similitudinis ....................................................... 42
4.3.4 Functional and dogmatic comparison .................................................................................. 43
4.4 How to establish the existing rule ......................................................................................... 44
4.4.1 the object of comparison: law and doctrine .......................................................................... 45
4.4.1.1 Some Caveats from Anthropology (HARRIS) ....................................................... 45
4.4.2 THe knowledge of foreign law ............................................................................................... 46
4.4.2.1 the common core method (prof. SCHLESINGER – cornell law school) .................. 46
4.5 Revisiting the object of comparison ...................................................................................... 47
4.6 legal thought ....................................................................................................................... 47
4.6.1 The Production of Legal Knowledge ...................................................................................... 47
4.6.2 Sources of Law ................................................................................................................... 47
4.6.3 Doctrine as a Source of Law ................................................................................................. 47
4.6.4 Codification as a source of law ............................................................................................ 48
4.6.5 An Introduction to the Common Law .................................................................................... 48
4.6.6 Statute in the COMMON Law CONTEXT ................................................................................ 49
4.6.7 Equity and the Common Law ............................................................................................... 49
4.6.8 Precedent and the Common Law ......................................................................................... 50
4.6.9 court case .......................................................................................................................... 50
4.7 The Language of Law ........................................................................................................... 50
4.7.1 Law and Language .............................................................................................................. 50
4.7.2 Law, Language and Comparison .......................................................................................... 51
4.7.3 Translating Law ................................................................................................................... 51
4.7.4 Reflections on Comparison ................................................................................................. 52

5 Macro – (legal) comparison ............................................................................................53
5.1 Study material .................................................................................................................... 53
5.2 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 53
5.3 The concept of macro-legal comparison............................................................................... 53
5.4 The utility of macro-legal comparison ................................................................................... 54
5.4.1 the concept of legal system ................................................................................................. 54
5.5 taxonomies......................................................................................................................... 55
5.5.1 first criteria: external factors and developmental level .......................................................... 55
5.5.2 second criteria: Genealogy .................................................................................................. 56
5.5.3 third criteria: typology.......................................................................................................... 56
5.5.4 fourth Criteria: legal culture ................................................................................................. 57
5.5.5 Fifth criteria: legal traditions ................................................................................................ 58
5.5.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 58
5.6 ideal-type ........................................................................................................................... 59



Pagina 4 van 68

,General information - emerge


5.6.1 common law v. civil law ....................................................................................................... 59
5.6.2 ideal types v. reality: ‘mixtures’ ............................................................................................ 59

6 Law as culture ...............................................................................................................60
6.1 Study materials ................................................................................................................... 60
6.2 Intellectual origings ............................................................................................................. 60
6.2.1 Philosophical Roots ............................................................................................................ 60
6.2.2 Philosophies ....................................................................................................................... 61
6.2.2.1 Phenomenology ............................................................................................... 61
6.2.2.2 Psychoanalysis (not as clinical knowledge, but as social semiotics) .................... 61
6.2.2.3 “Critical Theory” ............................................................................................... 62
6.3 comparing .......................................................................................................................... 62
6.4 A critique of objectivity ........................................................................................................ 63
6.5 Difference .......................................................................................................................... 63
6.6 Remnants of colionalism ..................................................................................................... 63
6.6.1 Colonialism, peripheriality and hybridity; .............................................................................. 63
6.6.2 ADÉBÍSÍ .............................................................................................................................. 65

7 Interdisciplinarity as a tool for comparative law .............................................................66
7.1 Thinking as a lawyer: legal alienation .................................................................................... 66
7.2 An External Perspective: Bourdieu’s Sociology of the Legal Field ............................................ 66
7.3 Legal Autonomy and Legal Instrumentalism ......................................................................... 66
7.4 The Legal field ..................................................................................................................... 67
7.5 Cohesion of Legal Interpretation .......................................................................................... 67
7.6 Manufacturing universality .................................................................................................. 67
7.7 Constructing the Symbolic .................................................................................................. 68
7.8 The Doctrinal Entity ............................................................................................................. 68
7.9 CLS and Civil Law? .............................................................................................................. 68




Pagina 5 van 68

,Introduction - overview


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW

Learning objective: describe and situate subject of course (= ‘comparative law’)
Learning material: specified reading in the reader (available on Ufora)
- ZWEIGERT & KÖTZ, ‘The Concept of Comparative Law’, pp. 1-12
- KOKKINI-IATRIDOU, ‘The Comparative Law’, p. 3-13
- DAVID, ‘Introduction’, in The Different Conceptions of the Law, p. 3-13
- GREEN, ‘Positivism, Realism, and Sources of Law’, 35 p.
- HART, The Concept of Law (Oxford University Press, 2012 [1961]), chapter 5, pp. 136-156.
- KELSEN, Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory: A Translation of the First Edition of the
Reine Rechtslehre or Pure Theory of Law (Oxford University Press, 1997 [1934]), chapter 5, pp. 55-
75
Overview of the lecture content:
- the concept of comparative law [slides 1-3]
- the research object [slides 1-4 → 1-8]
- the research methodology [slides 1-9 →1-15]

1.2 THE CONCEPT OF COMPARATIVE LAW

Comparison of law/ Legal comparison
→ comparative law ≠ (type of) law
→ some designations are misleading:
- comparative law
- droit comparé (‘compared law’)
It is NOT a It is
≠ body of law (objective law) or branch of law or = ‘an intellectual activity with law as its object and
part of a legal system comparison as its process’ (ZWEIGERT-KÖTZ)
≠ type of claim or specific power (subjective right) = a comparison (= research method) of law (=
research object)
≠ way of resolving conflicts compulsorily
(functional law)

1.3 THE RESEARCH OBJECT

Main problem in comparative law is that we don’t know for sure what we are comparing. What exists in
one order as an normative phenomenon doesn’t necessarily mean it exists in another order. Then how do
we compare?
E.g. France has a written constitution but the UK does not
We need to have an idea about what we compare -> examenvraag vorig jaar


1.3.1 WHAT IS LAW?
Importance of the question
- what can/may be compared to give meaningful result?
- what must be included in comparison to give meaningful result?
There is no answer! Yet people have tried to identify law and have written some guidelines for us. They
have created legal theories



Pagina 6 van 68

,Introduction - The research object


Law = ‘set of rules ordering society’ = hollow description
- law = Sollen (an ought) v. law = Sein (a being - is)
- law belongs to the world of ideas v. law belongs to the world of social facts
- legal positivism: a rule ‘exists’ if it is valid = as promulgated/recognised by real/authorised ruler
(law is posited)
o = as based on higher norm or formal source of law (all law is source-based)
- traditional natural law theory: there is an order/true law of divine nature → very first answer to
what law is
o order of a tyrant is not law, because everything has to be consistent with the true law
o  in Belgium we are taught that we can never bring moral arguments in the court of law
▪ In USA you can make them if you make them in the right form
- sociological positivism (= legal realism): a rule exists if it appears enforced
- law as practice v. law as theoretical representation of practice (= doctrine - teaching)
- law as enforced settlement of conflicts:
o by government
o by third party (to conflict)
o by any means (ie all conflict resolution, incl. conciliation, ‘right of the strongest’)
2 fundamentally different ways of understanding what law is:

1.3.1.1 H.L.A HART – LAW AS A SYSTEM OF RULES (COMMON LAW MINDSET)
Why do we obey the law?
- John austin: Because we are in the position of obedience → it is a command and we follow
because it is a habit
- Hart: we obey because they are meaningful to us → it is not any order that becomes law, there is
a logic in the law
‘First, words are our tools, and, as a minimum, we should use clean tools: we should know what we mean
and what we do not, and we must forearm ourselves against the traps that language sets us.’ (1957)
Internal and external aspects of rules
- Internal aspects are core for understanding rule functioning
- ‘a critical reflective attitude’
- The ‘hermeneutic’ aspect of Hart’s theory (Mac Cormick);

RULE OF RECOGNITION

Primary Rules and Secondary Rules → hart says you need these 2 to have a legal system that will not fail
- Primary rules are the stuff everyone sees → have been produces in a specific way and by the right
power (Secondary rules: rules about rules)
- What holds them together? The capacity of everyone looking at these rules being valid/binding →
how do you do that? Social practices
o Lawyers believe in existence of the law and have an internal perspective of the law →
recognize the law as being valid
▪ In civil law: we know the rules are valid because they follow the constitution
▪ In common law: there is no constitution written, only a patchwork of things that
have no constitutional value → they are social relations between humans: it is
given power by recognition → how do we create this capacity to recognize these
social relations? By going to the law school
• Always a form of uncertainty if a rule is really a rule → whole different
way of looking at the law
• The legal profession connects primary to secondary rules




Pagina 7 van 68

,Introduction - The research object


The rule of recognition:
- ‘The rule of recognition providing criteria by which the validity of other rules of the system is
assessed in an important sense’ (CL 105);
- ‘It is an ultimate rule: and where, as is usual, there are several criteria ranked in order of relative
subordination and primacy one of them is supreme’(CL 105);
- Is this rule part of the system?
Conclusion of Hart: fundamentally law is a matter of social rules which exist because they are grounded
in and by social relations.

1.3.1.2 HANS KELSEN’S GRUNDNURM (OUR WAY OF THINKING)
Kelsen’s Theory of Law defines law as a hierarchy of norms, each deriving validity from a higher norm,
ending in a basic norm (Grundnorm).
- It separates law from morality and politics, aiming to create a scientifically pure, value-free
understanding of legal systems.
= The basic norm tells us what the law is.
- For many people: the constitution → false
- It is a science with its own object (here: rules)
o Which rules? The rules that contain an ought to be
The norm :
- A ‘measure of human action’
- A ‘scheme of interpretation’
Makes possible to ascribe an objective meaning to human action;
”Norm” is the meaning of an act by which a certain behaviour is commanded, permitted or authorized’
(PLT 5);
Norms are ‘ought’ (sollen) propositions;
Norms are distinguishable from facts;
The distinction between ‘ought’ and ‘is’ translates into a distinction between ‘causation’ and ‘imputation’;
- Causation: apple falls because of gravity
- Imputation: this thing is either permitted or prohibited
Legal normativity: is vs. ought
- Differentiates between actual laws and ideal norms
The Grundnorm:
- ‘a transcendental-logical presuposition’ (PTL 200);
o If we exist or not, science is real → Kelsen presumes this is also true for law
o Problem: the big bang is the basic norm, you presuppose that it exists and validates
every process
- A foundation for legal knowledge that is/must be presuposed
The chain of validity:
- Validity as the ‘existence of legal norms’;




Pagina 8 van 68

, Introduction - The research object


1.3.2 OBJECT: MICRO- V. MACRO-LEGAL COMPARISON
How do actually compare? There is no recipe for a good comparison.
Comparative law is the comparison of the different legal systems in the world. This can be done on a
larger scale or on a smaller scale. Traditionally there are 2 ways to do comparative law: micro-legal
comparison and macro-legal comparison.
- Micro-legal comparison: starting point, for gathering information
Macro-legal comparison: looking at the full picture
Specific elements in different doctrines: concepts, rules, branches of law
- You look at 1 rule or 1 set of rules or 1 concept or at most 1 branch of law and
you compare them
- E.g. law of contract in Belgium vs in France

Resolution of specific types of conflicts in different jurisdictions
Micro-legal
comparison - E.g. a country that is moving away from socialism to capitalism and need to
(!!) introduce new concepts of law, you wonder how do we do this? You start
looking at different countries that operate in the same way

Professor thinks this is the best way to do comparison – the more you focus on a
subject, the more in depth you can get

Why do we use this way? Mainly because you have to do it for work and it will be useful

Typical characteristics of entire legal systems
Classification of legal systems into categories (taxonomy)
Macro-legal
comparison - E.g. origin: roman-German legal systems

Why do we use this way? For scientific purposes, without a particular goal


Macro-comparison is based on the research results of micro-comparisons
- The Characteristics of a legal system are derived from findings in elements of that system
- Recognizing which characteristic is typical implies prior comparison
Micro-comparison uses research results from macro-comparisons
- Choice of legal systems to compare [slides 04-05 & 04-06]
- Source study [slides 04-17 → 04-25]
- Understanding of found rules in context (re-integration) [slide 04]
- Basis for explaining differences/similarities [slides 02-08 & 02-10]


1.3.3 OBJECT: NATIONAL V. INTER(N -)NATIONAL
National versus International
= comparison 2 or more (national) ‘legal systems’
Traditional:
- this form of comparison is still used
horizontal
comparison of - the point is not saying which way is better, but comparison is used to
law understand it in a better way. For sure, when something is better then this
can be brought up. But that is not the objective of comparison.
Recent: = comparison national versus supranational law
vertical - Belgium vs EU legal order
comparative - EU rechtspraak: Van Gend & Loos!
law


Pagina 9 van 68