Abstract
There is still no communis opinio on the inclusion of comparative law as an element of reasoning in judicial decisions. There is no accepted plurality of methods which also includes comparative law in the traditional canons of historical, grammatical, systematic and teleological interpretation of judicial decisions. However, since the mid twentieth century, there has been growing internationalisation of case-law and jurisprudence as well as an increasing cross-border dimension to the search for internationally acceptable and just solutions. It is even sometimes claimed that we are in a ‘century of comparative law’. This trend involves taking account of the legal system and practice of other countries, but, in that regard, the courts do not march in step with science. Although at international level, in the extensive body of case-law, a comparative interpretation is still the exception rather than the rule, the decision-making practice of the courts of individual European States demonstrates an increasing willingness to rank comparative law amongst the traditional canons of interpretation. Reference should be made, in particular, to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland (Bundesgericht). Its affinity towards comparative law methods has even been described as a ‘conception universaliste’. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has always been known to rely, in particular, on comparative law as a method of interpretation and has earned a reputation for taking the greatest account of comparative law when compared to international standards of national courts at final instance. In BGE 126 III 129 (138), the Swiss Federal Supreme Court even stated that ‘particularly in the event of conventional cross-border legal relations […], a proper determination of the law and therefore judicial gap-filling is not possible without a comparative law basis’. This sentence is more significant than it seems at first glance: comparative law plays a crucial role in the decision-making practice of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in a very important area of commercial law. Kadner Graziano reports that an analysis of some 1500 judgments of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court from the 1990s revealed that the court refers to the external legal situation by way of comparison in approximately 10% of its judgments and, moreover, in judgments relating to liability, it makes a comparison in approximately 20% of the published decisions. In other continental European legal systems, one can observe only an occasional comparison with the laws of other countries. According to academia, the case-law of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court should be classified as recognising comparative law as an independent means of interpretation within the framework of a so-called ‘pragmatic plurality of methods’, but this is not the last word on the matter. Looking more broadly at the topic, there exists a clear emphasis on comparative law in judicial decision-making practice. It is reported from the Anglo-American legal sphere that constitutional courts are increasingly relying on the comparative method as a source of inspiration, and comparative law is by no means restricted to private law. In Austria, the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) has had recourse to constitutional comparison on basis of the unstated presumption of its fundamental admissibility and effectiveness as an important source of potential knowledge.
President of the Princely Supreme Court of Liechtenstein.
Translated from German by Rebecca Lee.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
Kadner Graziano (2014), p. 477.
- 3.
Husa (2005), p. 55.
- 4.
Kischel (2015), § 2, point 77.
- 5.
See also Kramer (2016), point 277 et seq.
- 6.
- 7.
Walter (2007), p. 262.
- 8.
See also the note in Kramer (2016), point 279.
- 9.
Kadner Graziano (2014), p. 480 et seq.
- 10.
Kadner Graziano (2014), p. 480.
- 11.
Kunz (2009), pp. 64 and 65.
- 12.
Kadner Graziano (2014), p. 481.
- 13.
- 14.
Baudenbacher (2001), Vor Art 2, point 74.
- 15.
On this reception see Kohlegger (2013), p. 1061 et seq.
- 16.
- 17.
StGH 7.10.2016, SV.2016.3, LES 2016, 267.
- 18.
Walter (2007), p. 269.
- 19.
Amstutz (2004), p. 88.
- 20.
Kischel (2015), § 1, point 6.
- 21.
See, in detail, on the functioning of the possible applications of the comparative method: Kadner Graziano (2014), p. 482 et seq.
- 22.
Article 312(2) PGR.
- 23.
OGH 1.2.2017, 09 CG.2016.111, OGH. 2016. 159.
- 24.
OGH 7.9.2012, Sv.2011.42.
- 25.
OGH 07.12.2006, 8 CG.2004.318, LES 2008 223; 05.02.2009, LES 2009 213; 01 CG.2007.288, LES 2011, 1.
- 26.
OGH 05 CG.2011.138 referring to BGH 17.6.2004 IX ZB 206/03.
- 27.
Cf. in this regard Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which refers to Article 99 of the Austrian JN. § 50 of the Liechtenstein JN – referred to above – has certain similarities with this provision.
- 28.
OGH 13.1.2005, 9 CG.2002.63 referring to BGHZ 115, 90 = IPrax 1992, 160.
- 29.
- 30.
Kadner Graziano (2014), p. 483 et seq.
- 31.
OGH 7.9.2012, Sv.2011.42.
- 32.
OGH 7.9.2012, Sv.2011.42; 4.4.2002, 1 CG.2000.64, LES 2005, 100 (Erw 19); see StGH 30.6.2003, StGH 2002/88.
- 33.
StGH 30.06.2014 StGH 2014/10.
- 34.
See Zweigert (1949/50), p. 6.
- 35.
On the term and its roots: Strauch (2017), p. 477.
- 36.
The term is used in Amstutz (2004), p. 73, in connection with the necessary adaption of differences between original and received rules (interlegality) through legal findings.
- 37.
Zweigert (1949/50), p. 10.
- 38.
OGH 1.10.2004, 01 CG.2003.159-36, referring to BGE 98 II 352.
- 39.
OGH 5.2.2004, 10 HG.2002.26.
- 40.
OGH 6.5.2011, 01 CG.2008.156.
- 41.
Gauch (2004), p. 175; see also BGE 127 III 445.
- 42.
Zweigert (1949/50), p. 5.
- 43.
See, inter alia, OGH 14.2.2003, 01 CG.2000.9-77; 11.4.2014, 10 CG.2006.379; 2.8.2013, 10 CG.2006.379 and others.
- 44.
- 45.
Kischel (2015), § 11, point 46.
- 46.
- 47.
- 48.
- 49.
Compare only Joined Cases E-15/15 and E-16/15, Franz-Josef Hagedorn v Vienna-Life Lebensversicherung AG and Rainer Armbruster v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG, EFTA Ct. Rep. [2016] p. 347.
References
Amstutz M (2004) Interpretatio multiplex, Zur Europäisierung des schweizerischen Privatrechts im Spiegel von BGE 129 III 335. In: Honsell H, Zäch R, Hasenböhler F, Harrer F, Rhinow R, Koller A (eds) Privatrecht und Methode Festschrift für Ernst A. Kramer. Helbing und Lichtenhahn, Basel, Genf, München, p 67
Baudenbacher C (2001) Lauterkeitsrecht, Kommentar zum Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (UWG). Helbing und Lichtenhahn, Basel
Baudenbacher C, Spiegel N (1990) Die Rechtsprechung des schweizerischen Bundesgerichts zum Verhältnis von Sachmängelgewährleistung und allgemeinen Rechtsbehelfen des Käufers – Ein Musterbeispiel angewandter Rechtsvergleichung? In: Brem E, Druey JN, Kramer EA, Schwander I (eds) Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Mario M. Pedrazzini. Stämpfli, Bern, p 229
Fuchs C (2010) Verfassungsvergleichung durch den Verfassungsgerichtshof. Jorunal für Rechtspolitik (JRP) 18(4):176–187
Gauch P (2004) Juristisches Denken. Wie denken Juristen? In: Honsell H, Zäch R, Hasenböhler F, Harrer F, Rhinow R, Koller A (eds) Privatrecht und Methode Festschrift für Ernst A. Kramer. Helbing und Lichtenhahn, Basel, Genf, München, p 169
Höfling W (1994) Die liechtensteinische Grundrechtsordnung, Liechtenstein Politische Schriften, Band 20. Verlag der Liechtensteinischen akadmeischen Gesellschaft, Vaduz
Hotz S (2012) Rechtspluralismus und Rechtsvergleichung, Zeitschrift für Europarecht. Int. Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung (ZfRV) (3):132
Husa J (2005) Rechtsvergleichung auf neuen Wegen?, Zeitschrift für Europarecht. Int. Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung (ZfRV) (2):55
Kadner Graziano T (2014) Rechtsvergleichung vor Gericht. Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) 60(8):473
Kischel U (2015) Rechtsvergleichung. C.H. Beck, München
Kodek GE (2013) Rechtsvergleichung als Auslegungsmethode im Privatrecht: akademischer Aufputz oder Bereicherung? In: Gamper A, Verschraegen B (eds) Rechtsvergleichung als juristische Auslegungsmethode. Jan Sramek Verlag, Wien, p 196
Kohlegger K (2013) Franz Gschnitzer als Präsident des Fürstlich Liechtensteinischen Obersten Gerichtshofes. In: Barta H, Kohlegger K, Stadlmayer V (eds) Franz Gschnitzer Lesebuch. facultas.wuv, Wien, p 105
Kozak W (2015) EuGH – Zug zur Rechtsvergleichung. In: Kozak W (ed) EuGH und Arbeitsrecht. Manz, Wien, p 59
Kramer EA (1969) Topik und Rechtsvergleichung. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht (RabelsZ) 33(1):1
Kramer EA (2016) Juristische Methodenlehre. Stämpfli, Bern
Kunz PV (2009) Instrumente der Rechtsvergleichung in der Schweiz bei der Rechtssetzung und bei der Rechtsanwendung. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (ZVglRWiss) 108(1):31
Obwexer W (2013) Funktionalität und Bedeutung der Rechtsvergleichung in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH. In: Gamper A, Verschraegen B (eds) Rechtsvergleichung als juristische Auslegungsmethode. Jan Sramek Verlag, Wien, p 115
Strauch H-J (2017) Methodenlehre des gerichtlichen Erkenntnisverfahrens. Verlag Karl Alber, Freiburg/München
Walter HP (2007) Das rechtsvergleichende Element – Zur Auslegung vereinheitlichten, harmonisierten und rezipierten Rechts. Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht 126:259
Zweigert K (1949/50) Rechtsvergleichung als universale Interpretationsmethode. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht (RabelsZ) 15:6
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schumacher, H. (2019). Comparative Law as an Element of Reasoning. In: Selvik, G., Clifton, MJ., Haas, T., Lourenço, L., Schwiesow, K. (eds) The Art of Judicial Reasoning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02553-3_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02553-3_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02552-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02553-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)