Some Methodological Issues in Comparative Law

  • George Mousourakis


The comparison is a mental process wherein two or more different objects are examined to determine their possible relationships. As an element of the cognition process, comparison cannot be considered separately from other logical means of cognition, such as analysis, synthesis, induction and deduction. Scientific comparison involves three interconnected aspects: a logical method of cognition; a process or cognitive activity; and a cognitive result, i.e. knowledge of a certain kind. It also embraces judgment and evaluative selection, as it is usually concerned with one or some aspects of the objects compared, while abstracting provisionally and conditionally other aspects. Comparison is used in all fields of scientific inquiry, although in each field the comparative method employed has its own distinct features that fulfil the relevant cognitive functions. A distinction may be drawn between the function of comparison as an element of cognition in general, and the comparative method as a relatively autonomous, systematically organized means of research designed to achieve specific aims of cognition.


  1. Aarnio A (1979) Denkweisen der Rechtswissenschaft, Vienna, p 65 ffGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth JE (1996) Categories and culture: on the ‘rectification of names’ in comparative law. Cornell Law Rev 82:19Google Scholar
  3. Ancel M (1982) “Le probléme de la comparabilité et la méthode fonctionelle en droit comparé”, Festschrift für Imre Zajtay, Tubingen, p 5Google Scholar
  4. Anscombe E (1957–1958) On Brute Facts. Analysis 18:69Google Scholar
  5. Bogdan M (1978) Different economic systems and comparative law. Comp Law Yearb 2:1Google Scholar
  6. Bogdan M (1994) Comparative law. Deventer, p 61 ffGoogle Scholar
  7. Brand O (2007) Conceptual comparisons: towards a coherent methodology of comparative legal studies. Brooklyn J Int Law 32:405Google Scholar
  8. Constantinesco LJ (1971) Rechtsvergleichung, vol. 1, Einführung, Cologne, pp 262–269Google Scholar
  9. Constantinesco LJ (1973) La comparabilité des ordres juridiques ayant une idéologie et une structure politico-économique différente et la théorie des éléments determinants. Revue internationale de droit comparé 25:5Google Scholar
  10. Constantinesco LJ (1974) Traité de droit comparé, II, La méthode comparative, Paris, pp 105–119Google Scholar
  11. Dannemann G (2019) Comparative law: study of similarities or differences? In: Reimann M, Zimmerman R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law, 2nd edn, Oxford, p 390Google Scholar
  12. David R (1971) Livre du Centenaire de la Societé de la Legislation Comparé, vol 2. , Paris, p 155Google Scholar
  13. Demleitner NV (1998) Challenge, opportunity and risk: an era of change in comparative law. Am J Comp Law 46:647Google Scholar
  14. Ewald W (1994–1995) Comparative jurisprudence (I): what was it like to try a rat? Univ Pa Law Rev 143:1889Google Scholar
  15. Ewald W (1998) The jurisprudential approach to comparative law: a field guide to ‘rats’. Am J Comp Law 46:701Google Scholar
  16. Frankenberg G (1985) Critical comparisons: re-thinking comparative law. Harv Int Law J 26:411Google Scholar
  17. Gerber DJ (2001) Sculpturing the Agenda of comparative law: Ernst Rabel and the Facade of Language. In: Riles A (ed) Rethinking the masters of comparative law, Oxford, p 204Google Scholar
  18. Glanert S (2014) Translation matters. In: Glanert S (ed) Comparative law: engaging translation, Abingdon, p 1Google Scholar
  19. Graziadei M (2003) The functionalist heritage. In: Legrand P, Munday R (eds) Comparative legal studies: traditions and transitions, Cambridge, p 100Google Scholar
  20. Grosswald Curran V (1998) Dealing in difference: comparative law’s potential for broadening legal perspectives. Am J Comp Law 46:657Google Scholar
  21. Gutteridge HC (1938) The comparative aspects of legal terminology. Tulane Law Rev 12:401Google Scholar
  22. Hazard JN (1965) Socialist law and the International Encyclopedia. Harv Law Rev 79:278–302Google Scholar
  23. Heck P (1914) Gesetzesauslegung und Interessenjurisprudenz. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 112:1Google Scholar
  24. Hoeflich MH (2002) Translation and the reception of foreign law in the Antebellum United States. Am J Comp Law 50:753Google Scholar
  25. Hohfeld WN (1917) Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law J 26:710Google Scholar
  26. Holmes OW (1881) The common law, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Holmes OW (1897) The path of the law. Harv Law Rev 10:457Google Scholar
  28. Jansen N (2019) Comparative law and comparative knowledge. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law, 2nd edn, Oxford, p 291Google Scholar
  29. Jhering R (1877) Der Zweck im Recht, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  30. Jhering R (1884) Scherz und Ernst in der Jurisprudenz, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  31. Kahn-Freund O (1966) Comparative law as an academic subject. Law Q Rev 82:40Google Scholar
  32. Kamba WJ (1974) Comparative law: a theoretical framework. Int Comp Law Q 23:485Google Scholar
  33. Kokkini-Iatridou D et al (1988) Een inleiding tot het rechtsvergelijkende onderzoek (An Introduction to Comparative Legal Research), Deventer, p 87Google Scholar
  34. Luhmann N (1974) Rechtssystem und Rechtsdogmatik, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  35. Luhmann N (1982) The differentiation of society, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Luhmann N (1995) Social systems, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Luhmann N (2004) Law as a social system, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Markesinis B (2003) Comparative law in the courtroom and in the classroom: the story of the lest thirty-five years, Oxford, p 39Google Scholar
  39. Mattei U (1994) Efficiency in legal transplants: an essay in comparative law and economics. Int Rev Law Econ 14:3Google Scholar
  40. Mattei U (1997) Comparative law and economics, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  41. McDougal MS (1980) The comparative study of law for policy purposes: value clarification as an instrument of democratic world order. In: Butler WE (ed) International law in comparative perspective, Maryland, p 191Google Scholar
  42. Michaels R (2019) The functional method of comparative law. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law, 2nd edn, Oxford, p 345Google Scholar
  43. Oderkerk M (2001) The importance of context: selecting legal systems in comparative legal research. Netherlands Int Law Rev 48:293Google Scholar
  44. Pearce D (1987) Roads to commensurability, Dordrecht, p 188Google Scholar
  45. Pound R (1911) The scope and purpose of sociological jurisprudence. Harv Law Rev 24:591Google Scholar
  46. Pound R (1912) The scope and purpose of sociological jurisprudence. Harv Law Rev 24:489Google Scholar
  47. Puchta GF 1841) Cursus der Institutionem I. Leipzig, esp. 95–108Google Scholar
  48. Rabel E (1925) Aufgabe und Notwendigkeit der Rechtsvergleichung, Munich, p 5Google Scholar
  49. Reitz JC (1998) How to do comparative law. Am J Comp Law 46:617Google Scholar
  50. Rheinstein M (1938) Teaching comparative law. Univ Chicago Law Rev 5:615Google Scholar
  51. Rothacker E (1957) Die vergleichende Methode in den Geisteswissenschaften. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 60:13Google Scholar
  52. Samuel G (2014) An introduction to comparative law theory and method, Oxford, p 65 ffGoogle Scholar
  53. Searle JR (1969) Speech acts, Cambridge, p 51Google Scholar
  54. Siems M (2018) Comparative law, 2nd edn, Cambridge, p 44Google Scholar
  55. Szabó I (1964) La science comparative du droit. Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestiensis (Budapest):91Google Scholar
  56. Tchkhikvadze VM, Zivs S (1971) “L’ evolution de la science juridique et du droit comparé en U.S.S.R.”, Livre du Centenaire de la Société de legislation comparée, col. 2, Paris, p 581Google Scholar
  57. Watson A (1974) Legal transplants: an approach to comparative law (Edinburgh, 2nd ed. Athens, Georgia, 1993)Google Scholar
  58. Windscheid B (1891) Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, vol I, 7th edn, Frankfurt, pp 59–60Google Scholar
  59. Zivs S (1971) La méthode de recherché comparative dans la science juridique. Acta Juridica Hung 13:175Google Scholar
  60. Zweigert K (1966) Des solutions identiques par des voies différentes. Revue internationale de droit comparé 18:5Google Scholar
  61. Zweigert K, Kötz H (1987) An introduction to comparative law, 2nd edn, Oxford, p 5Google Scholar
  62. Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) An introduction to comparative law, 3nd edn, Oxford, p 44Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Mousourakis
    • 1
  1. 1.International RelationsRitsumeikan UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations