Abstract
Is it not true that any one thing can be compared with any other thing if they either both belong to the same category, or if one belongs to it and the other does not? When translated into law terms, what is meant by comparability? Is an element of similarity necessary for comparability? Since the existence of comparative law indicates that there is a plurality of legal systems, legal institutions and legal rules, can the comparative lawyer compare the seemingly ‘incomparable’? What is the so-called ‘meaningful’ comparison? Now, we know that the term ‘comparative law’ itself is by no means free from ambiguity; the factor of ‘comparability’ is even less so.2
‘Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?’1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Shakespeare Sonnet XVIII.
discuss some of the issues of comparability in Chapter 3 of M. Aitkenhead, N. Burrows, R. Jagtenberg and E. Oriicu, Law and lawyers in European integration: A compareative analysis of the education, attitudes and specialisation of Scottish and Dutch Lawyers (Medelingen van het Juridisch Instituut van de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam No: 43, 1988), pp. 40–64.
See also M. Bogdan, Comparative Law (Goteborg, Kluwer Tano, 1994), p. 58.
J.H. Merryman, ‘Comparative Law and Scientific Explanation’ in J.N. Hazard and W.J. Wagner (eds), Law in the U.S.A. in Social and Technical Revolution (Brussels, Bruyand, 1974), p. 92, and also in id., The Loneliness of the Comparative Lawyer (The Hague/London/Boston, Kluwer Law International, 1999), 478–502 at p. 489 where he discusses Zelditch’s views on comparability, referring to Zelditch, ‘Intelligible Comparisons’, in Vallier (ed) Comparative Methods in Sociology (1971) pp. 267–307.
K. Zweigert and H. Kotz, An Introduction to Comparative Law, 3rd. edn., trans. T. Weir (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1998), p. 34.
See Bogdan, above note 3.
Ibid., p. 67.
Zweigert and Kotz, above note 5, p. 34.
This is re-visited in the sub-theme in Chapter 4.
J. Raz, The Concept of a Legal System: An Introduction to the Theory of Legal Systems, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 93.
Ibid., p. 141.
Merryman, above note 4, p. 101.
R. David and J.E.C. Brierley, Major Legal Systems in the World Today 3rd. edn., (London, Stevens, 1985), p. 193.
H.C. Gutteridge, Comparative Law, 2nd ed. (London, Cambridge University Press, 1949; reprint., Wildy & Sons, London, 1974), p. 73.
W.J. Kamba, ‘Comparative Law: A Theoretical Framework’, (1976) 23 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 494 at pp. 507–508.
See Chapter 10 below.
See our research, above note 2.
This is considered more fully in Chapter 3.
M. Graziadei, ‘The Functionalist Heritage’, Chapter 5 in P. Legrand and R. Munday (eds), Comparative Legal Studies: Traditions and Transitions (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 100; also see for a useful discussion of functionalism with a capital (F) and a small (f), W. Twining, ‘A Post-Westphalian Conception of Law’ (2003) 37 Law and Society Review, pp. 213–217 and 238–243.
Graziadei above note 19, p. 101.
Zweigert and Kotz, above note 5, p. 40.
F.W. Riggs, The Comparison of Whole Political Systems’ in R.T. Holt and J.E.Turner (eds), The Methodology of Comparative Research (New York, The Free Press, 1970), p. 77.
J. LaPalombara, ‘Parsimony and Empiricism in Comparative Politics’ in ibid., p. 131.
A. Peters and H. Schwenke, ‘Comparative Law Beyond Post-modernism’ (2000) 49 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 800 at p. 827.
Ibid., pp. 827–828.
V.G. Curran, ‘On the Shoulders of Schlesinger: The Trento Common Core of European Private Law Project’ (2002) 2 Global Jurist Frontiers, p. 8
Ibid
Gutteridge, above note 14, p. 73.
Graziedei, above note 19, p. 105.
See our research, above note 2.
Schmitthoff, above note 20, p. 96.
Zweigert and Kotz, above note 5, p. 34.
See solution offered by E.K. Banakas, ‘Some Thoughts on the Method of Comparative Law: The Concept of Law revisited’, (1981) LXVII Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 289; and a suggestion by R.P. Schlesinger (ed) Formation of Contracts: a Study on the Common Core of Legal Systems (Dobbs Ferry, Oceana, 1981), p. 70.
Zweigert and Kotz, above note 5, pp. 44–45.
Ibid., p. 76.
Ibid.
Zweigert and Kotz, above note 5, pp. 37–38.
See our research, above note 2.
Zweigert and Kotz, above note 5, p. 40.
See our research, above note 2.
Schmitthoff, above note 20, p. 96.
Zweigert and Kotz, above note 5, p. 34.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Örücü, E. (2004). Comparability: Theories and Presumptions. In: The Enigma of Comparative Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-5596-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-5596-2_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-04-13989-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-5596-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive