Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Past, Present and Future of Comparative Law - Le passé, le présent et le futur du droit comparé pp 25–35Cite as

Comparative Law: A Veteran’s View

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 374 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 29))

Abstract

The International Academy of Comparative Law invited five veterans of the field to state their views on “The Past, the Present and the Future of Comparative Law”. Their task was made easier by various questions asked by the President of the Academy, Ms. K. Boele-Woelki. The following text is an extended and supplemented version of my answers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A few footnotes were added, but I made no attempt to convert my answers into a learned article.

  2. 2.

    Zweigert and Kötz (1998) and Zimmermann (2006), p. 551.

  3. 3.

    See, for example, Reimann (1998), p. 639 f.

  4. 4.

    See for example, Reimann (2002), p. 693.

  5. 5.

    Friedman (1990), p. 54.

  6. 6.

    See below n. 21 and accompanying text. See also Michaels (2012), p. 298: He distinguishes two fundamentally different methods of comparative law. One is based on the principle of “functionalism” and is therefore called “functional comparison”. The other method is described as “cultural comparison”. Its focus “lies on the mentality expressed in a legal system, which is not fully observable by outsiders and can only be experienced by those raised, and operating, within this respective system. Because cultural differences (particularly those between civil law and common law) are seen as unbridgeable and because different legal cultures are deemed worthy of protection, cultural comparison usually opposes comparative evaluation and legal unification as both impossible and undesirable. Instead, it promotes tolerance for foreign law and for difference in general.”

  7. 7.

    Michaels (2012), p. 299.

  8. 8.

    Although the “praesumtio similitudinis” was first introduced in all innocence by Zweigert and Kötz (1998), p. 40, it has meanwhile become the favourite scapegoat, whipping boy and arch-enemy of the aficionados of what is called the “cultura” approach to comparative law. What the critics tend to overlook is that the “functional” approach has no difficulties whatsoever in accepting the diagnosis of deep-seated differences between the solutions of different jurisdictions. See, for example Dannemann (2006), p. 383.

  9. 9.

    See, for example, Cooter and Schäfer (2012), pp. 37, 90 ff.

  10. 10.

    Reimann (2002), p. 685.

  11. 11.

    See his fable on “Le chat et le renard”: Livre IX, Fable 14.

  12. 12.

    Pound (1934), p. 168.

  13. 13.

    For a thorough analysis and detailed references to the vast literature see, for example, Zimmermann (2006), p. 539; Reimann (2002), pp. 690–695.

  14. 14.

    Reimann (2002), p. 691.

  15. 15.

    See European Research Group on Existing EC Private Law (2009). For a critical evaluation of the Acquis Principles see Jansen and Zimmermann (2008).

  16. 16.

    See, for example, Kötz (2017), von Bar (1998, 2000), Wagner (2003) and van Dam (2013).

  17. 17.

    Quoted from the article by McKendrick (2006), p. 28. Goode’s views are supported by McKendrick himself. See also Beale (2006), p. 37 f.: He is also in favour of maintaining English contract law but thinks that in order to keep English law up-to-date and accessible in form much closer attention should be given to reform measures taken or proposed by Continental legal systems and the “Principles of European Contract Law”. Beale has also been a member of the “Commission of European Contract law”. Needless to say that these statements were made before the Brexit.

  18. 18.

    See Zimmermann (2006), p. 558; Zimmermann (1996).

  19. 19.

    Markesinis (1994, 2000).

  20. 20.

    Gordley (1993).

  21. 21.

    See, for example, Legrand (1996a, b, c, 1997a, b). For a critical evaluation of Legrand’s thesis see, for example, Graziadei (2006), pp. 467–470.

  22. 22.

    See the Resolution by the European Parliament of 26 May 1989 (OJ EC 1989 C 158/400).

  23. 23.

    This does not mean, of course, that the “acquis communautaire” is sacrosanct. See the critical observations by Jansen and Zimmermann (2008). – In 2011 the EC issued a proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law (CESL) which would have been applicable to cross-border transactions for the sale of goods (and related agreements) provided that one party was either a consumer or a medium-sized business (as defined in the CESL). This proposal was withdrawn in 2014 due to the opposition of many Member States. This is perhaps regrettable. After all the CESL was intended to be an “optional instrument” that would have been applicable only if the parties had reached an agreement to that effect. It would have been interesting to see whether the CESL would have been able to successfully compete against the national rules on which the parties might also have agreed.

  24. 24.

    The United Kingdom is another example of a perfectly functioning single market despite significant differences between the legal systems of England and Scotland. A more detailed discussion of the point and of the reasons explaining the different approaches may be found in Kötz (2012) and Halberstam and Reimann (2014), pp. 41–45. Diversity of the law has also been supported on the ground that it allows the law of the states to compete with each other. The United States may therefore be seen “as a gigantic laboratory for legal policy in which any state can move forward in any direction by legislation or judicial decision and thus gain experience and reach views which enrich the debates on legal policy and may serve as an encouraging or horrifying example to other states”. See Zweigert and Kötz (1998), p. 251. – “Regulatory competition” has also been held to have induced European law-makers to reform their contract law and dispute resolution mechanisms so as to attract parties to cross-border contracts to opt for the law and the courts of one country rather than another. See Kieninger (2012), p. 301; Vogenauer (2013).

  25. 25.

    The last-mentioned point is discussed more thoroughly by Kötz (1998), p. 256 f.

  26. 26.

    The recent reform of the French law of contract is a good example. See Ancel et al. (2017).

  27. 27.

    See Reimann (2002), p. 681.

References

  • Ancel F, Fauvarque-Cosson B, Guest J (2017) Aux sources de la réforme du droit des contrats. Dalloz

    Google Scholar 

  • Beale H (2006) English law reform and the impact of European private law. In: Vogenauer S, Weatherill S (eds) The harmonisation of European contract law. Hart, p 31 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooter R, Schäfer HB (2012) Solomon’s knot, how law can end the poverty of nations. Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Dannemann G (2006) Comparative law: study of similarities and differences? In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press, p 383 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • European Research Group on Existing EC Private Law (Acquis Group) (ed) (2009) Principles of the existing EC Contract Law (Acquis Principles)

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman L (1990) Some thoughts on comparative legal culture. In: Clark DS (ed) Comparative and private international law, essays in Honor of John Henry Merryman. Duncker and Humblot, p 49 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordley J (1993) Common law and civil law: Eine überholte Unterscheidung. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 1:498

    Google Scholar 

  • Graziadei M (2006) Comparative law as the study of transplants and receptions. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press, p 441 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Halberstam D, Reimann M (2014) Federalism and legal unification: comparing methods, results, and explanations across 20 systems. In: Halberstam D, Reimann M (eds) Federalism and legal unification. Springer, p 3 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen N, Zimmermann R (2008) Restating the Acquis Communautaire? A critical examination of the principles of the existing EC contract law. Mod Law Rev 71:505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieninger EM (2012) Competition between legal systems. In: Basedow J, Hopt K, Zimmermann R (eds) The Max Planck Encyclopedia of European private law. OUP, p 301

    Google Scholar 

  • Kötz HD (1998) Towards a European civil code: the duty of good faith. In: Cane P, Stapleton J (eds) The law of obligations, essays in celebration of John Fleming. Oxford University Press, p 243 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Kötz HD (2012) Contract law in Europe and the United States: legal unification in the civil law and common law. Tulane Eur Civil Law Forum 27:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Kötz HD (2017) European contract law, 2nd edn (trans: Weir T, Mertens G). Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Legrand P (1996a) How to compare now. Legal Stud 16:232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legrand P (1996b) European legal systems are not converging. Int Comp Law Q 45:52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legrand P (1996c) Sens et Non-sens d’un Code civil européen. Revue internationale de droit comparé 48:779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legrand P (1997a) Against a European civil code. Mod Law Rev 60:44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legrand P (1997b) The impossibility of legal transplants. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 4:111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markesinis B (1994) Learning from Europe and learning in Europe. In: Markesinis B (ed) The gradual convergence. Oxford University Press p 1 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Markesinis B (2000) The coming together of the common law and the civil law. Hart

    Google Scholar 

  • Mckendrick E (2006) Harmonisation of European contract law: the state we are in. In: Vogenauer S, Weatherill S (eds) The harmonisation of European contract law. Hart, p 5 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels R (2012) Comparative law. In: Basedow J, Hopt K, Zimmermann R (eds) The Max Planck Encyclopedia of European private law. OUP, p 297

    Google Scholar 

  • Pound R (1934) The place of American law in the law school curriculum. Tulane Law Rev 8:161

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimann M (1998) Stepping out of the European shadow: why comparative law in the United States must develop its own Agenda. Am J Comp Law 46:637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimann M (2002) The progress and failure of comparative law in the second half of the twentieth century. Am J Comp Law 50:671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dam C (2013) European tort law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogenauer S (2013) Regulatory competition through choice of contract law and choice of forum in Europe: theory and evidence. Eur Rev Private Law 21:13

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bar C (1998) The common European law of torts, vol 1. Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bar C (2000) The common European law of torts, vol 2. Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (2003) Grundstrukturen des Europäischen Deliktsrechts. In: Zimmermann R (ed) Grundstrukturen des Europäischen Deliktsrechts, p 189 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann R (1996) Savigny’s legacy: legal history, comparative law and the emergence of a European legal science. Law Q Rev 112:580

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann R (2006) Comparative law and the Europeanization of private law. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press, p 539 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Zweigert K, Kötz HD (1998) Introduction to comparative law, 3rd edn (trans: Weir T). Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany

    Hein D. Kötz

Authors
  1. Hein D. Kötz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hein D. Kötz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International Academy of Comparative Law, Paris, France

    Katharina Boele-Woelki

  2. International Academy of Comparative Law, Paris, France

    Diego P. Fernàndez Arroyo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kötz, H.D. (2018). Comparative Law: A Veteran’s View. In: Boele-Woelki, K., Fernàndez Arroyo, D. (eds) The Past, Present and Future of Comparative Law - Le passé, le présent et le futur du droit comparé. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 29. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93770-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93770-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93769-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93770-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation