Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Importance of Context: Selecting Legal Systems in Comparative Legal Research

  • Published:
Netherlands International Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. U. Drobnig, ‘Methodenfragen der Rechtsvergleichung im Lichte der “International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law”’, in E. von Caemmerer, S. Mentschikoff and K. Zweigert (hrsg.), Iusprivatum gentium (Tubingen, Mohr 1969) p. 222.

    Google Scholar 

  2. D. Kokkini-Iatridou, et al., Een inleiding tot het rechtsvergelijkende onderzoek [An Introduction to Comparative Legal Research] (Deventer, Kluwer 1988) p. 19, p. 138.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ibid., p. 138.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ibid., p. 87 and pp. 138–142.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. Sacco, Introduzione al diritto comparato, 5th edn. (Torino, UTET 1992) p. 20: ‘E’ possibile comparare qualsiasi sistema con qualsiasi altro sistema? In his well-known article ‘Legal Formants: A Dynamic Approach to Comparative Law’, 39 AJCL (1991) p. 6 Sacco phrases this question as follows: ‘When the differences between systems are sufficiently great, can one still compare them?’

    Google Scholar 

  6. K. Zweigert and H. Kotz, An Introduction to Comparative Law, translation T. Weir, 3rd rev. edn. (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1998) p. 42.

    Google Scholar 

  7. See also L.-J. Constantinesco, Traite de droit compare, Tome II, La methode comparative (Paris, Librairie generate de droit et de jurisprudence 1974) p. 39: ‘Les comparatistes avertissent, a juste litre, que la qualite scientifique de la comparaison exige qu’on n’embrasse pas trop d’ordres juridiques. La regie demeure toujours multum non multa. Mais c’ est la un conseil de bon sens el nullement un obstacle de nature methodologique.’

    Google Scholar 

  8. W.J. Kamba, ‘Comparative Law: A Theoretical Framework’, 23 ICLQ (1974) pp. 506 et seq. Kamba refers to such authors as Pound, Pollock, Schmitthoff and Gutteridge.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ibid., p. 507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. P. de Cruz, A Modern Approach to Comparative Law (Deventer, Kluwer 1993) pp. 36–37. Though, Kamba is not named explicitly here.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Two years later, De Cruz discussed this point more clearly. Kamba is now named explicitly. However, his main view remains the same. See P. de Cruz, Comparative Law in a Changing World (London, Cavendish 1995) pp. 217–219.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Constantinesco, op. cit. n. 11, at pp. 91–119.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ibid., p. 94.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ibid, p. 110.

    Google Scholar 

  15. F. Gorie, G. Bourgeois and H. Bocken, Rechtsvergelijking [Comparative Law] (Gent, Story Recht 1985) pp. 19–21 discuss — explicitly following Constantinesco — this subject in a similar way. They pay attention to the opinions on comparability of the legal systems (‘Het probleem van de vergelijkbaarheid der rechtsstelsels’), but do not take a clear position in this discussion. This way of discussing this subject strengthens even more the suggestion that not every legal system can be compared with every other legal system than the way in which Constantinesco treated it. In the second edition of their book (F. Gorle, et al., Rechtsvergelijking (Gent, Story-Scientia 1991)) this subject matter is no longer discussed.

    Google Scholar 

  16. G.R. de Groot, Vergelijkt alles en behoudt net goede [Compare Everything and Hold Fast to What is Good] (Deventer, Kluwer 1989) pp. 23–24.

    Google Scholar 

  17. K. Zweigert, ‘Zur Methode der Rechtsvergleichung’, 13 Studium Generate (1960) pp. 193–200.

    Google Scholar 

  18. L.-J. Constantinesco, Rechtsvergleichung, Band II, Die rechtsvergleichende Methode (Köln, Heymann 1972) pp. 49–51; Constantinesco, op. cit. n. 11, at pp. 38–42.

    Google Scholar 

  19. J.G. Sauveplanne, Rechtsstelsels in vogelvlucht; een inleiding tot de privaatrechtelijke rechtsvergelijking [Legal Systems in a Nutshell; An Introduction to Private Comparative Law] (Deventer, Kluwer 1975) p. 7; J.G. Sauveplanne, Rechtsstelsels in vogelvlucht; een inleiding tot de privaatrechtelijke rechtsvergelijking, 2nd edn. (Deventer, Kluwer 1981) p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gorle, Bourgeois and Bocken 1985, op. cit. n. 20, at pp. 25–26; Gorle, et al. 1991, op. cit. n. 20, at pp. 25–26.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kokkini, et al., op. cit. n. 6, at p. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Th.M. de Boer, ‘Vergelijkenderwijs: de inspiratie van buitenlands recht’ [‘Comparative Research: An Inspiration from Foreign Law’], 123 WPNR (1992) pp. 39–40. See also Th.M. de Boer, ‘Uitgangspunten van een rechtsvergelijkende theorie: een paradigma voor de lage landen’ [‘Starting Points of Comparative Legal Theory: A Paradigm for the Low Countries’], 43 AA (1994) pp. 303–310.

    Google Scholar 

  23. De Cruz, op. cit. n. 16; M. Bogdan, Comparative Law (Göteborg, Kluwer 1994); De Cruz, op. cit. n. 15. Except for the third edition of An Introduction to Comparative Law by Zweigert and Kötz, op. cit. n. 10 and — in a restricted way (cf, p. 89 ) — the Inleiding tot de rechtsvergelijking by Pintens, op. cit. n. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  24. H. Kotz, An Introduction to Comparative Law, translation T. Weir, 3rd rev. edn. (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1998) Zweigert, loc. cit. n. 22, at p. 196; Zweigert and Kotz, op. cit. n. 10, at p. 41.

  25. Sauveplanne 1981, op. cit. n. 24, at p. 9.

  26. Ibid. See also P. van Dijk, ‘De rechtsvergelijking en het recht der Internationale organisaties; enige methodologische notities’ [‘Comparative Law and the Law of International Organizations: Some Methodological Notes’], in Liber Amicorum Pieter VerLoren van Themaat (Deventer, Kluwer 1982) p. 88; Gorle, et al. 1991, op. cit. n. 20, at pp. 25–26.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kokkini, et al., op. cit. n. 6, at p. 87. See also ibid., pp. 138–142.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pintens, op. cit. n. 2, at p. 89. See also ibid., p. 86.

  29. Kamba, loc. cit. n. 13, at p. 508.

  30. S. Mentschikoff and K. Zweigert (hrsg.), Iusprivatum gentium (Tubingen, Mohr 1969) Drobnig, op. cit. n. 5, at p. 224.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Constantinesco, op. cit. n. 11, at p. 41.

    Google Scholar 

  32. De Boer 1992, loc. cit. n. 27, at p. 45.

    Google Scholar 

  33. S. Mentschikoff and K. Zweigert (hrsg.), Iusprivatum gentium (Tubingen, Mohr 1969) Drobnig, op. cit. n. 5, at p. 224; De Boer 1992, loc. cit. n. 27, at p. 45; De Boer 1994, loc. cit. n. 27, at p. 308.

    Google Scholar 

  34. De Boer 1994, loc. cit. n. 27, at p. 308.

  35. Zweigert, loc. cit. n. 22, at p. 196; Zweigert and Kötz, op. cit. n. 10, at p. 41.

    Google Scholar 

  36. S. Mentschikoff and K. Zweigert (hrsg.), Iusprivatum gentium (Tubingen, Mohr 1969) Drobnig, op. cit. n. 5, at pp. 225–226. See also Pintens, op. cit. n. 2, at p. 86.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Constantinesco, op. cit. n. 11, at pp. 41–42.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ibid, p. 42.

    Google Scholar 

  39. De Boer 1992, loc. cit. n. 27, at p. 48.

    Google Scholar 

  40. De Boer 1992, loc. cit n. 27, at pp. 47–48.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ibid., p. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cf., Van Dijk, op. cit. n. 31, at pp. 87–88.

  43. See also N.A. Florijn, Rechtsvergelijking in het wetgevingsproces [Comparative Law in the Legislative Process] (diss. Tilburg) (Zwolle, W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink 1993) pp. 177 et seq. (specially pp. 180–182); N.A. Florijn, Leidraad voor zinvolle rechtsvergelijking [A Guideline for Meaningful Comparative Legal Research] (Den Haag, Ministerie van Justitie 1995) pp. 45–47.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Florijn 1995, op. cit. n. 50, at p. 46.

  45. Florijn 1993, op. cit. n. 50, at p. 180.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See, e.g., Florijn 1993, op. cit. n. 50, at pp. 180–181.

    Google Scholar 

  47. O. Sandrock, Uber Sinn und Methode der zivilistischen Rechtsvergleichung (Frankfurt a.M./Berlin, Alfred Metzner Verlag 1966) p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kamba, loc. cit. n. 13, at p. 489. See also De Cruz, op. cit. n. 15, at pp. 36–37; De Cruz, op. cit. n. 16, at pp. 217–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bogdan, op. cit. n. 28, at p. 57: ‘Which legal systems and which elements one chooses to compare naturally depends of the purpose of the comparison and on the interests of the comparatist.’

  50. De Groot, op. cit. n. 21, at p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  51. E.g., De Boer 1994 (loc. cit. n. 27, at p. 307)

  52. Sauveplanne 1975, op. cit. n. 24, at p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Kokkini, op. cit. n. 6, at p. 138.

    Google Scholar 

  54. De Boer 1992, loc. cit. n. 27, at p. 46.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Florijn 1995, op. cit. n. 50, at p. 46.

  56. W.J. Zwalve, Het Janushoofd der Rechtsvergelijking [The Janus Face of Comparative Law] (inaugural lecture Groningen) (Groningen, Wolters-Noordhoff 1988) p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  57. De Boer 1992, loc. cit. n. 27, at p. 46, fn. 52. See also Sauveplanne 1981, op. cit. n. 24, at pp. 12–14; Van Dijk, op. cit. n. 31, at p. 88.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Pintens, op. cit. n. 2, at pp. 52–53.

  59. Sauveplanne 1981, op. cit. n. 24, at p. 8.

  60. Florijn 1995, op. cit. n. 50, at p. 46.

  61. The analyses extended to 39 reports submitted to the Netherlands Association for Comparative Law (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking) and 34 studies included in the series Arbeiten zur Rechtsvergleichung of the German Gesellschaft fur Rechtsvergleichung (A.E. Oderkerk, De preliminaire fase van het rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek [The Preliminary Phase of Comparative Legal Research] (Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen 1999) pp. 91–100; pp. 101–166 (120–145); pp. 167–218 (182–198)).

  62. J.D. van der Meulen, De belediging van hoofden van bevriende staten [Insulting Friendly Heads of State] (Deventer, Kluwer 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  63. T. Schneider, Der Fonds de Garantie A ulomobile im Rahmen des Schutzes der Verkehrsopfer. Internationale Vergleichung und rechtliche Einordnung (Frankfurt a.M., Metzner 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  64. M. Drexelius, Irrtum und Risiko. Rechtsvergleichende Untersuchungen und Reformvorschldge zum Recht der Irrtumsanfechtung (Frankfurt a.M, Metzner 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  65. ’Das osterreichische Allgemeine Bilrgerliche Gesetzbuch von 1811 ist das alteste Zivilgesetzbuch des deutschen Rechtskreises, das heute noch gilt. Trotzdem wirkt es in manchem moderner in der Betrachtungsweise und ist nicht selten origineller in seinen Losungen der in alien Landern begegnenden Probleme als etwa das deutsche BGB oder auch das ebenfalls wesentlichjiingere Schweizer Zivilrechf (Drexelius, op. cit. n. 72, at p. 25).

  66. C. Kelk and J. Legemaate, Rechtsbescherming in depsychiatrie [Legal Protection in Psychiatry] (Deventer, Kluwer 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  67. K. Boele-Woelki, et al., Huwelijksvermogensrecht in rechtsvergelijkend perspectief [Matrimonial Property Law from a Comparative Point of View] (Deventer, Kluwer 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  68. See on the methodological and other choices made by the Lando Commission when drafting its principles, M.W. Hesselink, ‘The Principles of European Contract Law: Some Choices Made by the Lando Commission’, in M.W. Hesselink and G.J.P. de Vries, Principles of European Contract Law; Preadviezen uitgebracht voor de Vereniging voor Burgerlijk Recht [Preliminary Reports for the Association of Civil Law] (Deventer, Kluwer 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  69. G.J.P. de Vries, Principles of European Contract Law; Preadviezen uitgebracht voor de Vereniging voor Burgerlijk Recht [Preliminary Reports for the Association of Civil Law] (Deventer, Kluwer 2001) With the expansion of the Union, the number of members of the Commission has increased over the years (Hesselink, op. cit. n. 77, at p. 27).

    Google Scholar 

  70. G.J.P. de Vries, Principles of European Contract Law; Preadviezen uitgebracht voor de Vereniging voor Burgerlijk Recht [Preliminary Reports for the Association of Civil Law] (Deventer, Kluwer 2001) Hesselink, op. cit. n. 77, at p. 12. Hesselink mentions a fourth purpose: ‘A fourth, and in my view highly important, purpose of the Principles of European Contract Law is not mentioned as such among the Commission’s aspirations: they may provide us with a common European language for discussions on contract law.’

    Google Scholar 

  71. By tertium comparationis is meant a feature that two or more objects have in common. Most authors are of the opinion that to ascertain comparability in comparative law this feature must be the function of the objects to be compared. Some authors name ‘structure’ and ‘consequences’ as features that can constitute comparability as well. See Oderkerk, op. cit. n. 68, at pp. 61–88, 233–239.

  72. This conclusion is drawn by the comparatist herself (K. lest, Klachtrecht van de individuele werknemer. Rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar klachtprocedures in Amerikaame en Nederlandse ondernemingen [Grievance Law of the Individual Employee. A Comparative Legal Study on Grievance Procedures in American and Dutch Companies] (Deventer, Kluwer 1991) pp. 119–120).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Cf, Van Dijk, op. cit. n. 31, at p. 82.

  74. S. Mentschikoff and K. Zweigert (hrsg.), Iusprivatum gentium (Tubingen, Mohr 1969) Drobnig, op. cit. n. 5, at pp. 221–233. Cf, section 2.2.2.

    Google Scholar 

  75. H. Kotz, An Introduction to Comparative Law, translation T. Weir, 3rd rev. edn. (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1998) Zweigert and Kotz, op. cit. n. 10, at p. 33.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marieke Oderkerk (Lecturer and researcher)

Authors
  1. Marieke Oderkerk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The author wishes to thank Professor Th.M. de Boer for his helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. The text of this article is an amended and elaborated version of parts of her thesis written under supervision of Th.M. de Boer on the preliminary phase of comparative legal research published in 1999 (A.E. Oderkerk, De preliminaire fase van het rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek [The Preliminary Phase of Comparative Legal Research] (Nijmegen, Ars Aequi Libri 1999)).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oderkerk, M. The Importance of Context: Selecting Legal Systems in Comparative Legal Research. Neth Int Law Rev 48, 293–318 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X00001340

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X00001340

Keywords

Search

Navigation