Assessing the Potential of Comparative Law in Expanding Legal Frontiers

  • George Mousourakis


During the last few decades there has been an increasing tendency among legal professionals and jurists to look beyond their own borders. While the growing interest in foreign and transnational legal systems may well be ascribed to the dramatic growth of international transactions, this empirical parameter accounts for only part of the explanation. The other part, at least equally important, pertains to the expectation of gaining a deeper understanding of law as a broader socio-cultural phenomenon and a fresh insight into the current state and future direction one’s own legal system. Most legal professionals are situated within their own native legal culture and are conversant with the law of the land that they have grown up with and become accustomed to. They are familiar with the substantive and procedural rules of their system and may tend to assume that the solutions it provides to legal problems are the best. Sometimes they may be right. But they are likely just as often to be wrong. Being confined in one’s own legal culture can be insulating and distorting. The comparative study of foreign laws opens up avenues by which to know and assess diverse socio-legal cultures and traditions, different normative orders that shape people, institutions and society in particular historical contexts. It enables lawyers and jurists to integrate their knowledge of law into a cultural panorama extending well beyond their own country and provides them with a much broader knowledge of the possible range of solutions to legal problems than familiarity with a single legal order would allow. In this way, they can develop the standards and sharpen the analytical skills required to address the challenges they face in a rapidly changing world.


  1. Abel RL, Lewis PSC (eds) (1995) Lawyers in society: an overview. BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen CK (1964) Law in the making. Oxford, p 101 ffGoogle Scholar
  3. Andenas M, Fairgrieve D (eds) (2015) Courts and comparative law. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Barak A (2006) The judge in a democracy. Princeton, p 118Google Scholar
  5. Bermann GA (2012) Comparative law and international organizations. In: Bussani M, Mattei U (eds) The Cambridge companion to comparative law. Cambridge, p 241 ffGoogle Scholar
  6. Biddulph S, Nicholson P (2008) Expanding the circle: comparative legal studies in transition. In Nicholson P, Biddulph S (eds) Examining practice, interrogating theory: comparative legal studies in Asia. Leiden, p 9Google Scholar
  7. Bonell MJ (ed) (2006) The UNIDROIT principles in practice: case law and bibliography on the UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts, 2nd edn. ArdsleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Bothe M, Ress G (1980) The Comparative Method and International Law. In: Butler WE (ed) International law in comparative perspective, Alphen aan den Rijn, p 61Google Scholar
  9. Cain M, Harrington CB (eds) (1994) Lawyers in a postmodern world; translation and transgression. BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng B (1953) General principles of law as applied by international courts and tribunals. London, repr. (2006), p 392Google 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, Jauffret-Spinosi C (2002) Les grands systèmes de droit contemporains, 11th edn. Paris, p 7Google Scholar
  13. de Boer TM (1994) Some thoughts on the relationship between private international law and comparative law. In: Boele-Woelki K, Grosheide FW, Hondius EH, Steenhoff GJW (eds) Comparability and evaluation, Dordrecht, p 15Google Scholar
  14. de Boer TM (1996) Facultative choice of law, the procedural status of choice-of-law rules and foreign law. Recueil des cours 257:223–447Google Scholar
  15. de Cruz P (1999) Comparative law in a changing world, 2nd edn. London, pp 18–24Google Scholar
  16. del Vecchio G (1960) Les bases du droit comparé et les principes généraux du droit. Revue internationale de droit comparé 12:493, 497Google Scholar
  17. Demleitner N (1998) Challenge, opportunity and risk: an era of change in comparative law. Am J Comp Law 46:647Google Scholar
  18. Demleitner N (2019) Comparative law in legal education. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law, 2nd edn, Oxford, p 320Google Scholar
  19. Drobnig U (1999) The use of comparative law by courts. In: Drobnig U, van Erp JHM (eds) The use of comparative law by courts. The Hague, pp 3–21Google Scholar
  20. Drobnig U, Dopffel P (1982) Die Nutzung der Rechtsvergleichung durch den deutschen Gesetzgeber. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 46:253 ffGoogle Scholar
  21. Eberle EJ (2009) The method and role of comparative law. Wash Univ Global Stud Law Rev 8(3):451Google Scholar
  22. Fauvarque-Cosson B (2001) Comparative law and conflict of laws: allies or enemies? New perspectives on an old couple. Am J Comp Law 49:407Google Scholar
  23. Ferrari V (1990) Socio-legal concepts and their comparison. In: Oeyen E (ed) Comparative methodology. London, p 63Google Scholar
  24. Fletcher GP (1998) Comparative law as subversive discipline. Am J Comp Law 46:683Google Scholar
  25. Gerber DJ (2001) Globalization and legal knowledge. Tulane Law Rev 75:949Google Scholar
  26. Glenn HP (1987) Persuasive authority. McGill Law J 32:261 ffGoogle Scholar
  27. Glenn HP (2000–2001) Comparative law and legal practice: on removing the borders. Tulane Law Rev 75:977Google Scholar
  28. Gordley J (2001) Comparative law and legal education. Tulane Law Rev 75:1003Google Scholar
  29. Grossfeld B, Eberle EJ (2003) Patterns of order in comparative law: discovering and decoding invisible powers. Tex Int Law J 38:291, 292Google Scholar
  30. Gutteridge HC (1946) Comparative law. Cambridge, pp 11–22Google Scholar
  31. Harmathy A (1999) Comparative law and changes of the law. Acta Juridica Hungarica 40:159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hartley TC (1996) Pleading and proof of foreign law: the major European systems compared. Int Comp Law Q 45:271Google Scholar
  33. Jessup P (1956) Transnational law. New Haven, p 2Google Scholar
  34. Kakouris CN (1999) L’utilisation de la méthode comparative par la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes. In: Drobnig U, van Erp S (eds) The use of comparative law by courts. The Hague, p 100 ffGoogle Scholar
  35. Kamba WJ (1974) Comparative law: a theoretical framework. Int Comp Law Q 23:485Google Scholar
  36. King M (1997) Comparing legal cultures in the quest for law’s identity. In: Nelken D (ed) Comparing legal cultures. Aldershot, p 119Google Scholar
  37. Kiss AC (1980) Comparative law and public international law. In: Butler WE (ed) International law in comparative perspective. Alphen aan den Rijn, p 41Google Scholar
  38. Knieper R (1996) Rechtsimperialismus? Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 29:64Google Scholar
  39. Koopmans T (1996) Comparative law and the courts. Int Comp Law Q 45:549Google Scholar
  40. Legrand P (1996) European systems are not converging. Int Comp Law Q 45:52–61Google Scholar
  41. Levi-Strauss C (2001) Race et histoire. Paris, p 103 ffGoogle Scholar
  42. Mahoney P (2004) The comparative method in judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: reference back to national law. In: Cavinet G, Andenas M, Fairgrieve D (eds) Comparative law before the courts, London, p 135Google Scholar
  43. Maine H (1866) Ancient law, 3rd edn. LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Mak E (2011) Why do Dutch and UK Judges cite foreign law? Camb Law J 70(2):420 ffGoogle Scholar
  45. Markesinis B (1990) Comparative law in search of an audience. Mod Law Rev 53:1Google Scholar
  46. Markesinis B (ed) (1994) The gradual convergence: foreign ideas, foreign influences, and English Law on the Eve of the 21st Century. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Martinico G, Pollicino O (eds) (2010) The National Judicial Treatment of the ECHR and EU laws: a comparative constitutional perspective. GroningenGoogle Scholar
  48. Merryman J, Clark D (1978) Comparative law: Western European and Latin American Legal Systems. Indianapolis, p 58Google Scholar
  49. Muir Watt H (2019) Globalization and comparative law. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law, 2nd edn. Oxford, p 599Google Scholar
  50. Muir-Watt H (2000) La fonction subversive du droit comparé. Revue internationale de droit comparé 52:503Google Scholar
  51. Palmer V (2001) Insularity and leadership in American comparative law: the past one hundred years. Tulane Law Rev 75:1093Google Scholar
  52. Paton GW (1972) A textbook of jurisprudence. Oxford, p 41Google Scholar
  53. Pescatore P (1980) Le recours, dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes, à des normes déduites de la comparaison du droit des États membres. Revue internationale de droit comparé 32:337Google Scholar
  54. Péteri Z (2002) Teaching of comparative law and comparative law teaching. Acta Juridica Hungarica 43:243Google Scholar
  55. Posner R (2008) How judges think. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Post AH (1886) Einleitung in das Studium der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz, OldenburgGoogle Scholar
  57. Rabel E (1931) Das Problem der Qualifikation. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 5:241Google Scholar
  58. Reimann M (1995) Conflict of laws in Western Europe, a guide through the jungle. Irvington, p 159 ffGoogle Scholar
  59. Reimann M (2001) Beyond national systems: a comparative law for the international age. Tulane Law Rev 75:1103Google Scholar
  60. Reimann M (2006) Comparative law and private international law. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford, pp 1384–1387Google Scholar
  61. Reimann M (2012) Comparative law and neighbouring disciplines. In: Bussani M, Mattei U (eds) The Cambridge companion to comparative law. Cambridge, pp 14–15Google Scholar
  62. Reimann M (2019) Comparative law and private international law. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law, 2nd edn. Oxford, p 1339Google Scholar
  63. Rosett A (1992) Unification, harmonization, restatement, codification, and reform in international commercial law. Am J Comp Law 40:683 ffGoogle Scholar
  64. Schadbach K (1998) The benefits of comparative law: a continental view. Boston Univ Int Law J 16:331Google Scholar
  65. Scherpe JM (2004) Ausnahmen vom Erfordernis eines strikten Kausalitätsnachweises im englischen Deliktsrecht. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht, 12:164 ffGoogle Scholar
  66. Schlesinger RB (1957) Research on the general principles of law recognized by civilised nations. Am J Int Law 51:734Google Scholar
  67. Schlesinger RB (1961) The common core of legal systems - an emerging subject of comparative study. In: Nadelmann K, von Mehrin A, Hazard JN (eds) XXth Century Comparative and Conflicts Law: Legal Essays in Honour of Hessel E. Yntema. Leiden, 65 ffGoogle Scholar
  68. Shapiro M (1993) The globalization of law. Indiana J Glob Leg Stud 37:37Google Scholar
  69. Siems M (2018) Comparative law, 2nd edn. Cambridge, p 28Google Scholar
  70. Slaughter A-M (2004) A new world order, Princeton, pp 239–240Google Scholar
  71. Smits JM (2019) Comparative law and its influence on national legal systems. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law, 2nd edn. Oxford, p 502Google Scholar
  72. Tarde G (1890) Les Lois de l’Imitation. ParisGoogle Scholar
  73. Taupitz J (1993) Europäische Privatrechtsvereinheitlichung heute und morgen. TübingenGoogle Scholar
  74. Teitel RG (2002) Transitional justice. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  75. Teubner G (ed.) (1997) Global law without a state. AldershotGoogle Scholar
  76. von Bar C (1987) Internationales Privatrecht, Erster Band, Allgemeine Lehren. Munich, p 1Google Scholar
  77. von Mehren A (1977–1978) The contribution of comparative law to the theory and practice of private international law. Am J Comp Law 26:32, 33Google Scholar
  78. von Mehren AT (1971) An Academic tradition for comparative law? Am J Comp Law 19:624Google Scholar
  79. von Mehren AT (2001) The rise of transnational legal practice and the task of comparative law. Tulane Law Rev 75:1215Google Scholar
  80. Werro F (2001) Notes on the purpose and aims of comparative law. Tulane Law Rev 75:1225Google Scholar
  81. Whitman JQ (2009) Western legal imperialism: thinking about the deep historical roots. Theoret Inq Law 10(2):313Google Scholar
  82. Yntema HE (1956) Comparative legal research: some remarks on ‘looking out of the cave’. Mich Law Rev 54(7):899, 901Google Scholar
  83. Zaphiriou GA (1982) Use of comparative law by the legislator. Am J Comp Law 30:71 ffGoogle Scholar
  84. Zimmerman A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-frahm K (eds) (2006) The Statute of the International Court of Justice, A Commentary. Oxford, pp 259–261Google Scholar
  85. Zimmerman R (1995) Common law and civil law, Amerika und Europa – zu diesem Band. In: Zimmerman R (ed) Amerikanische Rechtskultur und europäisches Privatrecht. Tübingen, 1Google Scholar
  86. Zweigert K (1966) Des solutions identiques par des voies différentes. Revue internationale de droit comparé, 5 ffGoogle Scholar
  87. Zweigert K, Kötz H (1987) An introduction to comparative law, 2nd edn. Oxford, p 16Google Scholar
  88. Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) An introduction to comparative law, 3rd edn. Oxford, pp 13–31Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations