Advertisement

Plethora of Comparative Studies

  • Jurgita Malinauskaite
Chapter

Abstract

Comparative law and comparative studies are indispensable in modern society. In our lives there are ongoing processes of borrowing, transplantation, imitation and imposition of law and increasing regional or even global interdependence (potentially both desired and undesired). Given that the main focus of this book is on harmonisation, the comparative law argument becomes indispensable, as harmonisation without comparative studies is not possible. Yet, comparative studies do not guarantee successful harmonisation. While the book does not aim to address the success of the EU legal transplants, nonetheless, it examines the extent to which harmonisation is taking place. Traditionally, comparative studies can be employed in the EU to achieve its ultimate goal of European integration which involves harmonising national laws. There can also be a vice versa process where the formation of the European Union with its integration objective can provide a strong impulse for comparative studies. This can be witnessed in a pronounced revival of both academic and practical interest in comparative studies within in the EU, where ‘comparativism plays a crucial role in the “nurturing” of this [] supranational system of law’ with its legal order being defined by scholars as ‘a real laboratory for the study of the comparative methods’.

References

  1. Banakas S (2002) The contribution of comparative law to the harmonisation of European private law. www.comparazionedirittocivile.it. Accessed 20 July 2017
  2. Bell J (1995) English law and French law – not so different? Curr Leg Probl 48:63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkowitz D et al (2003) The transplant effect. Am J Comp Law 51:163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernatt M, Botta M, Svetlicinii A (2018) The right of defense in the decentralized system of EU competition law enforcement: a call for harmonization from central and Eastern Europe. World Compet Law Econ Rev 41(3)Google Scholar
  5. Bogdan M (1994) Comparative law. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  6. Botta M, Svetliciini A (2015) The right of fair trial in competition law proceedings: Quo Vadis Courts of the new EU member states? In: Skoczny T, Nihoul P (eds). Procedural fairness in competition proceedings, Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  7. Botta M, Svetlicinii A, Bernatt M (2015) The assessment of the effect on trade by the national competition authorities of the “new” member states: another legal partition of the internal market? Common Mark Law Rev 52(5):1247–1275Google Scholar
  8. Cappelletti M (1970) Social and political aspects of civil procedure – reforms and trends in Western and Eastern Europe. Mich Law Rev 69(5):847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cauffman C, Hao Q (eds) (2016) Procedural rights in competition law in the EU and China. China-EU Law Series, vol 3. Springer, Berlin.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48735-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Commission Staff Working Paper Accompanying the Report on the Functioning of Regulation 1/2003, COM(2009) 206 finalGoogle Scholar
  11. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Better regulation for better results – an EU agenda, COM(2015) 215 finalGoogle Scholar
  12. Cotterell R (1997) The concept of legal culture. In: Nelken D (ed) Comparing legal cultures. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Cotterell R (2007) Is it so bad to be different? Comparative law and appreciation of diversity. In: Orucu E, Nelken D (eds) Comparative law: a handbook. HartGoogle Scholar
  14. Crane DA (2009) Substance, procedure, and institutions in the international harmonization of competition policy. Chicago J Int Law 10(1):143–159Google Scholar
  15. Cseres K (2010) The impact of regulation 1/2003 in the new member states. Compet Law Rev 6(2):145–182Google Scholar
  16. Dabbah MM (2010) International and comparative competition law. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Daniels MJ (1952) Latent and manifest function of the theory and research of Bronislaw Malinowski. J Arkansas Acad Sci 5:143–147Google Scholar
  18. David R, Brierley JEC (1985) Major legal systems in the world today. Stevens & Sons, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. De Cruz P (1995) Comparative law in a changing world. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. De Geest G, Van den Bergh R (2004) Introduction. In: De Geest G, Van den Bergh R (eds) Comparative law and economics, vol 1. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  21. Decision of the Council and of the Commission of 29 May 1998 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Communities and the Government of the United States of America on the application of positive comity principles in the enforcement of their competition laws, OJ L 173, 18.6.1998, pp 26–27 Google Scholar
  22. Demleitner N (1999) Combating legal ethnocentrism: comparative law sets boundaries. Arizona State Law J 31:737–762Google Scholar
  23. Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market (Text with EEA relevance.) OJ L 11, 14.1.2019, pp 3–33Google Scholar
  24. Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 349, 5.12.2014, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  25. Donahue C (2008) Comparative law before the Code Napoleon. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Duns J, Duke A, Sweeney B (2015) Comparative competition law. Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  27. Ehlermann CD (2000) The modernization of EC antitrust policy: a legal and cultural revolution. Common Mark Law Rev 37:537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ehrlich E (1939) Fundamental principles of the sociology of law (trans) Moll, WL, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Faust F (2008) Comparative law and economic analysis of law. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Fikentschcer W, Ullrich I (1998) Comparative competition law: approaching an international system of antitrust law. HannsGoogle Scholar
  31. Fingleton J et al (1996) Competition policy and the transformation of central Europe. Centre for Economic Policy ResearchGoogle Scholar
  32. Foster NHD (2007) Comparative commercial law: rules or context. In: Örücü E, Nelken D (eds) Comparative law: a handbook. HartGoogle Scholar
  33. Fox EM (2003a) Can we solve the antitrust problems of globalization by extraterritoriality and cooperation? Antitrust Bull 48(2):355–376Google Scholar
  34. Fox EM (2003b) International law and the Doha Dome. Virginia J Int Law 43:911Google Scholar
  35. Fox EM (2007) Economic development, poverty and antitrust: the other path. Southwest J Law Trade Am 13:211Google Scholar
  36. Frankenberg G (1985) Critical comparisons: re-thinking comparative law. Harv Int Law J 26(2):411–455Google Scholar
  37. Gal MS, Fox EM (2014) Drafting competition law for developing jurisdictions: learning from experience. NELLCO Legal Scholarship Repository. New York University Law and Economics Working PapersGoogle Scholar
  38. Gerber D (2005) Competition law. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Gerber D (2008) Competition law and the institutional embeddedness of economics. In: Drexl J, Idot L, Moneger J (eds) Economic theory and competition law, Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  40. Glen HP (2004) Legal traditions of the world, 2nd edn. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  41. Glenn P (2007) Comparing. In: Örücü E, Nelken D (eds) Comparative law: a handbook. HartGoogle Scholar
  42. Gottwald P (2005) Comparative civil procedure. Ritsumeikan Law Rev 22:23Google Scholar
  43. Graziadei M (2003) The functionalist heritage. In: Legrand P, Munday R (eds). Comparative legal studies: traditions and transitions, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  44. Kahn-Freund O (1974) On uses and misuses of comparative law. Mod Law Rev 37(1)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kanda H, Milhaupt CJ (2003) Re-examining legal transplants: the director’s fiduciary duty in Japanese corporate law. Am J Comp Law 51:887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kennedy D (1991) The stakes of law, or Hale and Foucault! Legal Stud Forum 15:327Google Scholar
  47. Kennedy D (2002) The methods and politics. In: Legrand P, Munday R (eds) Comparative legal studies: traditions and transitions. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  48. Kiikeri M (2012) Comparative legal reasoning and European law. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  49. Kovacic WE (2001) Transatlantic turbulence: the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger and international competition policy. Antitrust Law J 68:805Google Scholar
  50. Kovacic WE (2002) Extraterritoriality, institutions, and convergence in international competition policy. Am Soc Int Law Proc 97:309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kovacic WE (2008) Competition Policy in the European Union and the United States: Convergence or Divergence? Bates White Fifth Annual Antitrust Conference. Available at: https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/competition-policy-european-union-and-united-states-convergence-or-divergence/080602bateswhite.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2019
  52. Langenfield J, Blitzer MW (1991) Is competition policy the last thing central and Eastern Europe need? Am Univ Int Law Rev 6(3):347–398Google Scholar
  53. Lasser M (2003) The question of understanding. In: Legrand P, Munday R (eds). Comparative legal studies: traditions and transitions, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  54. Legrand P (1996) European legal systems are converging. Int Comp Law Q 45:52–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Legrand P (1997) The impossibility of legal transplant. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 4:111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Legrand P (2003) The same and the different. In: Legrand P, Munday R (eds) Comparative legal studies: traditions and transitions. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  57. Legrand P (2017) Jameses at play: a tractation on the comparison of laws. Am J Comp Law 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lianos I (2009) Judging economists: economic expertise in competition litigation: a European view. In: Lianos I, Kokkoris I (eds) Towards an optimal competition law system. Kluwer International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  59. Lianos I, Andreangelli A (2010) Competition law enforcement and governance in Europe: a comparative institutions analysis. Global Administrative Law (GAL) Project. NYU Law SchoolGoogle Scholar
  60. Mahoney PG (2001) The common law and economic growth: Hayek might be right. J Legal Stud 30:503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Malinauskaite J (2010a) Harmonisation of competition law in the context of globalisation. Eur Bus Law Rev 21(3):369–397Google Scholar
  62. Malinauskaite J (2010b) Merger control in post-communist countries: EC merger regulation in small market economies. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  63. Malinauskaite J, Cauffman C (2018) The transposition of the antitrust damages directive in the small member states of the EU—a comparative perspective. J Eur Compet Law Pract 9(8):496–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Markesinis B (1990) Comparative law — a subject in search of an audience. Mod Law Rev 53(1):1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1990.tb01788.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mastalir RW (1993) Regulation in the new free market of Eastern Europe: a comparative study of antitrust laws in Poland, Hungary, Czech and Slovak Republics, and their models. N C J Int Law Commer Regul 19:61Google Scholar
  66. Mattei U (1994) Efficiency in legal transplants: an essay in comparative law and economics. Int Law Rev 14:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mattei U (1997) Comparative law and economics. University of Michigan PressGoogle Scholar
  68. Michaels R (2008) The functional method of comparative law. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) Comparative law and the Europeanization of private law. The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  69. Mistelis LA (2000) Regulatory aspects: globalization, harmonization, legal transplants, and law reform – some fundamental observations. Int Lawyer 34:1059Google Scholar
  70. Nelken D (ed) (1997) Comparing legal cultures. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. Nelken D (2003) Comparatists and transferability. In: Legrand P, Munday R (eds) Comparative legal studies: traditions and transitions. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  72. Nelken D (2004) Using the concept of legal culture. Aust J Legal Philos 29:1Google Scholar
  73. Nelken D (2007) Comparative law and comparative legal studies. In: Örücü E, Nelken D (eds) Comparative law: a handbook. HartGoogle Scholar
  74. Nelken D, Feest J (2001) Adapting legal culture. HartGoogle Scholar
  75. Ogus A (1999) Competition between national legal systems: a contribution of economic analysis to comparative law. Int Comp Law Q 48:405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Örücü E (2000) Critical comparative law: considering paradoxes for legal systems in transition. Eur J Comp Law 4. https://www.ejcl.org/41/art41-1.html
  77. Örücü E (2002) Law as transposition. Int Comp Law Q 51:205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Örücü E (2003) Unde Venit, Quo Tendit comparative law? In: Harding A, Örücü E (eds) Comparative law in the 21st century. Kluwer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  79. Örücü E (2004) The Enigma of comparative law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Örücü E (2007) Developing comparative law. In: Örücü E, Nelken D (eds) Comparative law: a handbook, HartGoogle Scholar
  81. Pieters D (2009) Functions of comparative law and practical methodology of comparing. Syllabus Research Master in Law, Leuven-TilburgGoogle Scholar
  82. Piszcz A (2017) Implementation of the EU damages Directive in Central and Eastern European Countries. Faculty of Management Press, University of WarsawGoogle Scholar
  83. Platsas AE (2008) The functional and dysfunctional in the comparative method of law: some critical remarks. Electron J Comp Law 12(3):6Google Scholar
  84. Poranond P (2018) Competition law in the ASEAN countries: regional law and national systems. Wolters KluwerGoogle Scholar
  85. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union, Explanatory memorandum, SWD(2013) 203 finalGoogle Scholar
  86. Proposal for a Directive Of The European Parliament And Of The Council to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, COM(2017) 142 finalGoogle Scholar
  87. Regulation No 864/2007, of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)Google Scholar
  88. Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) (2008) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  89. Rodger B (2014) Competition law comparative private enforcement and collective redress across the EU. Wolters Kluwer, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  90. Rodger B, Ferro MS, Marcos F (eds) (2019) The EU antitrust damages directive: transposition in the member states. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  91. Schlesinger RB (1961) The common core of legal systems: an emerging subject of comparative study. In: Nadelmann K, von Mehren A, Hazard J (eds) XXth Century comparative and conflicts law, legal essays in honour of Hessel E.Yntema. A.W.Sythoff, LeydenGoogle Scholar
  92. Seidman A, Seidman R (1994) State and law in the developing process: problem solving and institutional change in the developing world. Macmillan PublishersGoogle Scholar
  93. Seidman GI (2016) The new comparative civil procedure. In: Picker CB, Seidman G (eds) The dynamism of civil procedure - global trends and developments. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  94. Smits J (1998) A European private law as a mixed system. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 5:328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Smits J (1999) How to take the road untravelled? European private law in the making: a review essay. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 6:25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Smits JM (2007) Convergence of private law in Europe. In: Örücü E, Nelken D (eds) Comparative law: a handbook. HartGoogle Scholar
  97. Storme M (1994) Rapprochement du Droit Judiciaire de l’Union Europeenne – Approximation of judiciary law in the European Union. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  98. Svetlicinii A, Bernatt M, Botta M (2018) The Dark Matter in EU competition law: non-infringement decisions in the new EU member states before and after Tele2 Polska. Eur Law Rev 43:422–443Google Scholar
  99. Teuber G (2000) How unifying law ends up in new divergencies. In: Snyder F (ed) The Europeanisation of law: the legal effects of European integration. HartGoogle Scholar
  100. Teubner G (1998) Legal irritants: good faith in British law and how unifying law ends up in new divergences. Mod Law Rev 61:11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. The Spaak Report, Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance sur l'Europe (CVCE) 2/09/2012Google Scholar
  102. Toshkov D (2012) Compliance with EU law in Central and Eastern Europe. The disaster that didn’t happen (yet). L'Europe en Formation 364(2):91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Tully J (1995) Cultural demands for constitutional recognition. J Polit Philos 3(2):111–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Van den Bergh R (2017) Comparative competition law and economics. Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  105. Van Hoecke M (2000) The harmonisation of private law in Europe. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  106. Van Hoecke M, Warrington M (1998) Legal cultures, legal paradigms and legal doctrine: towards a new model for comparative law. Int Comp Law Q 47(3):495–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Veljanovski C (2010) Economic approaches to regulation. In: Baldwin R, Cave M, Lodge M (eds) The Oxford handbook of regulation. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  108. Vranken M (1997) Fundamentals of European civil law. Blackstone Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  109. Waelbroeck D, Slater D, Even-Shoshan G (2004) Study on the conditions of claims for damages in case of infringement of EC competition rules. Comparative Report, Ashurst (known as the Ashurst report)Google Scholar
  110. Watson A (1993) Legal transplants: an approach to comparative studies. University of Georgia Press, AthensGoogle Scholar
  111. Watson A (2000a) Law out of context. University of Georgia Press, AthensCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Watson A (2000b) Legal transplants and European private law. Electron J Comp Law 4. http://www.ejcl.org/ejcl/44/44-2.html. Accessed 20 June 2017
  113. Wood DP (2002) International harmonization of antitrust law: the tortoise or the hare? Chicago J Int Law 3:391Google Scholar
  114. Wood DP (2004) The U.S. antitrust laws in a global context. Columbia Bus Law Rev 2:265–281Google Scholar
  115. Wu Q (2013) Competition laws, globalization and legal pluralism: China’s experience. HartGoogle Scholar
  116. Yntema H (1956) Comparative legal research: some remarks on looking out of the cave. Mich Law Rev 54(7):902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Zekoll J (2008) Comparative civil procedure. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  118. Zimmerman R (2008) Comparative law and the Europeanization of private law. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  119. Zweigert K (1963) Grundsatzfragen der europäischen Rechtangleichung, ihrer Schöpfung und Sicherung. In: Caemmerer E, von Nikisch A, Zweigert K (eds) Vom deutschen zum europaischen Recht: Festschrift fur Hans DölleGoogle Scholar
  120. Zweigert K, Kötz H (1977) Introduction to comparative law. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  121. Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) Introduction to comparative law, 3rd edn. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jurgita Malinauskaite
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Brunel Law SchoolBrunel University LondonUxbridgeUK
  2. 2.Vytautas Magnus UniversityKaunasLithuania

Personalised recommendations