Legal Emulation Between Regulatory Competition and Comparative Law

  • Pierre Larouche


This chapter puts forward an alternative path for theorizing the interaction of national legal systems, next to regulatory competition models and comparative law endeavors, called legal emulation. Regulatory competition suffers from its very restrictive assumptions, which make it a relatively rare occurrence in practice. It is also endogenously driven, ignoring legal change brought about from within the law, and it takes an impoverished view of law. As for comparative law, it has tended to remain mostly monodisciplinary. It usually lacks a dynamic dimension. Legal emulation tries to combine the more dynamic perspective of regulatory competition, with the endogeneity of comparative law. It rests on a theoretical perspective whereby the law is conceived as the outcome of a series of choices—substantive or institutional, fundamental, or transient—made between different options (legal science would then be the investigation of the set of those choices). This chapter provides an outline of the legal emulation model. Legal emulation ties together and explains a number of existing phenomena in many legal orders, such as constitutional, EU or human rights review; impact assessment; peer review within networks of authorities; or the open method of coordination. Finally, the chapter outlines some consequences of adopting a legal emulation model.


Corporate Governance Legal Order Product Liability Regulatory Competition Legal Community 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adams M, Griffiths J (2012) Against comparative method. explaining similarities and differences. In: Adams, Bomhoff (eds), Practice and theory in comparative law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  2. Barnard C (2000) Social dumping and the race to the bottom: some lessons for the European Union from Deleware?, E.L. Rev. 25:57Google Scholar
  3. Bebchuk L (1992) Federalism and the corporation: the desirable limits to state competition in corporate law, Harv. L Rev. 105:1435Google Scholar
  4. Berkowitz D et al (2003) The transplant effect, Am J Comp Law 51:163Google Scholar
  5. Bratton W (2011) How does corporate mobility affect lawmaking? a comparative analysis. In: Prentice, Reisberg (eds), Corporate finance law in the UK and EU, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Bussani M, Mattei U (1997–1998) The common core approach to european private law, Col. J Eur Law 3:339Google Scholar
  7. Cary W (1974) Federalism and corporate law: Reflections upon delaware, Yale L.J. 83:663Google Scholar
  8. Easterbrook F (1984) Managers’ discretion and investors’ welfare: Theories and evidence, Del. J Corp L 9:540Google Scholar
  9. David R (1982) Les grands systèmes de droit contemporains, Dalloz, ParisGoogle Scholar
  10. David R (2002) Les grands systèmes de droit contemporains. Dalloz, ParisGoogle Scholar
  11. De Coninck J (2010) The functional method of comparative law: Quo vadis, RabelsZ 74:318Google Scholar
  12. Easterbrook F (1983) Antitrust and the economics of federalism, 26. J L Econ 23:34–35Google Scholar
  13. Epple D, Zelenitz A (1981a) The implications of competition among jurisdictions: does Tiebout need politics? J Pol, Econ 1197Google Scholar
  14. Epple D and Zelenitz A (1981) The roles of jurisdictional competition and of collective choice institutions in the market for local public good, Am Econ Rev 71:87Google Scholar
  15. Esty D, Geradin D (2001a) Regulatory co-opetition. In: Esty, Geradin (eds), Regulatory competition and economic integration: comparative perspectives, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Esty D, Geradin D (2001b) Regulatory competition and economic integration: comparative perspectives. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischel D (1982) The “Race to the Bottom” revisited: reflections on recent developments in Delaware’s CORPORATION Law, Nw U L Rev 76:913Google Scholar
  18. Gabor B (2010) Institutional and regulatory competition in Europe: connecting some pieces of the puzzle on when, how and why it can work, Ph.D. thesis, European University Institute, FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  19. Garcimartín Alférez F (1999) Regulatory competition: a private international law approach, Eur J L Econ 8:251Google Scholar
  20. Geradin D, McCahery J (2004) Regulatory co-opetition: transcending the regulatory competition debate. In: Jordana, Levi-Faur (eds), The politics of regulation, institutions and regulatory reforms in the age of governance, Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  21. Glenn P (2010) Legal traditions of the world. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Hadfield G (2008) The levers of legal design: Institutional determinants of the quality of law, J Comp Econ 36:43Google Scholar
  23. Heine K and Kerber W (2002) European corporate laws, regulatory competition and path dependence, Eur J L Econ 13:47Google Scholar
  24. Hertig G, McCahery J (2003) Company and takeover law reforms in Europe: misguided harmonization efforts or regulatory competition?, Eur Bus Org L Rev 4:179Google Scholar
  25. hesselink m (2006) the politics of a european civil code. in: hesselink (ed), the Politics of a European civil code, Kluwer law international, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  26. La Porta R et al. (1998) Law and Finance, J Pol Econ 106:1113Google Scholar
  27. La Porta R et al. (2008) The economic consequences of legal origins, J Econ Lit 46:285Google Scholar
  28. Larouche P (2000) Ius commune casebooks for the common law of Europe: presentation, progress, rationale, European review of private law 8:101Google Scholar
  29. Legrand P (1996) European legal systems are not converging, Int Comp L Q 45:52Google Scholar
  30. Mahner M, Bunge M (2001) Function and functionalism: a synthetic perspective, Philos Sci. 68:75Google Scholar
  31. Mattei U (1997–1998) The Issue of European civil codification and legal scholarship: biases, strategies and developments, Hastings Int Comp L Rev 21:883Google Scholar
  32. Mattei U (1997) Comparative law and economics. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  33. Mattei U (1994) Efficiency in legal transplants: an essay in comparative law and economics, Int Rev L Econ 14:3Google Scholar
  34. Meuwese A (2008) Impact assessment in eu lawmaking. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  35. Michaels R (2006) The functional method of comparative law. In: Reiman, Zimmerman, (eds), The Oxford handbook of comparative law, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Ogus A (2002) The economic basis of legal culture: networks and monopolization, Oxf J Leg Stud 22:419Google Scholar
  37. Ogus A (1999) Competition between national legal systems. A contribution for economic analysis to comparative law, Int Comp L Q 48:405Google Scholar
  38. Ogus A, Garoupa N (2006) A strategic interpretation of legal transplants, J Leg Stud 35:339Google Scholar
  39. Pelkmans J et al. (2000) Reforming product regulation in the EU. In: Galli, Pelkmans (eds) Regulatory reform and competitiveness in Europe, Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  40. Prechal S et al (2008) The coherence of EU law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Radaelli C (2004) The puzzle of regulatory competition, J Pub Policy 24:1Google Scholar
  42. Reimann M (2002) The progress and failure of comparative law in the second half of the twentieth century, Am J Comp L 50:671Google Scholar
  43. Ringe WG (2011) Sparking regulatory competition in European company law: the impact of the Centros line of Case-Law and its concept of ‘abuse of law. In: de la Feria, Vogenauer (eds), prohibition of abuse law—a new general principle of EU law, Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Rheinstein M (1937–1938) Teaching comparative law, U Chi L Rev 5:615Google Scholar
  45. Rheinstein M (1987) Einführung in die rechtsvergleichung. Beck, MunichGoogle Scholar
  46. Romano R (1985) Law as a product: some pieces of the incorporation puzzle, J Law Econ Org 1:225Google Scholar
  47. Sacco R (1991a) Legal formants: a dynamic approach to comparative law (Part I), Am J Comp L 39:1Google Scholar
  48. Sacco R (1991b) Legal formants: a dynamic approach to comparative law (Part II), Am J Comp L 39:343Google Scholar
  49. Sacco R (2001) diversity and uniformity in the law, Am J Comp L 49:171Google Scholar
  50. Samuelson P (1954) The pure theory of public expenditures, R Econ Stat 36:387Google Scholar
  51. Schlesinger R (1970) Comparative law. Foundation Press, MineolaGoogle Scholar
  52. Sykes A (2000) Regulatory competition or regulatory harmonization? a silly question?, J Int Econ L 3:257Google Scholar
  53. Szyszczak E (2006) Experimental governance: the open method of co-ordination, Eur L J 12:486Google Scholar
  54. Tiebout C (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures, J Pol Econ 64:416Google Scholar
  55. Teubner G (1998) Legal irritants: good faith in British law or how unifying law ends up in new divergences, Mod L Rev 61:11Google Scholar
  56. Van den Bergh R (1994) The subsidiarity principle in European community law: some insights from law and Economics, Maastricht J Eur Comp L 1:337Google Scholar
  57. Van den Bergh R (2000) Towards an institutional legal framework for regulatory competition in Europe, KYKLOS 53:435Google Scholar
  58. Van Gerven W (1996) Bridging the unbridgeable: community and national tort laws after Francovich and Brasserie, Int’l Comp L Q 45:507Google Scholar
  59. Van Gerven W, Lever J, Larouche P (2000) Ius commune casebooks for the common law of Europe: tort Law. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  60. Verschuuren J (2009) The impact of legislation. Martinus Nijhoff, LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Von Bar C et al (2009) Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law: draft common frame of reference (DCFR), outline edition, sellier. European Law Publishers, MunichGoogle Scholar
  62. Watson A (1977) Society and legal change. Scottish Academic Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  63. Watson A (1978) Comparative law and legal change, Camb L J 37:313Google Scholar
  64. Watson A (1982–1983) Legal change: sources of law and legal culture, U Pa L Rev 131:1121Google Scholar
  65. Watson A (1993) Legal transplants: an approach to comparative law. University of Georgia Press, AthensGoogle Scholar
  66. Winter R (1977) State law, shareholder protection, and the theory of the corporation, J Leg Stud 6:251Google Scholar
  67. Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) An introduction to comparative law, translated by Tony Weir. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg Law SchoolTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations