Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:45:35.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LEGAL TRANSPLANTS IN LEGISLATION: DEFUSING THE TRAP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2008

Helen Xanthaki
Helen Xanthaki
Affiliation:
Dr H Xanthaki (LLB, Athens; M Jur; PhD, Dunelm) is a Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London; and Academic Director, Sir William Dale Centre for Legislative Studies, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Shorter Articles, Comments and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 659 - 673
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘Borrowing from another legal system is the most common form of legal change’: see A Watson, Legal Origins and Legal Change (Hambledon Press, London, 1991) 73; also see J Fedtke, ‘Legal Transplants’ in J Smits (ed), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 2006) 434.

2 Some view engagement in comparative research as ‘causing an undesired slowing down of the legislative process’; see W Duk, Wetgeving en rechtsvergelijking, Preadvies voor de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking, no. 34 (Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 1984) 130–1.

3 See JHM van Erp, ‘The Use of Comparative Law in the Legislative Process’ in Netherlands Reports to the 15th International Congress of Comparative Law (Bristol, 1998) 36, available online at <http://www.library.uu.nl/publarchief/jb/congres/01809180/n15/b3.pdf>.

4 See S Corcoran, ‘Comparative Corporate Law Research Methodology’ (1996) 3 Canberra Law Review 54, 56.

5 See van Erp (n 3) 36–37.

6 See JM Miller, ‘A Typology of Legal Transplants: Using Sociology, Legal History and Argentine Examples to Explain the Transplant Process’ (2003) 51 AJCL 842, 849 and 854.

7 See EA Hoebel, The Law of Primitive Man (Harvard University Press, Harvard, 1954) 10.

8 See E Örücü, ‘Law as Transposition’ (2000) 52 ICLQ 205, 219.

9 See Miller (n 6) 845 and 847.

10 See P de Cruz, Comparative Law in a Changing World (Routledge-Cavendish, London and New York, 2007) 513–14; also see E Örücü, ‘Critical Comparative Law: Considering Paradoxes for Legal Systems in Transition’ (2000) 4 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, available online at <http://www.ejcl.org/ejcl/41/art41-1.html>.

11 For an analysis of the term see E Öcürü, ‘Critical Comparative Law: Considering Paradoxes for Legal Systems in Transition’ (1999) 59 Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking; also see Öcürü (n 8) 206.

12 See A Watson, ‘Legal Transplants and Law Reform’ (1976) 92 LQR 79, 80; also see A Watson, Legal Transplants: An Approach to Comparative Law (Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, 1974); A Watson, ‘Legal transplants and European Private Law’ in Ius Commune Lectures on European Private Law, no 2 (Unigraphic, Maastricht, 2000).

13 See P Legrand, ‘The Impossibility of Legal Transplants’ [1997] Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 111.

14 See O Kahn-Freund, ‘On Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law’ (1974) 37 MLR 1, 7.

15 See A and R Seidman, State and Law in the Developing Process: Problem Solving and Institutional Change in the Developing World (Macmillan Publishers, Basingstoke, 1994) 44–46.

16 See H Gutteridge, Comparative Law (CUP, Cambridge, 1949) 73; also see WW Buckland and AD McNair, Roman Law and Common Law (CUP, Cambridge, 1936).

17 C Schmidthoff, ‘The Science of Comparative Law’ [1939] Cambridge Law Journal 94, 96.

18 See F Teubner, ‘Legal Irritants: Good Faith in British Law or How Unifying Law Wends Up in New Divergences’ (1998) 61 MLR 11; also see JWF Allison, A Continental Distinction in the Common Law: A Historical and Comparative Perspective on English Public Law (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996) 16.

19 See RB Schlesinger “The Common Core of Legal Systems: An Emerging Subject of Comparative Study' in K Nadelmann, A von Mehren and J Hazard (eds), XXth Century Comparative and Conflicts Law, Legal Essays in Honour of Hessel E Yntema (AW Sythoff, Leiden, 1961); also see RB Schlesinger, ‘Research on the General Principles of Law Recognised by Civilised Nations’ (1957) 51 AJIL 734.

20 See K Zweigert and H Kötz, Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung, 3. neubearbeitete Auflage (JCB Mohr, Tübingen, 1996).

21 See K Zweigert and K Sier, ‘Jhering's Influence on the Development of Comparative Legal Method’ (1971) 19 AJCL 215–31.

22 See K Jhering, Geist des römischen Rechts, Volume 1 (1955) 8–9.

23 See J Brown, A Kudan and K McGeeney, ‘Improving Legislation through Social Analysis: A Case Study in Methodology from the Water Sector in Uzbekistan’ (2005) 5 Sustainable Development Law and Policy 49, 49.

24 See LA Mistelis, ‘Regulatory Aspects: Globalization, Harmonization, Legal Transplants, and Law Reform— Some Fundamental Observations’ (2000) 34 International Lawyer 1059.

25 See S Zhuang, ‘Legal Transplantation in the People's Republic of China: A Response to Alan Watson’ [2006] European Journal of Law Reform 215, 223.

26 See R Petrella, ‘Globalization and Internationalization: The Dynamics of the Emerging World Order’ in R Boyer and D Drache (eds), States against Markets: the Limits of Globalization (Routledge, London and New York, 1996) 132.

27 DE Elliott, ‘Getting Better Instructions for Legislative Drafting’ (Just Language Conference, 21 October 1992, Victoria, British Columbia) available online at <http://www.davidelliott.ca/papers/getting.htm#8>.

28 G Bowmann, ‘Legislation and Explanation’ [2000] Loophole, available online at <www.opc.gov.au/calc/docs/calc-june/audience.htm>.

29 For an analysis of causality in sociological research see C Ragin and D Zaret, ‘Theory and Method in Comparative Research: Two Strategies’ (1983) 61 Social Forces 731–54.

30 L-J Constantinesco, Traité de droit comparé, Tome II: La méthode comparative (Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, Paris, 1974).

31 See Constantinesco, ibid 23–24, 36–37 and 67 fnn 38, 78–79, 88, 123 and 318.

32 See D Kokkini-Iatridou et al, Een inleiding tot het rechtsvergelijkende onderzoek (Kluwer, Deventer, 1998) 131–32; also see D Kokkini-Iatridou, ‘The Tertium Comparationis in the Micro-Comparative Research’ in Law in East and West: On the Occasion of the 30th Anniversary of the Institute of Comparative Law, Waseda University (Waseda University, Tokyo, 1988) 235–36.

33 See G Thornton, Legislative Drafting (4th edn, Butterworths, London, 1996) 128.

34 See de Cruz (n 10) 512.

35 See C Van Laer, Het nut van comparatieve begrippen, Ius Commune Europaeum 20 (diss) (Intersentia, Antwerpen/Groningen, 1997).

36 See C Van Laer, ‘The Applicability of Comparative Concepts’ (1998) 2 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, available online at <http://www.ejcl.org/22/art22-1.html>.

37 ‘Wer eine fremde bewegliche Sache einem anderen in der Absicht wegnimmt, dieselbe sich rechtswidrig zuzueignen, wird … bestraft.’: Article 242 Strafgezetzbuch; see <http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/germlaws/stgb/p242.html>.

38 See CJP van Laer, ‘Comparative Concepts and Connective Integration’ (Fifth Benelux-Scandinavian Conference on Legal Theory: European Legal Integration and Analytical Legal Theory, Maastricht, 28–29 October 2002).

39 See Zweigert and Kötz (n 20) 11.

40 See U Drobnig, ‘Rechtsvergleichung und Rechtssoziologie’ [1953] RabelsZ 295–308.

41 See O Pfersmann, ‘Le droit comparé comme interpretation et comme théorie du droit’ [2001] Revue internationale de droit compare 275–88; also see A Peters and H Schwenke, ‘Comparative Law beyond Post-Modernism’ (2000) 49 ICLQ 800, 833.

42 See R Mkuye, ‘Controls and Safeguards of Delegated Legislation: a Case Study of Tanzania’ [2007] European Journal of Law Reform 205–42.

43 See J Reitz, ‘How to Do Comparative Law’ (1998) 46 AJCL 620, 617; M Reimann, ‘The Progress and Failure of Comparative Law in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century’ (2003) 50 AJCL 671; M Ancel, ‘Le problème de la comparabilité et la méthode fonctionnelle en droit comparé’ in RH Graveson et I Zajtay (eds), Festschrift für Imre Zajtay (Mohr, Tübingen, 1982) 1–6; H Collins, ‘Methods and Aims of Comparative Contract Law’ (1989) 11 OJLS 396, 399; H Kötz, ‘Comparative Law in Germany Today’ (1999) 51 Revue internationale de droit comparé 753, 755; PG Monateri, ‘Critique et différence: Le droit comparé en Italie’ (1999) 51 Revue internationale de droit comparé 989, 991.

44 See J Gerring, ‘Causation: A Unified Framework to Social Sciences’ (2005) 17 Journal of Theoretical Politics 163–98.

45 See A George and A Bennett, Case Studies and Theories of Development in the Social Sciences (MIT Press, Cambridge Mass, 2005) 39.

46 See M Martinek, ‘Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Rechtsvergleichung und des Internationalen Privatrechts in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’ in D Simon (ed), Rechtswissenschaft in der Bonner Republik (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a M, 1994) 529–619.

47 See M Graziadei, ‘The Functional Heritage’ in P Legrand and R Munday (eds), Comparative Legal Studies: Traditions and Transitions (CUP, Cambridge, 2003) 100; also see V Valentine Palmer, ‘From Lerotholi to Lando: Some Examples of Comparative Law Methodology’ (2004) 4 GlobalJurist Frontiers 24, available online at <http://www.bepress.com/gj/frontiers/vol4/iss2/art1>.

48 See JJ Kingsley, ‘Legal Transplantation: is this what the Doctor Ordered and Are the Blood Types Compatible? The Application of Interdisciplinary Research to Law Reform in the Developing World—A Case Study of Corporate Governance in Indonesia’ (2004) 21 Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 493–534; also see WJ Wagner, ‘Team Work Planning of a Comparative Law Research Project’ (1967–68) 17 Buffalo Law Review 349, 349.

49 See P Eltzbacher, Über Rechtsbegriffe (J Guttentag, Berlin, 1900) 47 and 51.

50 See U Drobnig, ‘Methodenfragen der Rechtsvergleichung im Lichte der International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law’ [1969] Ius Privatum Gentium—Festschrift Rheinstein 221, 228–33.

51 G Sartori, Social Science Concepts: A Systematic Analysis (Sage Publications, London, 1984).

52 See D Collier and JE Mahon, Jr, ‘Conceptual “Stretching” Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis’ (1993) 87 The American Political Science Review 845, 845.

53 See P Butt, ‘Modern Drafting’ (2002) 23 Statute Law Review 12, 23; see contra G Fraser, ‘In Support of Ambiguity’ [2000] Policy Options 21–26.

54 See D Campbell and J Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research (Rand-McNally, Chicago, 1963); also see TD Cook and DT Campbell, Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1979).

55 See RK Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1994).

56 See J Gerring, ‘What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?’ (2004) 98 American Political Science Review 341–54.

57 See H Xanthaki, ‘The Judiciary-Based System of Child Support in Germany, France and Greece: An Effective Suggestion?’ (2000) 22 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 295–311.

58 See R Hague, M Harrop and S Breslin, Comparative Government and Politics: And Introduction (MacMillan, Basingstoke, 1998).

59 See S Weatherill, ‘A Case Study in Judicial Activism in the 1990s: The Status Before National Courts of Measures Wrongfully Un-Notified to the Commission’ in D O'Keefe and A Bavasso (eds), Judicial Review in European Union Law: Liber Amicorum in Honour of Lord Slynn of Hadley (Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2000) 481–503.

60 See, eg, a brief survey of small claims procedures as a means of identifying a minimum common denominator in JP Cortes Dieguez, ‘Does the Proposed European Procedure Enhance the Resolution of Small Claims?’ (2008) 27 Civil Justice Quarterly 83–97.

61 See M Lasser, ‘Anticipating Three Models of Judicial Control, Debate and Legitimacy: The European Court of Justice, the Cour de cassation and the United States Supreme Court’ (Jean Monnet Working Paper 1/03, NYU School of Law).

62 See H Xanthaki, Expanding Your Company in France, Italy and Greece: Problems and EC Law Solutions (Sakkoulas/Giuffrè, Athens/Komotini/Milan, 2002) 180–207.

63 See H Eckstein, ‘Case Study and Theory in Political Science’ in FI Greenstein and NW Polsby (eds), The Handbook of Political Science (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1975) 127.

64 See M-P F Granger, ‘National Applications of Francovich and the Construction of a European Administrative Ius Commune’ (2007) 32 European Law Review 157–92.

65 G Alpa, ‘The Italian Interpretation of the Code Civil and French Proposals for Recodification’ (2006) 17 European Business Law Review 1505–33.

66 See B Flyvbjerg, ‘Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research’ in C Seale, G Gobo, JF Gubrium and D Silverman (eds), Qualitative Research Practice (Sage, London and Thousand Oaks, CA, 2004) 420–34.

67 See BG Peters, Comparative Politics: Theories and Methods (New York University Press, New York, 1998).

68 See R Rose, ‘Comparing Forms of Comparative Analysis’ (1991) 39 Political Studies 446, 459.

69 See A Kazancigil, ‘The Deviant Case in Comparative Analysis: High Stateness in Comparative Analsysis’ in M Dogan and A Kazancigil, Comparing Nations: Concepts, Strategies, Substance (Blackwell, London, 1994) 214.

70 See G Sartori, ‘Comparing and Miscomparing’ [1991] 3 Journal of Theoretical Politics 243, 243.