Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T15:07:05.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodological Problems in Comparative Law*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

K. Zweigert
Get access

Extract

The methodical aspects of comparative law is a field which has, up to now, hardly been cultivated systematically although probably more so in Israel than in some other countries.

The subject normally evokes the question whether comparative law is a legal technique, a method of legal thinking, or an autonomous discipline of legal science, a field of law in its own right. I do not intend to deal with this problem because I think the effort will yield little. Any possible answer I would suggest, is true only to some extent depending on the context: if, for example, comparative law is used for the interpretation of a legal rule, it certainly belongs to the method of interpretation and thus lies in the field of legal method; if a special course in comparative law is taught to introduce students to its techniques and its basic premises, you may properly regard it as a discipline of its own.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , October 1972 , pp. 465 - 474
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1972

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 Cf. most recently the extensive discussion by Constantinesco, Rechtsvergleichung, vol. I (1971) 217Google Scholaret seq.

2 Radbruch, , Einführung in die Rechtswissenschaft (12th ed., 1969) 253.Google Scholar

3 Cf. Zweigert, and Kötz, , Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung vol. II (1969) 31Google Scholaret seq.

4 Cf. Gibson's, Conveyancing (18th ed. 1959) 670Google Scholaret seq.; Cheshire, , The Modern Law of Real Property (10th ed., 1967) 837Google Scholaret seq.

5 Cf. Johnstone, , “Title Insurance” (1956–57) 66 Yale L. J., 492CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goth, , “Title Insurance in California” (1951) 39 Cal.L.R. 235CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nelson, , “Conveyancing in New York” (1957–58) 43 Cornell L.Q. 617.Google Scholar

6 For details see Loeber, , “Rechtsvergleichung zwischen Ländern mit verschiedener Wirtschaftsordnung” (1961) 26 Rabels Z 201.Google Scholar

7 For a recent example with particular emphasis on method, see Péteri, , “Some Aspects of the Sociological Approach in Comparative Law” in Droit Hongrois-Droit Comparé (1970) 75.Google Scholar

8 Das sowjetische Wirtschaftsrecht (1968) 18.

9 Loeber, op. cit. pp. 223 et seq.

10 Loeber, op. cit. p. 226.

11 Rabel, , “Deutsches und amerikanisches Recht” (1951) 16 Rabels Z 340, 357.Google Scholar

12 Rabel, , “Die Fachgebiete des Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituts für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht” 25 Jahre Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften III (1937) 77, 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; reprinted in Rabel, , Gesammelte Aufsätze II (Leser, ed., 1967) 180, 186.Google Scholar

13 Binder, , Philosophie des Rechts (1925) 948.Google Scholar

14 Rabel, (1951) 16 Rabels Z 359.Google Scholar