The system of German criminal law is the product of a centuries-long project of scientific discovery undertaken by scholars who traditionally have defined the science of criminal law (Strafrechtswissenschaft) in contradistinction to the markedly unscientific business of criminal justice policy (Kriminalpolitik). Insular and formalistic by design, the resulting highly differentiated taxonomy of doctrinal categories can claim only a loose connection to rules of positive law as codified in the general part of the German Criminal Code and instead derives more directly from scientific inquiries into the ontology of crime dating back to the early decades of the twentieth century.

From its first line, Günter Frankenberg's article Critical Comparisons, published twenty years ago, leaves no doubt as to its radical claim and aspiration. Nothing short of attempting to “re-think” comparative law, the article sets out to attack many of the dearly held beliefs in the scholarship and practice of comparative law. The beliefs, the history, the believers, their work and struggles – they are all there. Frankenberg plows through them in order to lay bare what he conceives of as being an incorrectly defended myth of scholarly objectivity among many of the field's pioneers and contemporary protagonists. Not being alone in his struggle of fiercely assailing the citadels of a nearly century-old comparativist scholarly venture, his crucial contribution to the field cannot now be denied. Whether we consider its open, frank, almost casual style, or its wide reaching theoretical reach, Critical Comparisons remains one of the most eminent articulations of the crisis of comparative law in its first century. At the time of the article's 20th birthday, it is time to recollect, reassess and reconsider its main arguments and to play them back to the author and his readers. After a brief reconstruction of the article's main contentions (Part B), this brief homage will contextualize the article within a larger attempt among comparativists and legal theorists to work towards a transnational legal science (Part C).

On April 12, 2005, the Bundesverfassunsgreicht (German Federal Constitutional Court) ruled that regulations in the Strafprozessordnung (StPO – Code of Criminal Procedure) concerning police use of global positioning systems (GPS) did not violate the Grundgesetz (GG – German Constitution or Basic Law) so long as the investigators did not use the technology in conjunction with other surveillance methods that could lead to the construction of a personality profile of the suspect observed. The following comment examines the facts of the case and evaluates the Court's decision in detail.

In a world of societies ever more closely interrelating to each other, lawyers face the challenge of crossing the borders of their national legal system and looking beyond its fundamental source of identity – the constitution. Having this thought in mind, Harald Eberhard, Konrad Lachmayer and Gerhard Thallinger organized the First Vienna Workshop on International Constitutional Law held on 20 and 21 May 2005, bringing together members of the academic community, legal officers in International Organizations and law students. The Workshop offered eight lectures and fruitful discussions on the comparative analysis of constitutional law thus providing a new impetus to a field of law of steadily growing importance to which, so far, too little attention has been given.

The following essay has been written by team members of Johann Wolfgang Goethe University (Frankfurt/ Main, Germany) who participated in the 12th Vis Moot. Its purpose is to raise interest in the moot by means of combining a general descriptive overview with personal experiences.