Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T16:02:45.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Methodological Aspects of Comparative Law. The third part of a (pre-)paradigm*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

D. Kokkini-Iatridou
D. Kokkini-Iatridou
Affiliation:
Professor of Private International Law and Comparative Law, the Free University, Amsterdam.
Get access

Extract

The great attraction of comparative law — whatever this term actually means — undoubtedly to some extent for legal scholars consists in the boundless freedom it offers. As shown in the many publications which have appeared since the 1900 Paris Congress, the most grandiose ideas have been developed, even when there is actually very little chance that they will ever be materialized and really only have a place in books of tall stories. Unattainable wishes have been expressed which are intimidating and discouraging. Views have been put forward with no other purpose than to create rather doubtful problem areas for future contemplation. Perfect methods of comparison have been recommended without any attempt at providing any illustrations of their application, while from the other side, views can even be heard which openly question whether comparative law even exists.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , August 1986 , pp. 143 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1986

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. According to the famous quotation by O. Kahn-Freund: ‘On the professor of comparative law the gods bestowed the most dangerous of all their gifts, the gifts of freedom’. Also quoted by Dunné, J.M. van, The Use of Comparative Law by the Legislator, in the Netherlands (Netherlands Reports to the Eleventh International Congress of Comparative Law, Caracas, 1982) p. 37Google Scholar.

2. At least two articles use this question as a title: Strömholm, S., ‘Gibt es eine komparative Methode'?, in Festschrift Lipstein ('Multa in Multum') (1978) p. 279 et seq.Google Scholar; d‘Oliveira, H. U. Jessurun, Bestaat Rechtsvergelijkingl, lecture for the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking (1980)Google Scholar no. 30 of the Geschriften van de Vereniging p. 2 et seq.

3. 2nd edn. (1970); see in particular chapters II, III, and IV.

4. Merryman, J.H., ‘Comparative Law and Scientific Explanation’ (in the Volume of the North American Reports for the IXth Congress of Comparative Law, Teheran, 1974) p. 80Google Scholar, notes 1 and 2, pp. 99–100; and by the same author ‘Comparative Law and Social Change: On the Origins, Style, Decline and Revival of the Law and Development Movement’, AJCL (1977) p. 457, note 1.

5. See the different opinions — with critical comments — in Constantinesco, L.-J., Traité de droit compare, III, La science des droits comparés (1983) pp. 79–249Google Scholar, and the bookreview by Langrod, G. in RIDC (1983) pp. 862–864Google Scholar, and by Tallon, D. in RCDIP (1983) pp. 799–802Google Scholar.

6. Szabo, I., ‘Le droit comparé “interne’” in Receuil d'etudes en hommage à Marc Ancel (Aspects nouveaux de la pensée juridique, I) (1975) p. 64Google Scholar; and by the same author, ‘La méthode de la comparaison', in Etudes offertes à René Rodière (1981) p. 328. However, the term ‘internal comparative law’ is used in two different senses. Some apply the term for the comparison of law in the separate states of a Federal State; others for the comparison between legal institutions, legal rules, etc., from the same legal system.

7. Zweigert, K. and Kötz, H., ‘Einführung', Rechtsvergleichung auf dent Gebiete des Privatrechts, I: Grundlagen, 2nd edn. (1984) pp. 51–52Google Scholar.

8. Schwarz-Lieberman, H.A., Droit Comparé, Théorie générale et Principes (1978) p. 47Google Scholar.

9. Neumayer, K.H., ‘Fremdes Recht aus Büchern, fremde Rechtswirklichkeit und die funktionelle Dimension in den Methoden der Rechtsvergleichung’, RabelsZ (1970) p. 423Google Scholar.

10. See Zweigert, K., ‘Quelques réflexions sur les relations entre la sociologie juridique et le droit compare’, in Receuil Marc Ancel, op.cit. n. 6 pp. 81–93Google Scholar; Feldbrugge, F. J. M., ‘Sociological Research Methods and Comparative Law’, in Rotondi, M., Inchieste di Diritto Comparato, vol. II (1973) pp. 211–244Google Scholar; Lukić, R. D., ‘Les méthodes sociologiques et droit comparé’ also in the former at pp. 453–463Google Scholar; Drobnig, U. and Rehbinder, M., Rechtssoziologie und Rechtsvergleichung (1977)Google Scholar.

11. Merryman, , Report for the Teheran Congress, loc.cit. n.4, p. 100Google Scholar.

12. Constantinesco, L.-J., Traité de droit comparé, II, La méthode comparative (1974) p. 12Google Scholar, and the bookreview by Langrod, G. in RIDC (1979) pp. 261–264Google Scholar.

13. Ancel, M., ‘Comment aborder le droit comparé, A propos d'une nouvelle “Introduction au droit comparé”, ‘in Etudes offertes à René Rodière, op.cit. n.6, p. 6Google Scholar.

14. Zweigert, and Kötz, , op.cit. n.7, p. 32Google Scholar (from the English translation by T. Weir, ed., vol I (1977) p. 24).

15. Langrod, G., ‘Quelques réflexions méthodologiques sur la comparaison en science juridique’, RIDC (1957) p. 228Google Scholar. Also see Chr. Atias, , Epistemologie juridique (1985) p. 42 et seq.Google Scholar

16. Zweigert, K. and Puttfarken, H.-J., ‘Some Critical Reflexions on Contemporary Comparative Law’, a report published in Rechtsvergleichung(1978) p. 380Google Scholar.

17. Zweigert, and Kötz, , op.cit., n.7, p. 76Google Scholar.

18. For example, Zajtay, I., ‘Reflexions sur le problème de la division des families de droits’, in RabelsZ (1973) p. 210Google Scholar, writes: ‘In fact, the authors generally have no compunction about recognizing that the categorization of existing legal systems is of some practical and theoretical interest, or at least about admitting that, like any other classification, it plays a role rather like Ariadne's net in the labyrinth of the numerous different systems of positive law. On the other hand there has been a great deal of discussion with regard to the modalities of classification, and above all, the question of the basis on which such classification should be established'. For different classifications with critical comments, see Constantinesco, op.cit. n.5. See also, Schwind, F., ‘Das Recht in der Rechtsvergleichung', Rechtsvergleichung, Europarecht und Staatenintegration, Gedächtnisschrift fur Léontin-Jean Constantinesco(1983) pp. 689–693Google Scholar, who compares the opinions of Constantinesco with those of Fikentscher, W., Methoden des Rechts(1974)Google Scholar; Gorlé, F. et al. , Rechtsvergelijking(1985) p. 101–128Google Scholar.

19. ‘Comparative Law as Basic Research’, Hastings Int. and Comp. LR (1980) p. 200.

20. Schwarz-Liebermann, , op.cit. n.8, p. 20Google Scholar.

21. Sauveplanne, J.G., De methoden van privaatrechtelijke rechtsvergelijking(1975) p. 48, report for the Nederlandse Vereniging voor RechtsvergelijkingGoogle Scholar.

22. Örücü, A.E., ‘Symbiosis Between Comparative Law and Theory of Law, Limitations of Legal Methodology’, Mededelingen van net Juridisch Instituut no. 16, Erasmus University, Rotterdam (1982) p. 17Google Scholar. Also see Yokaris, A., ‘Problèmes méthodologiques et nature de la recherche comparative en droit international’, Revue Hellénique de Droit International(1982–1983)p. 93Google Scholar.

23. Merryman, , loc.cit. n.4, p. 104Google Scholar.

24. See Stanzione, P., ‘Considérations au sujet des methodes du droit comparé', RIDC (1973) p. 876Google Scholar.

25. Perlingieri, P., ‘Produzione scientifica e realtà pratica: una frattura da evitare’, Riv. dir. comm. (1969) I, p. 459Google Scholar(reference from Stanzione, see previous note). Also see Le Paulle, P., who writes: ‘The legal system is a unit and the whole is expressed in each of its parts: the same blood flows through the whole system’ — ‘The Function of Comparative Law’, R., Harvard L. (1922) p. 838Google Scholar.

26. See Grossfeld, B., ‘Sprache und Recht’, JZ (1984) p. 6Google Scholar, with very interesting references to the literature. Also see Braga, S., ‘Zur Methode der rechtsvergleichenden Arbeit’, Gedächtnissschrift für Constantinesco, op.cit. n.18, pp. 99–108Google Scholar and Gambaro, A., ‘Alcune novita in materia di comparazione giuridica’, Riv. dir. commerciale e dir. generale delle obligazione (1980) p. 320 (in relation to the work of R. Sacco)Google Scholar.

27. Carbonnier, J., ‘L'apport du droit comparé à la sociologie juridique’, Livre du Centenaire de la Société de Législation Comparée, I (1969) p. 75Google Scholar et seq. Also see Ziegert, K.A., ‘Juristische und soziologische Empirie des Rechts, Genese und Zukunft der Rechtsvergleichung als wissenschaftliches Problem des europäischen Rechts, RabelsZ(1981) pp. 51–72Google Scholar.

28. On this question, see Constantinesco, , op.cit. n.12, pp. 311–319, in particular p. 315Google Scholar.

29. Also see Kisch, I., ‘Droit compare et terminologie juridique’, in Rotondi, op.cit. n.10, pp. 410–411Google Scholar.

30. For various examples of the above-mentioned categories, see Kisch's, list, loc. cit. n.29, pp. 413–421Google Scholar.

31. Zweigert, K.'s term, in Mélanges à Jacques Maury, vol. 1 (1960) pp. 594–595Google Scholar; also see Zweigert, and Kötz, , loc.cit. n.7, pp. 49–51Google Scholar.

32. Rabel, E., ‘Das Problem der Qualification’, RabelsZ (1931) pp. 241, 282Google Scholar.

33. See, for example, the interesting remarks of H. Batiffol on the Chemouni case in ‘Droit comparé, droit international privé et théorie générate du droit’, RIDC (1970) p. 661.

34. See some examples of new terminology by the authors mentioned in n.4. supra.

35. Rozmaryn, S., ‘Communication; A propos des Colloques de l'Association Internationale des Sciences Juridiques sur la règie de la legalité’, RIDC (1958) p. 70Google Scholar; Sandrock, O., Über Sinn und Methode der zivilistischen Rechtsvergleichung(1966) pp. 42, 45–46, 50, 57, 65, 68Google Scholar; Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, pp. 315–319Google Scholar.

36. See, e.g., Constantinesco, , op.cit. n.12, pp. 64–65, 315–319Google Scholar.

37. See, e.g., Rozmaryn, , loc. cit. n.35, pp. 70–71Google Scholar.

38. Cf., Schwarz-Liebermann, , op. cit. n.8, p. 193Google Scholar.

39. Cf., Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 316Google Scholar.

40. Rozmaryn, , loc. cit. n.35, p. 71Google Scholar.

41. Sauveplanne, , opxit. n.21, p. 37Google Scholar.

42. Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 323Google Scholar.

43. Rozmaryn, , loc. cit. n.35, pp. 71 and 75Google Scholar.

44. For a short summary of the documentation systems, see, e.g., Wild, A.H. de and Eilders, B., eds., Jurist en Computer, Serie recht en praktijk, no. 36 (1983) pp. 81–100Google Scholar. See also Maggs, P. B., ‘The Language of Codification, a Computer Analysis of the Family Code of the RSFSR’, Codification in the Communist World, Symposium in Memory of Zsolt Szirmai (1975) pp. 239–289Google Scholar; Losano, M. G., I grandi sistemi giuridici, Introduzione ai diritti europei ed extraeuropei (1978) p. 302Google Scholar et seq.; Frohn, H., ‘Subsumtion-Information-Kommunikation-Automation, Zur Computerisierbarkeit juristischen Arbeitens', Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie (1984) pp. 205–228Google Scholar; de Mulder, R.V. and Gubly, H. M., ‘Legal Decision Making by Computer: An Experiment With Sentencing’ Computer Law Journal (1983) pp. 243–303Google Scholar.

45. Wild, De and Eilders, , op.cit. n. 44Google Scholar, Introduction p. IX also see Mulder, R.V. de, Een model voor juridische informatica (dissertation, Rotterdam 1984) p. 169 et seq.Google Scholar

46. Mehl, L., ‘Informatique juridique et droit compare’, RIDC (1968) p. 619Google Scholar.

47. Wild, De and Eilders, , op.cit. n.44, pp. 26–29Google Scholar.

48. Zweigert, and Kötz, , op. cit. n.7, p. 52Google Scholar.

49. Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 287Google Scholar.

50. Gorla, G., / diritto comparato in Italia e nel ‘Mondo Occidental’ e una introduzione al. ‘Dialogo Civil Law — Common Law’ (1983) pp. 606–607, note 8Google Scholar; also see p. 598.

51. See Langrod, , loc. cit. n.15, p. 365Google Scholar; by the same author in RIDC (1973) p. 263; and Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 79Google Scholar.

52. See David, R., ‘Droit compare et systemes socio-politiques’, Livre du Centenaire de la Societe de Legislation Comparee, vol. II (1971) p. 149Google Scholar; Szabo, I., La science comparative du droit, Ada Juridica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (1973) p. 136Google Scholar; Bogdan, M., ‘Different Economic Systems and Comparative Law’, Comparative Law Yearbook (1978) p. 99Google Scholar; and Drobnig, U., ‘Rechtsvergleichung zwischen Rechtsordnungen verschiedener Wirtschaftssysteme, Zum Problem der intersystemaren Rechtsvergleichung’, RabelsZ (1984) p. 240Google Scholar.

53. For an analogous example, see Bogdan, , loc. cit. n.52, p. 93Google Scholar.

54. See the authors mentioned in n.51 supra.

55. See, for example, Baade, H. W., ‘Comparative Law and the Practitioner’, AJCL (1983) p. 499Google Scholar who writes: ‘We do not reach it [tertium comparationis] until we have mastered the secundum comparatum, which is foreign law. That, we know, is an extremely serious matter’.

56. See Gessner, V. ‘Soziologische Uberlegungen, zu einer Theorie der angewandten Rechtsvergleichung’, RabelsZ (1972) p. 233Google Scholar et seq.; Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 322Google Scholar, also see p. 86.

57. Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 86 and p. 322Google Scholar.

58. Zweigert, and Kötz, , op. cit. n.7, p. 48 (from the English translation by T. Weir, ed. vol. I (1977) p. 36)Google Scholar.

59. Ancel, M., ‘Le problème de la comparabilité et la méthode fonctionnelle en droit comparé’, Festschrift für Imre Zajtay (1982) p. 5Google Scholar.

60. Example relating to the gold clause taken from Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 84Google Scholar.

61. See Graue, E.D., ‘The Significance of Comparative Legal Research', Tisskrift fur rettsvitenskap (1981) pp. 484–485Google Scholar.

62. Banakas, E.K., ‘Some Thoughts on the Method of Comparative Law, The Concept of Law Revisited', Archiv f.R.u.Soz.phil. (1981) p. 291Google Scholar.

63. For a summary of the various opinions, see: Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, pp. 110–119Google Scholar, and by the same author, ‘La comparability des ordres juridiques ayant une ideologie et une structure politico-economique differente et la theorie des elements determinants', RIDC (1973) pp. 5–15; Bogdan, , loc. cit. n.52, pp. 233–245, with references to the literatureGoogle Scholar.

64. Szabo, I., ‘La comparaison des institutions juridiques’, Acta Juridica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (1973) p. 136–138Google Scholar, and by the same author, see also the report in Etudes offertes à René Rodiére, op. cit. n.6, p. 322 et seq.Google Scholar

65. Loc. cit. n.52, p. 95.

66. See n.65 supra.

67. See n.25 supra.

68. Drobnig, , loc. cit. n.52, p. 243Google Scholar. In the same sense see Zweigert, and Puttfarken, , loc. cit. n.16, p. 243, note 24Google Scholar.

69. Loeber, D.A., ‘Rechtsvergleichung zwischen Ländern mit verschiedener Wirtschaftsordnung’, RabelsZ (1961) p. 226 et seq.Google Scholar

70. Drobnig, , loccit. n.52, p. 241Google Scholar.

71. Drobnig, , loccit. n.52, p. 240Google Scholar.

72. Cf., Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 119Google Scholar.

73. Also see Ancel, , loc.cit. n.59, pp. 2–3Google Scholar.

74. This article contains a lecture given by the author at the Interuniversity Institute for European Studies in Turin; see Rotondi, , op. cit. n.10, pp. 580–582Google Scholar.

75. Ibid. p. 584.

76. Ibid. p. 581.

77. K. Grzybowski, ‘Le but des recherches et les méthodes des travaux sur le droit comparé’, in Rotondi, , op. cit. n.10, p. 326Google Scholar.

78. RIDC (1970) pp. 673–674.

79. Kamba, W.J., ‘Comparative Law: A Theoretical Framework’, ICLQ (1974) p. 517Google Scholar.

80. Schmidt, M. in Festschrift fur Konrad Zweigert, zum 70. Geburtstag (1981) pp. 525–535Google Scholar.

81. Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 199Google Scholar. V. Denti (quoted by Gambaro, , loc. cit. n.26, p. 299)Google Scholar remarks: ‘It is impossible to study comparative law seriously without an adequate knowledge of the political, economic, social and religious factors behind the development of the legal orders’. Also see Watson, A., ‘Comparative Law and Legal Change’, CLJ (1978) p. 316, who writes: ‘… an exceptionally good and even the best approach to understanding and knowing law, what it does and what is demanded from it is through the history of the rules, their origin, development and transformation, above all when the same or a historically related rule can be observed in different systemsGoogle Scholar;

82. See the author's article on Greek Civil Marriage, in NJB (1982, in Dutch) pp. 1208–1211.

83. See, e.g., Heldrich, A., ‘Sozialwissenschaftliche Aspekte der Rechtsvergleichung', RabelsZ (1970) pp. 427–442, with many references to the literature; see in particular, pp. 435–539Google Scholar.

84. Schmidt, , loc. cit. n.80, p. 532Google Scholar.

85. Schmidt, , loc. cit. n.80, p. 291Google Scholar; also see Gessner, V., ‘Soziologische Überlegungen zu einer Theorie der angewandten Rechtsvergleichung’, RabelsZ (1982) p. 240–241Google Scholar.

86. Bartels, W.J.B., Methode und Gegenstand intersystemarer Rechtsvergleichung (1982) paragraphs 3, I, 2, p. 66Google Scholar; 3, I, 5, pp. 77–79; 4, I, p. 84.

87. Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 85, note 121Google Scholar.

88. Schmidt, , loc. cit. n.80, pp. 532–534Google Scholar.

89. Ebert, T., Rechtsvergleichung, Einführung in die Grundlagen (1978) pp. 29, 149Google Scholar.

90. Grosheide, F.W. and Velden, F.J.A. van der, ‘Payments and Indexing After Divorce’, a report published for the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking, no. 29 (1980, in Dutch) part I pp. 9–10Google Scholar.

91. Also see Kötz, H., ‘Neue Aufgaben der Rechtsvergleichung', Juristische Blätter (3 07 1982). p. 358Google Scholar.

92. For the opinion of Radbruch and others, who claimed that it is not possible to ‘directly’ compare more than two legal systems, and that for a larger number of legal systems a standard was necessary so that the comparison would be ‘indirect’, see Constantinesco, — with critical comments, op. cit. n.12, p. 34 et seq.Google Scholar

93. As is apparent, for example in Bogdan, 's article, loc. cit. n.52, p. 95Google Scholar.

94. See, e.g., d'Oliveira, Jessurun, op. cit. n.2, pp. 2–3Google Scholar together with his criticism of Sauveplanne's terminology — ‘A bird's eye view of legal systems'. Also see Ascarelli, T., Studi di diritto comparato e in tema di interpretazione (1952) part 1, pp. 11, 39Google Scholar.

95. See, e.g., Schlesinger, R., ‘The Common Core of Legal Systems: an Emerging Subject of Comparative Study’, Legal Essays in Honor of Hessel E. Yntema (1962) p. 73Google Scholar; Neumayer, K.H., in Rotondi, op. cit. n.10, p. 518Google Scholar.

96. Gorla, , op.cit. n.50, pp. 604, 605Google Scholar; and by the same author, II contralto. Problemi fondamentali trattati con il metodo comparativo e casistico (1955) p. VII; also see Graue, , loc. cit. n.61, pp. 484–485Google Scholar; Kamba, , loc. cit. n.19, p. 517Google Scholar.

97. Ebert, , op.cit. n.89, p. 147Google Scholar.

98. Neumayer, in Rotondi, op. cit. n.10, p. 507Google Scholar.

99. Examples of studies with the approach using a model include: Koopmans, T., Vergelijkend publiekrecht (1978)Google Scholar; Schwarzenberger, G., ‘Historical Models of International Law: Toward a Comparative History of International Law', in Butler, W.E., ed., International Law in Comparative Perspective (1980) p. 227Google Scholar et seq., and the review of this book by Heere, W.P. in Review of Socialist Law (1983) pp. 393–394Google Scholar.

100. See, e.g., Burkens, M.C., Methodologie van staatsrechtelijke rechtsvergelijking; a report for the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking (1975) no. 19Google Scholar.

101. Bertels, K. and Nauta, D., Inleiding tot het model begrip, 2nd edn. (1974) para. 7.5Google Scholar.

102. Schwarz-Liebermann, , op. cit. n.8, p. 186Google Scholar.

103. Neumayer, in Rotondi, op. cit. n.10, p. 517Google Scholar.

104. For other disadvantages, see Neumayer, in Rotondi, op. cit. n.10, pp. 507, 518–519Google Scholar.

105. For a critique of the approach using a model in comparative law, see, e.g., Grzybowski, , loc. cit. n.77, pp. 328–329Google Scholar; Connely, A.M., ‘The History of International Law: a Comparative Approach’, in Butler, , ed., op. cit. n.99, pp. 263–264Google Scholar.

106. E.g., Schwarz-Liebermann, , op. cit. n.8, pp. 182–183Google Scholar (obviously influenced by Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 281)Google Scholar writes in connection with the research aimed at tracing any existing common principles: ‘La comparison ne sera, en effet, valabie que si elle se penche aussi sur des questions de dètail, et cela avec un souci extrême de precision’. In this author's opinion, this applies to any micro-comparison.

107. Franken, H., ‘Systeemtheorie en Rechtswetenschap’, a report for the Vereniging voor Wijsbegeerte van het recht, in Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Rechtsfilosofie en Rechtstheorie (1982) p. 6Google Scholar. On the subject of system theory, also see Pawlowski, H.M., Methodenlehre fur Juristen, Theorie der Norm und des Gesetzes (1981) pp. 111 et seq. and 211 et seq.Google Scholar

108. Loc.cit. n.100.

109. Peters, J.A. in Geschriften van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking (1976) no. 21, p. 14Google Scholar.

110. Gessner, , loc. cit. n.56, p. 247Google Scholar.

111. Banakas, , loc. cit. n.62, p. 296Google Scholar.

112. Ibid. pp. 295–296 et seq.; on the subject of system theory and the tertium comparationis, also see Bartels, , op. cit. n.86, pp. 90, 95 et seq.Google Scholar

113. Debate on his report, no. 21, pp. 20–21.

114. Connely, , loc. cit. n.105, pp. 263–264Google Scholar.

115. Also see n. 106 supra.

116. Langrod, , loc.cit. n.15, p. 233Google Scholar.

117. Stanzione, , loc.cit. n.24, p. 879Google Scholar.

118. Kamba, , loc. cit. n. 79, p. 511Google Scholar.

119. Losano, , op. cit. n.44, pp. 294–296Google Scholar.

120. Szab, o, ‘La méthode de la comparaison’, loc. cit. n.6, pp. 328–331Google Scholar.

121. Sacco, , Introduzione al diritto comparato, 2nd edn. (1980) para. 4, also see pp. 113–127Google Scholar.

122. Gorla, , op. cit. n. 50, pp. 610–612Google Scholar.

123. Graue, , loc. cit. n.61, p. 481 et seq.Google Scholar

124. Langrod, , loc.cit. n.15, p. 227 et seq.Google Scholar

125. Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 248Google Scholar.

126. Ibid.

127. This first methodological rule is reminiscent of the Cartesian method. See Descartes, R., Discours de la méthode, Introduction et notes, Gilson, E., ed., (1979) p. 12Google Scholar.

128. See, e.g., Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, pp. 156–198Google Scholar; Zweigert, and Kötz, , loc. cit. n.7, p. 36Google Scholar; Ebert, , op. cit. n.89, pp. 150–153Google Scholar; Gorlé, et al. , op. cit. n.18, pp. 26–37Google Scholar. On the legal sources, also see Farrar, J.H. and Dugdale, A.M., Introduction to Legal Method, 2nd edn. (1984) p. 70Google Scholar et seq., and of course David, R., Sources of Law, II (1984)Google Scholar.

129. On the second methodological rule, see the references to the literature by Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, pp. 203–204Google Scholar. Also Schwarz-Liebermann, , op. cit. n.8, pp. 191, 192, 196Google Scholar with references to the literature; Szabo, , ‘La méthode de la comparaison’, loc. cit. n.6, p. 326Google Scholar et seq.; Rodière, R., Introduction au droit comparé (1979) p. 139Google Scholar.

130. Kokkini-Iatridou, D. and de Waart, P., Transfer of Technology to Developing Countries; a Legal Approach (1984, in Dutch) p. 19 et seq.Google Scholar

131. Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, pp. 207, 216, 235–236Google Scholar; Ebert, , op. cit. n.89, pp. 154–157Google Scholar.

132. Correa, C.M., ‘Transfer of Technology in Latin America, A Decade of Control’, Journal of World Trade Law (1981) pp. 401–405Google Scholar. Also see the authors mentioned by Kokkini, and Waart, De, op. cit. n.130, p. 35, note 11Google Scholar.

133. Also see Perelman, Ch., Méthodes du droit, Logique juridique, Nouvelle rhétorique, 2nd edn. (1979) p. 69Google Scholar, who writes: ‘To the extent that law is not assimilated in a deductive system, but is viewed as a means to achieve the aims of the legislator, the study of legal rules, their effectiveness and their development, should be undertaken by the traditional methods used in the social sciences, viz., questionnaires, statistical research, observation in comparative law, and, if possible, experiments’.

134. In the volume for the Congress, Teheran, op. cit. n.4, p. 86Google Scholar. On ‘the function of prediction in science’, also see Wesly, P., Elementaire wetenschapsleer (1982) p. 87 et seq.Google Scholar

135. Op. cit. n.4, p. 101.

136. Sacco, , op. cit. n.121, p. 114Google Scholar; also see Gambaro, , loc. cit. n. 26, p. 303Google Scholar.

137. Gorla, , op. cit. n.50, pp. 601–602Google Scholar.

138. Sauveplanne, , op. cit. n.21, pp. 8 and 38–39Google Scholar.

139. Kamba, , loc. cit. n.79, p. 513Google Scholar.

140. Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, pp. 251–276Google Scholar.

141. In this sense, also see Ebert, (op. cit. n.89, p. 159), obviously influenced by ConstantinescoGoogle Scholar.

142. On reception, also see Rehbinder, M., ‘Die Rezeption fremden Rechts im sociologischer Sicht’, Rechtstheorie 14 (1983) pp. 305–315Google Scholar.

143. Watson, A., ‘Comparative Law and Legal Change’, CLJ (1978) pp. 313–336Google Scholar; and by the same author, ‘Legal Transplants and Law Reform', LQR (1976) pp. 79–84. On ‘pressure force’, also see Losano, , op. cit. n.44, pp. 295–296Google Scholar.

144. Dunné, Van, op. cit. n.1, p. 41Google Scholar.

145. David, R., Les avatars d'un comparatiste (1982) p. 174Google Scholar.

146. Merryman, , loc. cit. n.4, p. 94Google Scholar.

147. E.g., Gallino, L., ‘Sociologia del diritto’, Dizionario di Sociologia (1978) p. 244Google Scholar(also mentioned by Gambaro, , loc. cit. n.26, p. 304, note 35), listing fourteen factorsGoogle Scholar.

148. Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 252Google Scholar.

149. See n.121 supra. Also see Rabel, who writes: ‘Evaluation no longer falls under comparative law, but under the criticism of law made possible by comparative law’, quoted by Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 276Google Scholar, note 175. See the opinion of Zweigert, on this, in loc. cit. n.31, p. 595 with references to other articles by RabelGoogle Scholar.

150. Gorla, , op. cit. n.50, pp. 611–612Google Scholar; Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, pp. 276–278Google Scholar; Bogdan, , loc. cit. n.52, pp. 102–104Google Scholar; Sauveplanne, , op. cit. n. 21, pp. 8 and 39–40Google Scholar; Koopmans, , op. cit. n.99, pp. 4–6Google Scholar. Also see Banakas, E.K., ‘The Use of Comparative Law in Public International Law: Problems of Method’, Revue Hellénique de Droit International (1982–1983) p. 121 et seq.Google Scholar

151. On evaluation criteria, see, in particular, Vecchio, G. Del, ‘Voraussetzungen und Bewertungskriterien in der Rechtsvergleichung’, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (1962) p. 12Google Scholar, and McWhinney, E., ‘Toward the Scientific Study of Values in Comparative Law Research’, Legal Essays in Honor of Hessel E. Yntema (1962) pp. 29–41Google Scholar, who proposes criteria for public law.

152. See, in particular, Gorla, , op. cit. n.50, p. 611Google Scholar, and Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 277Google Scholar.

153. Zweigert, and Puttfarken, , ‘Zur Vergleichbarkeit analoger Rechtsinstitute in verschiedene Gesellschaftsordnungen’, in op. cit. n.16, pp. 395–429Google Scholar; Ebert, , op. cit. n.89, pp. 161–165Google Scholar; Zlatescu, V.D., ‘Quelques aspects methodologiques de la comparaison des droits’, RIDC (1983) p. 563Google Scholar. From the previous literature, see the authors mentioned by Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 276, notes 173 and 174Google Scholar.

154. Zweigert, and Puttfarken, , op. cit. n.16, pp. 404–405Google Scholar.

155. Sauveplanne, , op. cit. n.21, p. 40Google Scholar.

156. Peters, , loc. cit. n.109, p. 15Google Scholar.

157. On the relative character of the value judgment, see, e.g., Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, p. 277Google Scholar.

158. Cf., for example, the brief comments of Gambaro, , loc. cit. n. 26, p. 319Google Scholar.

159. Quote from Zweigert, , loc. cit. n.31, p. 596Google Scholar. Atias, , op. cit. n.15, p. 205Google Scholar quotes Bouveresse, R.(Karl Popper ou le rationalisme critique, 2nd. edn. (1981) p. 106)Google Scholar: ‘How can science escape the prejudice of the point of view of those constructing it? By means of the collective adoption of the critical method: everyone formulates his own point of view and agrees to take into consideration criticisms by other people’.

160. On critical evaluation, see, e.g., Constantinesco, , op. cit. n.12, pp. 277–278Google Scholar; Zweigert, , in op. cit. n.31, pp. 595–596Google Scholar; and by the same author, ‘Die kritische Wertung in der Rechtsvergleichung’, Festbundel CM. Schmitthoff (1973) pp. 403–420.

161. E.g., Zelditsch, ‘Intelligible Comparisons’, in Vallier, ed., Comparative Methods in Sociology (1971) (quoted by Merryman, , ‘Comparative and Scientific Explanation’, loc. cit. n.4, p. 92)Google Scholar. who writes (pp. 269, 307): ‘It follows that there is no mechanical procedure that assures any fool of making correct inferences if only the rules are obeyed’, and ‘it must be concluded that there is no royal road to intelligible comparison that, if only the map is obediently read, can be followed by the foolish or ignorant investigator to certain and valuable results’.

162. Schwarz-Liebermann, , op. cit. n.8, pp. 189–190Google Scholar.

163. Merryman, , ‘Comparative and Scientific Explanation’, loc. cit. n.4, p. 92Google Scholar.

164. See Hall, , loc. cit. n.19, respectively, ‘Methods of Sociological Research in Comparative Law’, p. 150Google Scholar, and ‘Comparative Law as Basic Research', p. 199. Also see Zweigert, and Kötz, , op. cit. n.7, p. 33Google Scholar.