The Role of Comparative Legal Research in The Development of Law (original) (raw)
Background: Comparative legal research is a field of law that has been abandoned over the decades for its lack of popularity as a concept due to the many controversies and criticisms surrounding it. It is a field of study that is only recently gaining footing in the legal profession with its recent resurgence and awakening of legal scholars and student to the fact that it may have some importance after all. Objective: This article therefore aims to show how comparative legal research has influenced the development of law from time immemorial to the present time and see how it will continue to do so in the future despite the pitiable situation it is in presently. It is also the aim of this article to show the efforts made by comparatists in making sure that laws are in conformity with the advancement in development around the globe by its main function of law reform especially in this era of globalization. The article, while concentrating on the impact comparative legal research has ...
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
Critical Appraisal on Comparative Legal Research in Development of Laws
A critical appraisal is presented in this paper concerning to comparative legal research in the development of laws within the legal system of a particular country. The emphasis is given on the essential roles of comparative legal research from different aspects of legal branches which co-related to one another. This is closely connected with acceptance of Comparative Law as a legal subject. The analysis is done by viewing the importance of comparative legal research from five (5) main different legal angles of those who involved directly or indirectly with the development of the legal system itself. Such different perspectives are listed as: (i) legal education, (ii) legal scholarship, (iii) legal practice, (iv) practice of the judiciary, and (v) practice of the legislature. Several examples of practices in relation to comparative legal research are taken into account for references, such as from Malaysia, Japan and European countries.
Tij S Research Journal of Social Science Management Rjssm, 2015
Comparative law is an important aspect of research field among lawyers, students and researchers. If any problem arises in legal issue, and no solution can be found within own legal system, then a comparative study can be drawn on the comparative research for better solution of the problem. However, in comparative law, there is no specific subject matter like other fields of law (e.g.-contract, tort). This paper will initially discuss the definition of comparative law, advantages and its pitfalls and differences between comparative research and the concept of foreign law. This paper also focuses on the various comparative methods applied by Zweigert and Kotz, De Cruz, Reitz and Kamba. Through this study, my aim is to find out which one is the most effective method for the comparative research. Finally, I have drawn a conclusion on the whole submission.
Methodology of comparative legal research
Researchers get easily lost when embarking on comparative legal research. The main reason being that there is no agreement on the kind of methodology to be followed, or even methodologies that could be followed. 1 Moreover, almost everything that was more or less established in the area of comparative law over the last century has been increasingly criticised during the last few decades: the concept of 'legal family', the possibility of comparison itself, the object of comparison, etc. On the other hand, comparing domestic law with the way the same area has been regulated in one or more countries has become almost compulsory in doctrinal legal research. How should a comparative researcher cope with this apparent paradox ?
METHODOLOGY OF COMPARATIVE LAW TODAY: FROM PARADOXES TO FLEXIBILITY
L'article présente une critique envers les positions normatives, rigides et paradoxales dans le débat méthodologique de droit comparé aujourd'hui. L'auteur étudie les différentes possibilités d'une nouvelle approche pour concevoir une méthodologie. Il fait une analyse des méthodologies de tendance générale ainsi que des méthodologies en dehors de celle-ci. Les contradictions entre les deux sont considérées comme artificielles par rapport à leur caractère fondamental. Ce que l'auteur propose est un procédé plus ouvert pour la création de méthodologie ; celui-ci serait capable d'échapper à une partie des problèmes se trouvant aux deux extrémités du débat méthodologique. Cela évoque l'idée d'une échelle méthodologique et, en outre, défend le travail d'équipe multidisciplinaire dans le domaine de droit comparatif. Il est proposé que la nature tout ou rien du débat méthodologique soit évitée à cause de son caractère irréaliste et parce qu'elle reflète la mauvaise image de soi de l'étude comparative du droit.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.