Comparative Methodology and Pluralism in Legal Comparison in a Global Age

Roberto Scarciglia^*

Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.

DOI: 10.4236/blr.2015.61006                

Abstract

This article grew to look deeper into the relationship between different methodological tools in comparative law enquiries. There are several factors that currently affect these enquiries, such as the emergence of new spheres of normativity and transnational actors determining a new configuration of the relationship between centre and periphery. Different forms and visions of legal pluralism could characterise a cultural tradition and different ways, in which existing nations, which have a pluralistic legal system, interact. Furthermore, one might add the consideration that the presence of different forms of pluralism—a pluralism of pluralisms—implies a constant and urgent need to reconsider the adequacy of the methodologies in comparative law. Hence, we can use different approaches because there are different purposes that the comparison pursues. Though the horizontal comparison is certainly a widespread tendency for comparative analyses, from a methodological point of view, we need to consider the importance of forms of vertical comparison, both a top-down and bottom-up approach.

Keywords

Comparative Methodology, Pluralism, Globalization

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Adams, M., & Griffiths, J. (2012). Against “Comparative Method”: Explaining Similarities and Differences. In M. Adams, & J. Bomhoff (Eds.), Practice and Theory in Comparative Law (p. 279). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[2]	Auby, J.-B. (2010). La globalization, le droit et l’Etat. Montchrestien: LGDJ.
[3]	Chodosh, H. E. (1999). Comparing Comparisons: In Search of Methodology. Iowa Law Review, 1038.
[4]	Edge, J. (2013). Islamic Finance, Alternative Dispute Resolution and Family Law: Developments towards Legal Pluralism? In R. Griffith-Jones (Ed.), Islam and English Law. Rights, Responsibilities and the Place of Shari’a (p. 138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[5]	Feyerabend, P. (1978 [1975]). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. Verso Edition: London.
[6]	Frankfurter, F. (1926). The Task of Administrative Law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 75, 620.
[7]	Garcia, F. J. (2013). Between Cosmopolis and Community: Globalization and the Emerging Basis for Global Justice. Boston College Law School Faculty Papers, 37-40.
[8]	Gerber, D. J. (2011). Method, Community and Comparative Law: An Encounter with Complexity Science. Roger Williams University Law Review, 16, 112.
[9]	Gerber, D. J. (1998). System Dynamics: Toward a Language of Comparative Law? American Journal of Comparative Law, 46, 719-737. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/840989
[10]	Glenn, P. H. (2010 [2000]). Legal Traditions of the World: Sustainable Diversity in Law (4th ed., p. 7). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[11]	Griffiths, J. (1986). What Is Legal Pluralism? Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 18, 1-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07329113.1986.10756387
[12]	Gutteridge, H. C. (1946). An Introduction to the Comparative Method of Legal Study and Research (p. 61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[13]	Husa, J. (2011). The Method Is Dead, Long Live the Methods! European Polynomia and Pluralist Methodology. Legisprudence, 5, 249-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.5235/175214611799248913
[14]	McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (p. 16). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[15]	Melissaris, E. (2009). Ubiquitous Law (p. 4). Farnham: Ashgate.
[16]	Menski, W. (2014). Flying Kites in a Global Sky. In R. Scarciglia, & W. Menski (Eds.), Islamic Symbols in European Courts (p. 13). Padova: Cedam.
[17]	Merryman, J. H. (1999). The Loneliness of the Comparative Lawyer and Other Essays in Foreign and Comparative Law. The Hague: Kluwer.
[18]	Michaels, R. (2009). Global Legal Pluralism. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5, 243-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172311
[19]	Michaels, R. (2013). Globalization and Law: Law beyond the State. In R. Banakar, & M. Travers (Eds.), Law and Social Theory (2nd ed., p. 3). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
[20]	Momirov, A., & Naudé Fourie, A. (2009). Vertical Comparative Law Methods: Tools for Conceptualizing the International Rule of Law. Erasmus Law Review, 2, 295.
[21]	Nietzsche, F. (1911). The Dawn of a Day (Eng. Transl.). New York: The MacMillan Company.
[22]	Palmer, V. V. (2005). From Lerotholi to Lando: Some Examples of Comparative Law Methodology. American Journal of Comparative Law, 53, 261-290.
[23]	Pfersmann, O. (2001). Le droit comparé comme interprétation et comme théorie du droit. Revue internationale de droit comparé, 53, 275-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/ridc.2001.17976
[24]	Reimann, M. (2004). The Progress and Failure of Comparative Law. American Journal of Comparative Law, 50, 671.
[25]	Riles, A. (2001). Rethinking the Masters of Comparative Law. Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart.
[26]	Riles, A. (2006). Comparative Law and Socio-Legal Studies. In M. Reimann, & R. Zimmermann (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (p. 775). Oxford: OUP.
[27]	Rosenblum, D. (2007). Internalizing Gender: Why International Law Theory Should Adopt Comparative Methods. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 45, 759.
[28]	Samuel, G. (2011). Does One Need an Understanding of Methodology in Law before One Can Understand Methodology in Comparative Law. In M. Van Hoecke (Ed.), Methodologies of Legal Research: Which Kind of Method Per What Kind of Discipline (p. 182). Oxford: Hart.
[29]	White, R. (1991). The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lake Regions, 1650-1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[30]	Zumbansen, P. (2012). Transnational Comparisons: Theory and Practice of Comparative Law as a Critique of Global Governance. Toronto: Osgoode Hall, Research Paper Series.