Methodology in comparative legal studies
| Autor | Leonardo Machado Pontes |
| Ocupação do Autor | Partner with the Minas Gerais based law firm Hildebrando Pontes & Associados, Belo Horizonte, Brazil |
| Páginas | 2544-2570 |
2544 • XXVI World Congress of Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy
Methodology in comparative legal studies
Leonardo Machado Pontes1
Abstract: Regarding the history of comparative law we have traditionally meth-
odssuchasdescriptiveAucocevolutionalSaleillesfunctionalRabelfac-
tualSchlesingerMarkesinisstructuralSaccoandculturalLegrandThe
article will explore the functional and the cultural methods, but also the factual
method, which is an extension of the functional method and was carried out by
Rabel’s disciples and others. The history of comparative legal studies will be
shortly introduced, followed by the explanation of functionalism, the authors
behind it, its later developments and main critics. Afterwards, functionalism
will be confronted by structuralism and the hermeneutical methods, as possible
solutions to functionalism’s lack of theory. The article tries to portray a general
picture of comparative legal studies and points of contradiction and ambiguity
in the scholar literature of the present days.
Keywords: Compared law; comparative legal studies; functionalism; Rabel; Le-
grand; Sacco
1 Introduction
Compared legal studies are receiving from methodology a great
importance and an extensive production of articles2For methodone
1
Partner with the Minas Gerais based law rm Hildebrando Pontes & Associados, Belo
Horizonte, Brazil; L.L.M Commercial Law, Milton Campos’s Faculty of Law (2011-2013);
LL.M European and International Intellectual Property Law, Strasbourg’s University Cen-
tre d’Études Internationales de la Propriété Intellectuelle (2013-2014, on progress); In-
ternational coordinator of Brazilian’s National Copyright Association (Associação Bra-
sileira de Direito de Autor – ABDA). Contact: lm.pontes@hotmail.com.
2
Just to cite a few: BRAND, Oliver. Conceptual comparisons: towards a coherent meth-
odology of comparative legal studies. Brook. J. Int’l L., v. 32, n. 2, p. 405-466, 2007; LEG-
RAND, Pierre. Comparative legal studies and commitment to theory. MLR, v. 58, p. 262-
273, 1995; MOROSINI, Fabio. Globalization & law beyond traditional methodology of
comparative legal studies and an example from private international law. Cardozo J. Int’l
Working Group: Law epistemology • 2545
should understand the technique used in relation to the comparison,
which could be so much as historical, functional, evolutionary, struc-
tural, thematic, empiric or statistic.3 Etymologically method means
thesearchfor acertain formoftruth FromtheGreekwordmethodos’,
consistsoftheprexmetalaterandinthesux‘hodos’ (path). In the
Latinform procedurewayor rationalprocess4Asstated Descartes
“j’avois toujours un extrême désir d’apprendre à distinguer le vrai d’avec le
fauxpourvoirclairen mesactions etmarcheravec assuranceenceevie”.5
& Comp. L., v. 13, p. 541-561, 2005; ZUMBANSEM, Peer. Comparative law’s coming
of age? Twenty years aer Critical Comparisons. GLJ, v. 6, n. 7, p. 1073-1084, 2005;
MARKESINIS, Basil. Understanding American law by looking at it thought foreign eyes:
towards a wider theory for the study and use of foreign law. Tul. L. Rev., v. 81, p. 123-
185, 2007; RENNEN, van TP. Philosophical underpinnings of modern comparative legal
methodology. StellenboschLRev., v. 7, n.1, p. 37-60, 1996; PICKER, Colin B. Comparative
Law Methodology & American legal culture: obstacles and opportunities. Roger Will-
liams U. L. Rev., v. 16, p. 86-99, 2011; SACCO, Rodolfo. Legal formats: a dynamic ap-
proach to comparative law (Installment I of III). Am. J. Comp. L., v. 39, n. 1, p. 1-34, 1991;
KÖTZ, M. Hein. Comparative law in Germany today. RIDC, v. 51, n. 4, 1999, p. 753-758;
PLATSAS, Antonios Emmanuel. e functional and the dysfunctional in the compar-
ative method of law: some critical remarks. EJCL, v. 12.3, p. 1-16, 2008; GORDLEY,
James. Is comparative law a distinct discipline? Am. J. Comp. L., v. 46, p. 607-615, 1998.
3
PALMER, Vernon Valentine. From Lerotholi to Lando: some examples of compara-
tive law methodology. Am. J. Comp. L., v. 53, p. 263, 2005. e ‘scientic’ character of
comparative legal studies is object of controversy, although without the same intensity
as before. ere are those that simply describe it as a ‘method’ and not as a ‘science’, and
those that defend its ‘scientic’ character. Cf. MALDONADO, Marco D. Silva. Crítica a
la comparación jurídica y al método que emplea. Alegatos, n. 74, p. 131-146, 2010. In the
beginning of the siècle XX Lambert, Arminjon, Nolde and Wolf defended compared law
as a ‘science’. Gutteridge, Ascarelli, Hamson and René David later would just treat it as
a ‘method’, once that it could not, as they told, be disconnected from the other branches
of law. e additive ‘compared’ thus would not create a separate ‘scientic identity’. Cf.
BLAGOJEVIC, Borislav T. Le droit comparé: method ou science? RIDC, v. 5, n. 4, p. 649-
657, 1953. ere are also those that defend comparative legal studies as both a science
and a method, being of great importance the work of the French scholar Constantinesco.
Cf. CONSTANTINESCO, Léontin-Jean, Traité de droit comparé: introduction au droit
comparé. Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1972. For a debate, cf. ROTON-
DI, Mario. Technique du droit, dogmatique et droit comparé. RIDC, v. 20, n. 1, p. 5-18,
1968.
4
GLANERT, Simone. Method? In: MONETERI, Pier Giuseppe (org). Methods of com-
parative law. Glos: EE, 2012, p. 65.
5
DESCARTES, René. Discours de la méthode. Avaible at http://www.gutenberg.org/
les/13846/13846-h/13846-h.htm. Accessed in 27.01.2012.
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO