Conceptual comparisons: towards a coherent methodology of comparative legal studies

Abstract

unctionalism is still the dominant method of comparative legal studies. This, however, is not the case because functional analysis is particularly well suited for the needs of comparatists, but because of a lack of alternatives. Comparative Law and Economics and various “postmodern” approaches have failed to provide more viable solutions. The first part of this Article examines the virtues and flaws of the respective methods. Under the heading of Conceptual Comparisons, the second part introduces a new approach to comparative law. It follows the lead of other comparative sciences, which have abandoned functionalism some time ago and have replaced it with typological considerations. Conceptual Comparisons adapts these considerations to the particular needs of legal research, thus opening new avenues for the perception of law and its role in different legal systems. F

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 55 citations exist upstream.