Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut

Seite 1

Comparative Private Law

Helmut Heiss

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

A. «Comparative Law» as a Method

• = search for similarities and differences

• = analysis

Seite 2

1. Comparison

2. Object

• = „law“

• Legal rules ↔ legal culture

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

A. «Comparative Law» as a Method

• (usually) → analysis of similarities and differences

• „solution shopping“ (academics; legislators; judges)

• harmonisation/unification of laws

(e.g. Rabel, Das Recht des Warenkaufs. Eine

rechtsvergleichende Darstellung, 2 Bände, Tübingen/Berlin

1936 und 1957, was an important preparatory step for the

CISG)

• Searching for „better“ law?

• criteria must be transparent!

• = evaluation

Seite 3

3. Aims of Comparative Law

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

A. «Comparative Law» as a Method

Example:

• Topic: „Freedom of contract“

• Swiss law to be compared with

German and/or Austrian law?

French and/or English law?

Turkish law?

Islamic law?

• choice will depend on focus of the work

• choice always depends on personal background of

the comparativist as well

Seite 4

4. Selection of laws to be compared

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

A. «Comparative Law» as a Method

Traditional structure

A. Freedom of contract in Swiss law

B. Freedom of contract in German [or other] law

C. Comparative analysis

[problems? advantages?]

Seite 5

5. Structure of a comparative study

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

A. «Comparative Law» as a Method

Alternative structure

A. Freedom of contract: concept

Freedom of contract is a fundamental principle of

Swiss contract law … [explanation]. In German

contract law… [explanation].

[„socratic“ approach]

[no separate chapter „comparative analysis“]

[problems? advantages?]

Seite 6

5. Structure of a comparative study

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

A. «Comparative Law» as a Method

• foreign law must be explained as it is applied/discussed in

its home jurisdiction (grasp the „living“ law of a country, not

the law „in the books“)

• foreign (key) terms should only be translated if both/all

legal systems to be compared share the terminology;

otherwise: use the term in foreign language and explain its

contents

• foreign sources are cited as they are cited in their home

jurisdiction

→ D&C Builders, Ltd v. Rees [1966] 2 QB 617

not: Court of Appeal, 12th November 1965, [1966] 2 QB 617

Page 7

6. How to deal with «foreign» sources

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

B. Legal Families

RomanicLaw

German Law

Common Law

Nordic Law

Law of PR China & Japan

Islamic & Hindu Law

Page 8

Zweigert/Kötz, Introduction to Comparative Law. 3rd ed., Oxford

1998

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

B. Legal Families

• Eurocentric view

• Colonial view („Social Darwinism“)?

• Focus on states ↔ legal systems?

• Focus on law in the books

↔ law in action („legal culture“)?

• Differing criteria applied

• Relativity (in time and subject matter)

Page 9

Criticism

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

B. Legal Families

Rule ofProfessional

Law

Rule ofPolitical

Law

Rule ofTraditional

Law

Page 10

Mattei, Three Patterns of Law: Taxonomy and Change in the

World‘s Legal Systems, AmJCompL 45 (1997) 5

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

B. Legal Families

Secular(State) Law

ReligiousLaw

TraditionalLaw

Page 11

Heiss, Hierarchische Rechtskreiseinteilung, ZVglRWiss 100 (2001)

397

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

B. Legal Families

Secular (State) Law

CommonLaw

CivilLaw

Collectivistic LawIndividualistic Law

Page 12

Heiss, Hierarchische Rechtskreiseinteilung, ZVglRWiss 100 (2001)

397

R G

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

C. Legal Transplants

• „copy and paste“ of foreign legal rules

• various reasons, e.g.

colonialism

transformation (e.g. Turkey; former socialist countries)

economic incentives (eg. trust and corporate law in

Liechtenstein)

• leads to „mixed jurisdictions“

Page 13

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

C. Legal Transplants

• Watson, Legal Transplants, 3rd Ed., Athens/London 1993

empirism of transplanting legal rules (Roman law)

legal transplants = instrument of harmonisation of

laws

Page 14

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

C. Legal Transplants

• Legrand, The Impossibility of Legal Transplants, MJ 4

(1997) 111

„any similarity stops at the bare form of words itself“

transplants = „empty“ words –“meaning“ is given by the

cultural environment („legal culture“)

E.g. „Roman“ law in the Codex Iustinianus, the French

Civil Code and the Prussian Allgemeine Landrecht

Page 15

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

C. Legal Transplants

• Heiss, Rechtsrezeption und Rechtsmischung als Gesetzgebungstechnik, in: Heiss (Hrsg.), Zivilrechtsreform im Baltikum, Tübingen 2006

Limited effect of transplanting „text“

o limited to „suggestive“ strength of text

o risks of translations

o risk that legal transplants might fail (e.g. Turkey)

o transplant = only starting point of implementation(„re-creation“)

Page 16

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

C. Legal Transplants

other modes of transplanting

o academic transplants («open» oder «undercover»)

o transplants in case law

o transplantation by lawyers and notaries

o i.p. „cross over“ transplants

= successful due to society´s „desire“for (such) rules

→ transplanting of text successful as far as „desire for

rules“ exists (e.g. corporate law in emerging

economies)

Page 17

Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut Helmut Heiss

C. Legal Transplants

• Estonia

– Purpose = transformation

– Transplantation of text

+ cross over transplants

+ consideration of future developments

+ German system with various „ingredients“

Page 18