Colloquium «From Comparing to Comparative Law», reviewed by Dmitry Poldnikov (Moscow)
On May 7, 2015 the faculty of law of the University Paris
Descartes (Paris V) organized a one-day Colloquium on the origins of
comparative methodology in legal science in the 19th and the 20th centuries.
The event attracted over thirty participants, including thirteen speakers, from
different countries (mostly from France, but also from Italy, England, Canada
and Russia).
The intense proceedings the Colloquium were arranged in
three successive panels, addressing 1) the profiles of the prominent
comparatists, 2) the range of topics and geographical extent of the comparative
studies, and 3) the methodological foundations of the discipline.
The main ideas of the Colloquium were distilled by the key
speakers. Sylvain Soleil (University of Rennes 1) highlighted the many
facettes of comparing laws in the 19th century. He talked about describing,
illustrating, bring in new data, understanding, criticizing, imitating,
practicing, unifying, developing theories, and teaching law students.
Jean-Louis Halpérin (l’Ecole normale supèrieure) presented the results of his
research in the international networks of comparatists with headquarters in
France and Germany. He outlined the rise of such networks in the time between
the two World Wars and their decay and fragility due to the political trubles.
While other participants of the Colloquium offered more
evidence of comparative activities of jurists in the domains of constitutional,
criminal, civil law, two last speakers ventured out into the future of the
discipline.
Horatia Muis-Watt (l’Ecole de droit de Sciences Po Paris) shared her doubts
about the truly scientific character of comparative law (as contested by
Zweigert and Kötz). Acknowledging the value of comparing legal institutes, the
speaker called for a broader subject of comparison (embracing all elements of
legal culture). That would inevitably lead to interdisciplinary cooperation,
comparing the dynamics of legal cultures, and taking into account the
subjective perception of foreign legal phenomena.
In a similar vein Geoffrey Samuel (University of
Kent) criticized the shortcomings of the comparative law of the 20th century
and argued in favour of a new comparatisme (advocated by Whitman, Riles,
Lasser, Legrand). It should opt for structural approach in place of
functionalism, presumption of difference instead of praesumptio similitudinis,
the paradigm of inquiry instead of that of authority.
The presentations as well as the following debates during
the Colloquium made it clear that comparative activities of the previous
generations of jurists turned out to be a vibrant field of research. Hopefully,
more exciting studies are to come and there will be another occasions to
present and discuss them at the welcoming Paris Descartes.
As a participant in the Colloquium I’d like to address my
special thanks to the the organisers: Jean-Baptiste Busaall, Fatiha Cherfouh,
and Gwenaël Guyon. for their great efforts.
No comments:
Post a Comment