Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Teka Commission of Legal Sciences Polish Academy of Sciences Branch in Lublin

Vol. 14 No. 2 (2021)

Articles

The Comparative Law Method and Its Correct Application as a Prerequisite for Obtaining Reliability of Research Results

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32084/tekapr.2021.14.2-33  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2022-07-19

Abstract

Approximation of legal systems serves the achievement of similar economic, social or cultural goals. The comparative method is a tool to achieve such goals. This is why the subject matter of this paper is to present the characteristic features of the legal comparison method and all its stages. Results of research that uses this method aim to formulate de lege ferenda conclusions for the national legislator. The main hypothesis of this article is to demonstrate that the truth of the research result obtained by a comparatist largely depends on the correct application of the comparative method. Nevertheless, it is not the only factor that affects reliability of the research result. The article also points to the relationship of comparative law with neighbouring scientific disciplines and in particular with the theory of law, where this relationship concerns convergence of legislative goals. This is why a lawyer – comparatist, who is preparing a comparative law study, should draw on the research method developed in the theory of legal comparison and on the achievements of the theory of law. The discussion opens with a presentation of a short historical overview of the essence of the dispute on the perception of comparative law either as an independent scientific disciple or as only a specific research method (section 1). When it comes to the characteristics of the comparative law method, its general properties are presented first (section 2), followed by a description of its special features (section 3). It is in particular unique in the fact that it is implemented in stages during which specific activities must be performed. Adherence to this multi-stage procedure is significant in obtaining reliable research results.

References

  1. Bardach, Juliusz. 1962. “Metoda porównawcza w stosowaniu do powszechnej historii państwa i prawa.” Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne 2:11–59. [Google Scholar]
  2. Borucka–Arctowa, Maria. 1971. “Problemy metodologiczne badań porównawczych.” Studia Prawnicze 29:3–19. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bussani, Mauro, and Mattei Ugo. 2012. The Cambridge Companion to Comparative Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139017206 [Google Scholar]
  4. De Cruz, Peter. 2007. Comparative Law in a Changing World. New York: Routledge Cavendish. [Google Scholar]
  5. Firmenich, Miriam. 2011. Comparative Legal Analysis. Kreditsicherung durch Grundpfandrechte in England und Deutschland. Baden–Baden: Hanoversches Forum Rechtwissenschaften. [Google Scholar]
  6. Flejterski, Stanisław, and Jan Krzysztof Solarz. 2015. Komparatystyka finansów. Warsaw: C.H.Beck. [Google Scholar]
  7. Giaro, Tomasz. 2016. “Moment historyczny w prawoznawstwie porównawczym.” In Polska komparatystyka prawnicza. Prawo obce w doktrynie prawa polskiego, edited by Arkadiusz Wudarski, 31–60. Warsaw: Stowarzyszenie Notariuszy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. [Google Scholar]
  8. Gordley, James. 2012. “The Functional Method.” In Methods of Comparative Law, edited by Pier G. Monateri, 107–19. Northampton: Edward Elgard Publishing Limited. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781005118.00012 [Google Scholar]
  9. Grossfeld, Bernard. 1996. Kernfragen der Rechtsvergleichnung. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hage, Jaap. 2014. “Comparative Law as Method and the Method of Comparative Law.” In The Method and Culture of Comparative Law. Essays in Honour of Mark Van Hoecke, edited by Maurice Adams, and Dirk Heirbaut, 37–52. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  11. Husa, Jaakko. 2014. “Research Designs of Comparative Law – Methodology or Heuristics?” In The Method and Culture of Comparative Law. Essays in Honour of Mark Van Hoecke, edited by Maurice Adams, and Dirk Heirbaut, 53–68. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  12. Jakubowski, Jerzy. 1963. “Z problematyki badań prawnoporównaczych.” Państwo i Prawo 7:3–17. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kadner Graziano, Tomasz. 2007. “Die Europäisierung der juristischen Perspektive und der vergleichenden Methode –Fallstudien.” Zeitschriften für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 106:248–71. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kozieja–Dachterska, Agnieszka. 2006. Grosswrterbuch der Wirtschafts- Und Rechtssprache, Deutche-Polnisch. Vol. 1. Warsaw: C.H. Beck. [Google Scholar]
  15. Longchamps de Berier, Franciszek. 2016. “Z uwag do metodologii prawa prywatnego; argumenty historyczny, dogmatyczny i prawnoporównawczy na przykładzie darowizny na wypadek śmierci oraz zapisu windykacyjnego.” In Polska komparatystyka prawnicza. Prawo obce w doktrynie prawa polskiego, edited by Arkadiusz Wudarski, 285–99. Warsaw: Stowarzyszenie Notariuszy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. [Google Scholar]
  16. Monateri, Pier G. 2012. “Methods of Comparative Law – intellectual overview.” In Methods of Comparative Law, Research Handbook in Comparative Law, edited by Pier G. Monateri, 107–19. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2151819 [Google Scholar]
  17. Örücü, Esin. 2004. Enigma of Comparative Law. Variations on Theme for the Twenty-First Century. Leiden–Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  18. Örücü, Esin. 2006. “Methodology of comparative law.” In Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, edited by Jan M. Smits, 442–54. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847200204.00047 [Google Scholar]
  19. Reimann, Mathias. 2012. “Comparative Law and Neighbouring Disciplines.” In The Cambridge Companion to Comparative Law, edited by Mauro Bussani, and Ugo. Mattei, 13–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139017206.003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Rozmaryn, Stefan. 1966. “Z teorii badań i prac prawo-porównawczych.” Państwo i Prawo 3:759–70. [Google Scholar]
  21. Radwański, Zbigniew, and Roman Zegadło. 2012. “Artykuły recenzyjne.” Ruch Prawniczy Ekonomiczny i Społeczny LXXIV, no. 4:258–64. [Google Scholar]
  22. Samuel, Geoffrey. 2014. An Introduction to Comparative law. Theory and Method. Portland: Hart Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  23. Szer, Seweryn. 1967. “Metoda prawo-porównawcza w prawie cywilnym i rodzinnym.” Państwo i Prawo 1:22–30. [Google Scholar]
  24. Szymczak, Iwona. 2014. “Metoda nauki o porównywaniu systemów prawnych.” Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 3:38–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/rpeis.2014.76.3.3 [Google Scholar]
  25. Tokarczyk, Roman. 2008. Komparatystyka prawnicza. Warsaw: Woters Kluwer. [Google Scholar]
  26. Vogenauer, Stefan. 2008. “Sources of Law and Legal method.” In Comparative Law, edited by Mathias Reimann, and Reinhard Zimmermann, 870–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ziembiński, Zygmunt. 1972. Metodologia nauk prawnych. Przewodnik dla studentów pracujących. Poznań: Uniwersytet im A. Mickiewicza. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ziembiński, Zygmunt. 1983. Szkice z metodologii szczegółowych nauk prawnych. Poznań: Polska Akademia Nauk, Oddział Poznań. [Google Scholar]
  29. Zweigert, Karol, and Heinz Kötz. 1998. An Introduction to Comparative Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.