Comparative Law Methodology & American Legal Culture: Obstacles and Opportunities

Colin B. Picker
{"title":"Comparative Law Methodology & American Legal Culture: Obstacles and Opportunities","authors":"Colin B. Picker","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1544489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite its historic presence in American law, comparative law was until recently largely the preserve of a few specialists, often emigres from Europe. On occasion a legal scholar from another field would consider and employ comparative methods, but for the most part American legal scholars focused only on domestic legal matters from domestic perspectives. If they did tend to look further afield, it was usually to consider legal issues in England or, less often, in other common law or English language legal systems. Practitioners and policy makers were not any more sophisticated and indeed were likely even more parochial. Today, however, certain factors, chief among them the accelerating rate of globalization, are forcing a change in perspective throughout the legal community. Increasingly American legal scholars, practitioners and policy makers are considering how legal issues are handled in other legal systems - through an international, foreign and comparative law lens. That movement is not taking place, however, without controversy and, of greater relevance to this article, without some levels of misunderstanding, inaccuracy and confusion.","PeriodicalId":300536,"journal":{"name":"Roger Williams university law review","volume":"106 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Roger Williams university law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1544489","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Despite its historic presence in American law, comparative law was until recently largely the preserve of a few specialists, often emigres from Europe. On occasion a legal scholar from another field would consider and employ comparative methods, but for the most part American legal scholars focused only on domestic legal matters from domestic perspectives. If they did tend to look further afield, it was usually to consider legal issues in England or, less often, in other common law or English language legal systems. Practitioners and policy makers were not any more sophisticated and indeed were likely even more parochial. Today, however, certain factors, chief among them the accelerating rate of globalization, are forcing a change in perspective throughout the legal community. Increasingly American legal scholars, practitioners and policy makers are considering how legal issues are handled in other legal systems - through an international, foreign and comparative law lens. That movement is not taking place, however, without controversy and, of greater relevance to this article, without some levels of misunderstanding, inaccuracy and confusion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较法方法论与美国法律文化:障碍与机遇
尽管比较法在美国法律中有着悠久的历史,但直到最近,比较法在很大程度上还是少数专家的专利,他们通常是从欧洲移民过来的。有时,其他领域的法律学者也会考虑并采用比较方法,但美国的法律学者大多只关注国内视角下的国内法律问题。如果他们确实倾向于看更远的地方,通常是考虑英国的法律问题,或者很少考虑其他普通法或英语法律体系的法律问题。从业人员和政策制定者并没有变得更老练,甚至可能更加狭隘。然而,今天,某些因素,其中主要是全球化的加速,正在迫使整个法律界改变看法。越来越多的美国法律学者、从业者和政策制定者正在通过国际法、外国法和比较法的视角,考虑如何在其他法律体系中处理法律问题。然而,这一运动并非没有争议,而且与本文更相关的是,没有某种程度的误解、不准确和混乱。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Labor Law Illiteracy: Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis and Janus v. AFSCME Taking Justice Kennedy Seriously: Why Windsor Was Decided "quite apart from principles of federalism Comparative Law Methodology & American Legal Culture: Obstacles and Opportunities The Tenuous Case for Conscience Product-Related Risk and Cognitive Biases: The Shortcomings of Enterprise Liability
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1