Instrumental Comparative Tort Law

Q3 Social Sciences Journal of Tort Law Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3973401
R. Perry
{"title":"Instrumental Comparative Tort Law","authors":"R. Perry","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3973401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the possible uses of comparative tort law in practice and theory. It takes the view that comparative law is always a means, never an end in itself, explains how it can be utilized by judges, legislatures, and legal scholars, and puts forward important caveats and qualifications. Part 2 demonstrates the traditional role of comparative law in interpreting and implementing shared or similar tort doctrines and in providing ideas for domestic tort law gap-filling and reform. It highlights the challenges that such utilization might present. Part 3 maintains that comparative research is the cornerstone of unification endeavors. Starting with coordinated projects, Part 3 argues that unification is in itself an instrument (making comparative law a second-order instrument) and that it cannot be pursued without taking into account some concerns about its desirability and practicability. Part 3 then discusses uncoordinated unification processes, whereby lawmakers in one jurisdiction identify a “global consensus” and decide to join it, and elaborates on the normative and positive components of these strategies. Part 4 acknowledges that comparative analysis usually uncovers trans-jurisdictional diversity and argues that such findings can underlie normative and positive theories of tort law. A comparison can offer a systematic taxonomy of possible legal solutions to a particular problem, enabling scholars to critically evaluate and compare the alternatives from their preferred theoretical perspective. Moreover, any hypothesis about the impact of cultural, economic, political, technological, and other conditions and changes on the law can be substantiated or refuted through comparative analyses that seek out legal differences (or similarities) among systems with different (or similar) underlying backgrounds. Through this analysis, the article aims to reignite and enrich the debate and inspire tort-law makers and scholars to integrate comparative research into their work.","PeriodicalId":39054,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Tort Law","volume":"14 1","pages":"493 - 529"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Tort Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3973401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article examines the possible uses of comparative tort law in practice and theory. It takes the view that comparative law is always a means, never an end in itself, explains how it can be utilized by judges, legislatures, and legal scholars, and puts forward important caveats and qualifications. Part 2 demonstrates the traditional role of comparative law in interpreting and implementing shared or similar tort doctrines and in providing ideas for domestic tort law gap-filling and reform. It highlights the challenges that such utilization might present. Part 3 maintains that comparative research is the cornerstone of unification endeavors. Starting with coordinated projects, Part 3 argues that unification is in itself an instrument (making comparative law a second-order instrument) and that it cannot be pursued without taking into account some concerns about its desirability and practicability. Part 3 then discusses uncoordinated unification processes, whereby lawmakers in one jurisdiction identify a “global consensus” and decide to join it, and elaborates on the normative and positive components of these strategies. Part 4 acknowledges that comparative analysis usually uncovers trans-jurisdictional diversity and argues that such findings can underlie normative and positive theories of tort law. A comparison can offer a systematic taxonomy of possible legal solutions to a particular problem, enabling scholars to critically evaluate and compare the alternatives from their preferred theoretical perspective. Moreover, any hypothesis about the impact of cultural, economic, political, technological, and other conditions and changes on the law can be substantiated or refuted through comparative analyses that seek out legal differences (or similarities) among systems with different (or similar) underlying backgrounds. Through this analysis, the article aims to reignite and enrich the debate and inspire tort-law makers and scholars to integrate comparative research into their work.
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
工具比较侵权法
本文探讨了比较侵权法在实践和理论上的可能应用。它认为比较法本身始终是一种手段,而不是目的,解释了法官、立法机构和法律学者如何利用比较法,并提出了重要的警告和条件。第二部分论述了比较法在解释和实施共同或相似侵权学说以及为填补和改革国内侵权法空白提供思路方面的传统作用。它强调了这种利用可能带来的挑战。第三部分认为,比较研究是统一努力的基石。从协调项目开始,第3部分认为,统一本身就是一种工具(使比较法成为一种二阶工具),如果不考虑到对其可取性和实用性的一些担忧,就无法实现统一。然后,第3部分讨论了不协调的统一进程,即一个管辖区的立法者确定并决定加入“全球共识”,并阐述了这些战略的规范和积极组成部分。第4部分承认,比较分析通常揭示跨司法管辖区的多样性,并认为这些发现可以作为侵权法规范和积极理论的基础。比较可以为特定问题的可能法律解决方案提供系统的分类,使学者能够从他们喜欢的理论角度批判性地评估和比较替代方案。此外,任何关于文化、经济、政治、技术和其他条件及变化对法律影响的假设都可以通过比较分析来证实或反驳,这些比较分析旨在找出具有不同(或相似)潜在背景的制度之间的法律差异(或相似性)。通过这一分析,本文旨在重新点燃和丰富这场争论,并激励侵权法制定者和学者将比较研究纳入他们的工作中。
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
Journal of Tort Law
Journal of Tort Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The Journal of Tort Law aims to be the premier publisher of original articles about tort law. JTL is committed to methodological pluralism. The only peer-reviewed academic journal in the U.S. devoted to tort law, the Journal of Tort Law publishes cutting-edge scholarship in tort theory and jurisprudence from a range of interdisciplinary perspectives: comparative, doctrinal, economic, empirical, historical, philosophical, and policy-oriented. Founded by Jules Coleman (Yale) and some of the world''s most prominent tort scholars from the Harvard, Fordham, NYU, Yale, and University of Haifa law faculties, the journal is the premier source for original articles about tort law and jurisprudence.
期刊最新文献
Situating Tort Law Within a Web of Institutions: Insights for the Age of Artificial Intelligence Against Harm: Keating on the Soul of Tort Law What We Talk About When We Talk About the Duty of Care in Negligence Law: The Utah Supreme Court Sets an Example in Boynton v. Kennecott Utah Copper Liking the Intrusion Analysis in In Re Facebook Disentangling Immigration Policy From Tort Claims for Future Lost Wages
×
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