From the preceding essays, but also from the general discussion around From Apology, two themes emerge as a constant source of puzzlement, not least to myself. How does the argument in that book affect – if at all – the way we do international law? And what does the claim to be “critical” really mean? These are, I suppose, aspects of one larger set of problems that permeate the whole of that work. “Oh yes, it does describe the argumentative patterns pretty well. But it does not really change anything, does it?” One might approach this sort of query in different ways. It might be thought of as an expression of the classical theme about the relations of theory and practice in the social sciences. How do academic works influence the social world to which they are addressed? Or one might be more interested in the specific relationship between (academic) doctrines and legal practice – the “outside” and the “inside” of the legal profession.

Harmonisation of the different rights of withdrawal, enshrined in legislation on doorstep selling, distance selling, timesharing, and in the near future consumer credit, is amongst the top issues of the EC agenda on European private law. Germany, following its tradition of a well-organised system of private law rules, has tried for some time to establish a harmonised system at the national level. At the same time, Germany appears to have created one of the most detailed set of rules on the right of withdrawal in Europe, in particular with a view to the consequences of the withdrawal from a contract, and it has tried to find the right balance between the interests of consumers and traders, a challenge that will also come up at EC level.