No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2019
Comparative and international law has traditionally played a relatively minor role in legal education and research. J Recent years, however, have seen an increasing interest in comparative law, in particular in Europe, where its protagonists are involved in a vivid debate over the harmonisation of national private law systems. In the following remarks, I will, on the basis of one particular example, try to illustrate the type of comparative legal research that supports this debate. Before doing so, I will briefly present the different drivingforces that contribute to the harmonisation ofEuropean private law systems.
1 Reimann, M., “Rechtsgeschichte und Rechtsvergleichung im Dialog,” Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 7 (1999): 496–512, 503; Frankenberg, G., “Critical Comparisons: Re-thinking Comparative Law”, Harvard International Law Journal 26 (1985): 411–455, 419, even ascribes a “Cinderella Complex” to comparative lawyers.Google Scholar
2 For recent discussions about the role of comparative law in the U.S. see the contributions to a symposium on “New Direction in Comparative Law”, especially Mattei, U. & Reimann, M., “Introduction,” American Journal of Comparative Law 46 (1998): 597–606; see also Werro, F., “Notes on the Purpose and Aims of Comparative Law,” Tulane Law Review 75 (2001): 1225–1233.Google Scholar
3 I do not purport to provide a comprehensive account of the role that comparative law plays in the creation and interpretation of harmonised law, in particular through the European Court of Justice, see on this Grossfeld, B., “Comparative Law as a Comprehensive Approach: A European Tribute to Professor Jack A. Hiller,” Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business 1 (2000): 1–33, 3 et seq.: “Comparative law [‥] is the basis of the Court's European trustworthiness.”Google Scholar
4 On the distinction between “state imposed” and “non-state imposed” harmonisation see Smits, J., “How to Take the Road Untravelled? European Private Law in the Making,” Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 6 (1999): 25–46, 27. The process of European harmonisation is also influenced by efforts aiming at a worldwide unification of private law, such as the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods, or the UNIDROIT Principles, see Basedow, J., “Das BGB im künftigen europäischen Privatrecht: Der hybride Kontext,” Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 200 (2000): 445–492, 454–457, and Stoffel, W. A., “Enlightened Decision Making,” Tulane Law Review 75 (2001) at 1200–1203, or supra at 215–219.Google Scholar
5 “Die Rechtsvergleichung zwischen nationalem Staat und internationaler Wirtschaft,” Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 60 (1996): 201–230, 201: “‘Europäisches Privatrecht’ ist der Begriff unserer Zeit schlechthin”; E. A. Kramer, “Die Europäisierung des Privatrechts”, Recht 19 (2001): 102–110, 103: “Europäische Privatrechtsvereinheitlichung ist das Modethema (aber eben nicht nur Modethema) unserer Tage.” Since the 1960s, EC law has been influencing the commercial law of Member States in areas such as company law, intellectual property law or labor law, although this remained long without much attention, see Basedow, Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 200 (2000), 449 et seq. Claims for a “bottom-up” approach to the harmonisation of European private law systems go back to the 1960s, see H. Coing, “Die Bedeutung der europäischen Rechtsgeschichte für die Rechtsvergleichung,” Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht: 32 (1968): 1–23; M. Cappelletti, Introduction, in idem (ed.), “New Perspectives for a Common Law.” Boston: Sijthoff, 1978: 1–27; H. Kötz, Gemeineuropäisches Zivilrecht, in: H. Bernstein, U. Drobnig & H. Kötz (eds.), “Festschrift für Konrad Zweigert zum 70. Geburtstag.” Tübingen: Mohr, 1981: 481–500.Google Scholar
6 See Art. 3 lit. c et g, Art. 14 and Art. 81 EC Treaty. Google Scholar
7 See Joerges, C. & Brüggemeier, G., Europäisierung des Vertrags- und Haftungsrechts in: Müller-Graff, P.-C. (ed.), “Gemeinsames Privatrecht in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft.” Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2nd ed. 1999: 301–360, 306–308; Weatherill, S., Free Movement of Goods in: McMahon, J. (ed.), “Current Developments, European Community Law,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 50 (2001): 158–167, 159.Google Scholar
8 Case 120/78, Rewe Zentrale v. Monopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] ECR 649.Google Scholar
9 This corresponds to the idea that different legal systems are in competition with each other, and that national rules and standards will only “survive” if they are compatible with the European Community's integration objective, see Reich, N., “Competition between Legal Orders: A New Paradigm of EC Law?,” Common Market Law Review 29 (1992): 861–896.Google Scholar
10 Langner, O., “Das Kaufrecht auf dem Prüfstand der Warenverkehrsfreiheit des EG-Vertrages,” Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 65 (2001): 222–244, 224.Google Scholar
11 See Roth, W.-H., “Die Freiheiten des EG-Vertrages und das nationale Privatrecht, Zur Entwicklung internationaler Sachnormen für europäische Sachverhalte,” Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 2 (1994): 5–33, 15–18, and Weatherill, , International and Comparative Law Quarterly 50 (2001), 162 et seq., each with further references.Google Scholar
12 See on this concept Kirchner, C., “Europäisches Vertragsrecht,” in: Weyers, H.-L. (ed.), Europäisches Vertragsrecht. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1997: 103–137, 117.Google Scholar
13 Case C-339/89 Alsthom Atlantique v Sulzer [1991] ECR I-107, para. 14 and 15 (on warranties) and Case C-93/92, CMC Motorradcenter GmbH v. Pelin Baskiciogullari, ERC 1993 I-5009, para. 12 (on pre-contractual duties of disclosure); see also Case C-69/88 Krantz v Ontvanger der Directe Belastingen [1990] ECR I-583, para. 11; Judgement of 22 June 1999, Case C-412/97, ED Srl v. Italo Fenocchio, para. 11 and 12; Judgement of 27 January 2000, Case C-190/98, Volker Graf v. Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH, para. 25 and 26; Leible, S., “Die Rolle der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes bei der europäischen Privatrechtsentwicklung,” in: Martiny, D. & Witzleb, N., Auf dem Weg zu einem Europäischen Zivilgesetzbuch. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 1998: 53–86, 69: “Die Annahme liegt nahe, dass sich der EuGH der Sprengkraft einer Qualifizierung von Regelungen des “Kernprivatrechts” als Verkehrsbeschränkungen bewusst war und einer Entscheidung aus dem Weg gehen wollte”. In other contexts, the ECJ's case law has had greater impact on national private law systems, as illustrated by the debate over the German implementation of the Directive 76/207/EEC on equal treatment for men and women in the work place, see Brüggemeier, G., “EG-rechtskonforme Auslegung des Schadenersatzes bei Geschlechtsdiskriminierung im Arbeitsleben,” Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 5 (1998): 752–765. The case law on state liability for violations of EC law is also beginning to influence national private law rules, see Gerven, W. van, “The ECJ Case-Law as a Means of Unification of Private Law?,” in: Hartkamp, A. et al., Towards a European Civil Code. Nijmegen/The Hague: Ars Aequi Libri/Kluwer Law International, 2nd ed. 1998: 91–104.Google Scholar
14 Case C-339/89 Alsthom Atlantique v Sulzer [1991] ECR I-107, para. 15; see also Basedow, J., “A Common Contract Law for the Common Market,” Common Market Law Review 33 (1996): 1169–1195, 1174; Remien, O., “Denationalisierung des Privatrechts in der Europäischen Union? – Legislative und gerichtliche Wege,” Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung, Internationales Privatrecht und Europarecht 36 (1995): 116–133, 129; see however Langner, , 229 et seq.Google Scholar
15 See Cases C-267/91 and 268/91, Keck and Mithouard, [1993] ECR I-6097, para. 16 et seq. The Court held that rules prohibiting certain selling arrangements, as opposed to rules on product composition or presentation, are no longer regarded as restrictions to the free movement of goods, provided they apply to all affected traders operating within the national territory and effect in the same manner the marketing of domestic and imported products. On the background and scope of this ruling see Reich, N., “The ‘November Revolution’ of the European Court of Justice: Keck, Meng and Audi Revisited,” Common Market Law Review 31 (1994): 459–492, 465–468; Weatherill, S., “After Keck: Some Thoughts on How to Clarify the Clarification,” Common Market Law Review 33 (1996): 885–906.Google Scholar
16 Reich, , Common Market Law Review 31 (1994), 488; Roth, , 27 et seq.; Remien, 130, 132; Klauer, I., Die Europäisierung des Privatrechts, Der EuGH als Zivilrichter. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1998, 83. Langner, , 230–236, has suggested to determine the rules of contract law subject to the Court's review on the basis of a de minimis-rule rather than on the basis of the distinction between selling arrangements and rules on product composition or presentation; see also the Opinion delivered by the Advocate General Fennelly on 16 September 1999 in Case C-190/98, Volker Graf v Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH, para. 19.Google Scholar
17 Leible, , loc. cit., 63 et seq.Google Scholar
18 Klauer, , op. cit., 23 et seq.; Feiden, S., “Europeanisation of European Law Adjudication – A Comment,” European Review of Private Law 8 (2000): 17–14, 20.Google Scholar
19 Directive 87/102/EEC, OJ 1987 L 42/48.Google Scholar
20 Directive 85/374/EEC 985, OJ L 1985 210/29.Google Scholar
21 Directive 93/13/EEC, OJ 1993 L 95/29.Google Scholar
22 Public-interest objectives can only be invoked as long as they have not been harmonised at the Community level, see Case 120/78, Rewe Zentrale v. Monopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] ECR 649, para. 8.Google Scholar
23 See Micklitz, H.-W., “Perspektiven eines Europäischen Privatrechts”, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 6 (1998): 253–276, 254 et seq.; see also Klauer, , 24. This legislative action was facilitated by the 1986 Single European Act, which introduced the possibility of qualified majority votes in the Council (Art. 95 (1) and 251 (2) of the Treaty), see S. Weatherill, “New Strategies for Managing EC's Internal Market,” Current Legal Problems 53 (2000): 595–619, 595, 598.Google Scholar
24 Apart from the before mentioned directives, this includes legislation on contracts negotiated away from business premises (Directive 85/577/EEC, OJ L 1985 372/31), on contracts for package holidays (Directive 90/314/EEC, OJ 1990 L 158/59), on time-shared real estate (Directive 94/47/EEC, OJ 1997 L 144/19), on distance contracts (Directive 97/7/EC, OJ L 1997 144/19), on consumer purchases (Directive 99/44/EC, OJ 1999 L 171/12) and on late payments in commercial transactions (Directive 2000/35/EC, OJ 2000 L 200/35). A comprehensive list of EC legislation affecting private law is included in Müller-Graff, P.-C., “Gemeinsames Privatrecht in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft,” in: Müller-Graff, P.-C. (ed.), Gemeinsames Privatrecht in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2nd ed. 1999: 9–100, 84–100.Google Scholar
25 This term has been coined by Müller-Graff, P.-C., “Gemeinsames Privatrecht in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft – Ansatzpunkte, Ausgangsfragen, Ausfaltungen,” in: idem (ed.), Gemeinsames Privatrecht in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2nd ed. 1999: 267–298 (reprint), 285, who defines it as “die kraft Gemeinschaftsrechts gemeinschaftsweit inhaltsidentischen verbindlichen Privatrechtssätze.”Google Scholar
26 See Kötz, H., “Rechtsvereinheitlichung – Nutzen, Kosten, Methode, Ziele,” Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht 50 (1986): 1–18, 5; Hommelhoff, P., “Zivilrecht unter dem Einfluss europäischer Rechtsangleichung,” Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 192 (1992): 71–107, 102; Basedow, Common Market Law Review 33 (1996), 1171; Micklitz, , 258; Werro, F., “Towards the Denationalization of Private Law in Europe,” in: idem (ed.), New Perspectives on European Private Law. Fribourg, Suisse: Editions Universitaires, 1998: 23–49, 41 et seq.; Smits, , 29.Google Scholar
27 See OJ C 158 of 26 June 1989, 400; OJ C 205 of 25 July 1994, 518. The resolutions are reprinted in Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 1 (1993): 613–615, and Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 3 (1995): 669. For the possible content of such a Code see the contributions to Hartkamp, A. et al., Towards a European Civil Code. Nijmegen/The Hague: Ars Aequi Libri/Kluwer Law International, 2nd ed. 1998.Google Scholar
28 Basedow, , Common Market Law Review 33 (1996), 1176–1178; Lando, O., “The rules of European contract law,” in: The Private Law Systems in the EU: Discrimination on Grounds of Nationality and the Need for a European Civil Code, Working Paper, PE 168.511, 124: “Venturing into a foreign market is risky, and many companies, especially small and medium-sized businesses, are wary of doing so. The legal differences are therefore obstacles to the free movement of goods, people and services, obstacles which are fundamentally irreconcilable with the principle of a common market.”Google Scholar
29 See Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on European Contract Law, Brussels, 11 July 2001, COM(2001) 398 final. This communication was preceded by a resolution of the European Parliament by which the Commission was invited to explore the question in greater detail, see Resolution B5-0228, 0229 - 0230/2000 of 29 December 2000, OJ C 377/323.Google Scholar
30 The Community does not have a comprehensive mandate for harmonising or even unifying European private law systems. It can only approximate national laws if and to the extent required by the functioning of the internal market (Art. 3 h and 95 EC Treaty). Recent studies tend to conclude that Art. 95 provides a sufficient basis for the Community to adopt a European Civil Code. This conclusion rests on the argument that, beyond the mere abolition of trade restrictions, the powers conferred on the Commission and on the Parliament embrace the creation of conditions in which commercial parties and consumers are encouraged to use the possibilities of the internal market, see Tilmann, W. & Gerven, W. van, “The competence of the EU to create a uniform European law of obligations and property and the potential legal basis,” in: The Private Law Systems in the EU: Discrimination on Grounds of Nationality and the Need for a European Civil Code, Working Paper, PE 168.511, 198–201; Schmid, C., “Legitimätsbedingungen eines Europäischen Zivilgesetzbuches,” Juristenzeitung 56 (2001): 674–683, 676. The Court's recent ruling on the tobacco advertisement directive may, however, imply a narrower construction of the Community's competencies, see Case C-376/98, Federal Republic of Germany v. European Parliament, at para. 83 and 84, and, for a general comment of this case, Weatherill, , International and Comparative Law Quarterly 50 (2001), 165–167.Google Scholar
31 Schmid, , loc. cit., 577 et seq.Google Scholar
32 Kötz, H., “How to Achieve a Common European Private Law,” in: Werro, F. (ed.), New Perspectives on European Private Law. Fribourg, Suisse: Editions Universitaires, 1998:9–21, 11; Kirchner, , 118 et seq., who draws on Friedrich Hayek's concept of competition as a motor of promoting knowledge and information, see also Mattei, U., Comparative Law and Economic. University of Michigan Press, 1997, 107 et seq.; and against the “sense of closure” that may be associated with a European Code, Legrand, P., “Against a European Civil Code,” Modern Law Review 60 (1997): 44–63, 55.Google Scholar
33 Schmid, , 678 et seq.; A. Chamboredon, “Form v Substance? An Ideological Venture Beyond the Dichotomy in European Contract Law,” European Review of Private Law 8 (2000): 237–247, 246; on the economic consequences of the introduction of a new jurisdictional system see also Kirchner, , 120.Google Scholar
34 Micklitz, , 257; Collins, H., “European Private Law and the Cultural Identity of States,” European Review of Private Law 3 (1995): 353–365, 357 et seq.; see also Joerges, C., “Interactive Adjudication in the Europeanisation Process? A Demanding Perspective and a Modest Example,” European Review of Private Law 8 (2000): 1–16, 5, who identifies two opposed “schools of thought”: on the one hand those who favor the harmonisation of private law for reasons of economic rationality, and on the other hand those who defend the autonomy of national private law systems in order to preserve their traditional linkage with local cultures and institutions.Google Scholar
35 Zimmermann, R., “Savigny's Legacy, Legal History, Comparative Law, and the Emergence of a European Legal Science,” Law Quarterly Review 112 (1996): 576–605, 605.Google Scholar
36 Legrand, , Modern Law Review 60 (1997), 60.Google Scholar
37 See for early studies on the approximation of European legal systems Koschaker, P., Europa und das römische Recht. Munich: Beck, 1st ed. 1947; Wieacker, F., Privatrechtsgeschichte der Neuzeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der deutschen Entwicklung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1st ed. 1952, 8: “Die europäische Geschichte ist eine Einheit auch als Privatrechtsgeschichte; die deutsche Privatrechtsgeschichte nur ein Sonderfall, dessen grosse Epochen ausnahmslos nur aus dem europäischen Zusammenhang zu verstehen sind.;” Coing, H., “European Common Law: Historical Foundations,” in: Cappelletti, M. (ed.), New Perspectives for a Common Law. Boston: Sijthoff, 1978, 31–44. For a more recent affirmation of the model character of the past commonality see Schulze, R., “Gemeineuropäisches Privatrecht und Rechtsgeschichte,” in: Müller-Graff, P.-C. (ed.), Gemeinsames Privatrecht in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2nd ed. 1999: 127–148, 127: “Dass die Vergangenheit der Gegenwart das Vorbild gemeinsamen Rechts in Europa bietet, bedarf [‥] kaum noch der Ausführung.”Google Scholar
38 Coing, H., Europäisches Privatrecht, vol. I. Beck, Munich, 1985, 7–15; van Caenegem, R. C., An Historical Introduction to Private Law. Cambridge University Press, 1992, 45 et seq. Although Roman law served as a common source of inspiration in many European legal systems, the rules derived from the Roman texts were not always identical, see Alain Wijffels, “European Private Law: A New Software Package for an Outdated Operating System,” in: van Hoecke, Mark & Ost, François (eds.), The Harmonisation of European Private Law. Oxford: Hart, 2000: 101–116, 105, n. 7: “la pierre a pu servir de matériau premier pour des édifices aussi différents, mais exprimant chaque fois l'esprit de leur époque, que la cathédrale de Chartres, le chateau de Versailles, la gare d'Orsay…”Google Scholar
39 Whittaker, S. & Zimmermann, R., “Good faith in European contract law: surveying the legal landscape,” in: idem (eds.), Good Faith in European Contract Law. Cambridge University Press, 2000: 7–62, 8. This attitude is not shared by all legal historians, some of whom fear that legal history may be devaluated to an ancillary science of comparative law, see on these fears Reimann, M., 501 et seq.Google Scholar
40 Zimmermann, R., “Historische Verbindungen zwischen civil law und common law,” in: Müller-Graff, P.-C. (ed.), Gemeinsames Privatrecht in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2nd ed. 1999: 103–125. The term “noble isolation” is borrowed from J. H. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History. Butterworths, London, 3rd ed. 1990, 35.Google Scholar
41 Gordley, J., “Common Law und Civil Law: Eine überholte Unterscheidung,” Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 1 (1993): 498–518; Markesinis, B. S., “Learning from Europe and Learning in Europe,” in: idem (ed.), The Gradual Convergence: Foreign Ideas, Foreign Influences and English Law on the Eve of the 21st Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994:1–32, 30, who notes convergence in the solutions, in the sources of law and in procedural matters, as well as “a growing rapprochement in judicial views;” see also (though with more nuances) Kötz, H., “Abschied von der Rechtskreislehre,” Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 6 (1998): 493–505, 498–500; contra Legrand, Modern Law Review 60 (1997), 58.Google Scholar
42 Kötz, H., “Rechtsvergleichung und gemeineuropäisches Privatrecht,” in: Müller-Graff, P.-C. (ed.), Gemeinsames Privatrecht in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2nd ed. 1999: 149–162; Smits, , 34, who points out that “the road that has to be travelled is a new one,” and that the present social and economic background of the Europeanisation of private law is profoundly different from the one in the ius commune era; see also Repgen, T., “Europäisierung des Privatrechts durch Wiederbelebung des ius commune?”, in: Jahrbuch Junger Zivilrechtswissenschaftler 1997, Europäisierung des Privatrechts: Zwischenbilanz und Perspektiven. Stuttgart: Boorberg, 1998: 9–36, 22.Google Scholar
43 Zimmermann, , Law Quarterly Review 112 (1996), 596–602, 605; Kötz, in: Müller-Graff, 154 et seq.; Flessner, A., “Rechtsvereinheitlichung durch Rechtswissenschaft und Juristenausbildung,” Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 56 (1992): 243–260; Timme, M., “Zu Chancen und Grenzen einer Europäischen Ordnung des Zivilrechts”, Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 33 (2000): 301–304, on the role of European textbooks see Gerven, W. van, “Casebooks for the Common Law of Europe, Presentation of the Project,” European Review of Private Law 4 (1996): 67–70, and on the role of legal education in general Werro, in: idem, 46–49.Google Scholar
44 Zimmermann, , Law Quarterly Review 112 (1996), 597, 605; preface to Kötz, H., Europäisches Vertragsrecht, vol. I. Tubingen: Mohr, 1992, v–xi; on the role of common principles as an alternative to state imposed harmonisation of private law see also the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on European Contract Law, Brussels, 11 July 2001, COM(2001) 398 final, 14.Google Scholar
45 The Principles of European Contract Law of the so-called Lando commission, for example, were drafted as possible model for a future codification, see Lando, O. & Beale, H. (eds.), The Principles of European Contract Law, Part 1 and 2. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000, xxii–xxiv.Google Scholar
46 See Joerges, C., “The Impact of European Integration on Private Law: Reductionist Perceptions, True Conflicts and a New Constitutional Perspective,” European Law Journal 3 (1997): 378–406, 385.Google Scholar
47 An example is provided by the application of the Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts. The Directive provides that standard business terms have to be tested against the principle of good faith, Art. 3 (1) of the Directive. To conclude that a particular term is unfair, it has to be compared to the legal rule that would apply in its absence. As the rules of supplementary contract law have not been harmonised, the yardstick for determining unfairness remains based on national law, so that the same term may be qualified as unfair in one Member State, while being acceptable in another; see Report from the Commission on the Implementation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, Brussels, 27 April 2000, COM(2000) 248 final, 30.Google Scholar
48 See Hommelhoff, , 106; Flume, W., “Vom Beruf unserer Zeit für Gesetzgebung,” Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht und Insolvenzpraxis 21 (2000): 1427–1430, 1429 (on the integration of the directive on distance contracts into German law): “Es geht um das BGB, und das BGB ist ein Kulturdenkmal.”Google Scholar
49 Collins, , 359–361.Google Scholar
50 Collins, , 357 et seq.; Harlow, C., “Voices of Difference in a Plural Community,” Harvard Jean Monnet Working Paper 03/00 (2001), http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/00/000301.html, 5–8, and, in particular, Legrand, P., “Legal Traditions in Western Europe: The Limits of Commonality,” in: Jagtenberg, R., Örücü, E. & Roo, A. de (eds.), Transfrontier Mobility of Law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1995: 63–84; idem, Modern Law Review 60 (1997), 48 et seq., 53–56; on the role of legal cultures in general see J. Bell, “Comparative Law and Legal Theory,” in: Krawietz, W., MacCormick, N. & Henrik von Wright, G. (eds.), Prescriptive Formality and Normative Rationality in Modern Legal Systems, Festschrift für Robert Summers. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1994: 19–31; Meir, F. L., “Some Thoughts on Comparative Legal Culture,” in: Clark, D. S. (ed.), Comparative and Private International Law: Essays in Honor of John Henry Merryman on his Seventieth Birthday. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1990: 49–57; on the importance of cultural differences see also Curran, V. Grosswald, “Dealing in Difference: Comparative's Law Potential for Broadening Legal Perspective,” American Journal of Comparative Law 46 (1998): 657–668.Google Scholar
51 See Legrand, P., “European Legal Systems are not Converging,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 45 (1996): 52–81, 61–62: “legal systems […] have not been converging, are not converging and will not be converging”; see also Smits, , 34.Google Scholar
52 Legrand, , Modern Law Review 60 (1997), 60; idem, Legal Traditions, 68 et seq., 81, who argues that even a common legal education would not allow to overcome the differences in the civil law and the common law mentalités, as law students have assimilated a certain cultural baggage long before they think about going to law school.Google Scholar
53 According to this approach, comparative research should be guided by an inquiry into the social and economic problems addressed in different legal systems, rather than by the search for legal concepts and rules, see Rabel, E., “Aufgabe und Notwendigkeit der Rechtsvergleichung,” in: Leser, H. G. (ed.), Rabel, Ernst, Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. III. Tubingen: Mohr, 1967: 1–21, 4; Rheinstein, M., “Teaching Comparative Law”, (1938), in: Leser, H. G. (ed.), Rheinstein, Max, Collected Works, vol. I. Tubingen: Mohr, 1979: 294–303, 296 et seq.; Zweigert & Kötz, 33.Google Scholar
54 According to this assumption, the results reached in different legal systems tend to converge if the social and economic context is sufficiently similar, see Zweigert, K., “Die ‘Praesumptio similitudinis’ als Grundsatzvermutung rechtsvergleichender Methode,” in: Rotondo, M., Inchieste di Diritto Comparato. Padova: Antonio Milani, 1973: 735–758, 738; Zweigert & Kötz, 38 et seq., who suggest that the finding of difference should make the comparatist doubtful about whether his or her research was conducted in the right way.Google Scholar
55 Nottage, L., “Convergence, Divergence, and the Middle Way in Unifying or Harmonising Private Law,” EUI Working Paper LAW no 2001/01, http://www.iue.it/LAW/res/nottage/EUIWorkingPaper4.pdf, 3 et seq.; Legrand, P., “The Impossibility of ‘Legal Transplants',” Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 4 (1997): 111–124, 123 et seq.: “I argue that comparison must involve the ‘primary and fundamental investigation of difference';” Frankenberg, 435–440; see also Fletcher, G., “Comparative Law as a Subversive Discipline,” American Journal of Comparative Law 46 (1998): 689–700, 694.Google Scholar
56 See Legrand, P., Le droit comparé. Paris: PUF 1999, 27–32.Google Scholar
57 See Merryman, J. H., “On the Convergence (and Divergence) of the Civil Law and the Common Law,” in: Cappelletti, M. (ed.), New Perspectives for am Common Law of Europe. Boston: Sijthoff, 1978: 195–253, 229 et seq.; Werro, , Tulane Law Review 75 (2001), 1231; Blanc-Jouvan, X., “Reflections on ‘The Common Core of European Private Law’ Project, Global Jurist Frontiers: Vol. 1: No. 1, Article 2, http://www.bepress.com/gj/frontiers/voll/iss1/art2.Google Scholar
58 See Hoecke, M. van & Warrington, M., “Legal Cultures, Legal Paradigms and Legal Doctrine: Towards a New Model for Comparative Law,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 47 (1998): 495–536, 508 et seq., 532–534, who consider that sociological and anthropological perspectives are indispensable for “cross-cultural comparisons,” while “more or less purely technical comparisons” may be fruitful in the European context.Google Scholar
59 But this is hardly contested by anyone. Thus, one of the very defenders of the functional approach has recently warned against its limits, Kötz, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 6 (1998), 504 et seq.; see also Zweigert & Kötz, 33, who describe the functional approach as a “Arbeitshypothese.”Google Scholar
60 See Werro, , Tulane Law Review 75, 1231 et seq.; Hoecke, M. Van, “The Harmonisation of Private Law in Europe: Some Misunderstandings,” in Hoecke, M. Van & Ost, F., The Harmonisation of European Private Law. Oxford: Hart, 2000: 1–20, 8 et seq.; Kötz, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 6 (1998), 496: “Legrand mag recht haben, wenn er die Juristen für blind hält. Aber hätte er nicht andeuten können, dass die Rechtsvergleicher wenigstens auf einem Auge sehen und deshalb unter den Blinden die Könige sind?;” Basedow, J., “Rechtskultur – zwischen nationalem Mythos und europäischem Ideal,” Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 4 (1996): 379–381; on the conceptual difficulties of cultural relativism in general see Peters, A. & Schwenke, H., “Comparative Law Beyond Post-Modernism,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 49 (2000): 800–834, 814 et seq.Google Scholar
61 See Gordley, J., “Mapping Private Law,” in: Bussani, M. & Mattei, U. (eds.), Making European Law. Essays on the Common Core Project. Università degli Studi di Trento, 2000: 27–37, 35–37.Google Scholar
62 For this division see Caenegem, R. van, Judges, Legislators and Professors. Cambridge University Press, 1987, 53–65; for an overview of recent developments in the English law of restitution see Birks, P., “The Law of Restitution at the End of an Epoch,” Western Australian Law Review 28 (1999): 13–64. Another example of the rapprochement between civil law and common law reasoning is the relaxation of the “rule of exclusion,” which did not allow English courts to take into account parliamentary materials (“travaux préparatoires”) in interpreting statutes, see Pepper v. Hart [1993] 1 All ER 42 and on this Kötz, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 6 (1998), 499.Google Scholar
63 On the reception of this “linguistic transplant” into English and other languages see Mieder, W., “‘(Don't) Throw the Baby out with the Bathwater': The Americanization of a German Proverb and Proverbial Expression,” De Proverbio, An Electronic Journal of International Proverb Studies 1 (1995), http://www.deproverbio.com/DPjournal/DP,1,1,95/BABY.html.Google Scholar
64 van Erp, J.H.M., “European Private Law: Postmodern Dilemmas and Choices. Towards a Method of Adequate Comparative Legal Analysis,” Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 3.1 (August 1999), http://law.kub.nl/ejcl/31/art31-1.html, para. 5.2 who advocates a “pragmatic approach“ to comparative law; see also Werro, , Tulane Law Review 75, 1227 et seq.; see also Grossfeld, , 29.Google Scholar
65 See Nottage, , 33 et seq., who suggests to take a “middle way”; Peters & Schwenke, 832–834.Google Scholar
66 Until today, two volumes have been published: Zimmermann, R. & Whittaker, S. (eds.), Good Faith in European Contract Law. Cambridge University Press, 2000, and Gordley, J., The Enforceability of Promises in European Contract Law. Cambridge University Press, 2001. Eleven other case studies are in preparation: Kieninger, Eva-Maria, Security Rights in Movable Property; Bussani, Mauro & Palmer, Vernon V., Pure Economic Loss; Pozzo, Barbara, Property on Environment; Sefton-Green, Ruth & Ghestin, Jacques, Mistake and Misrepresentation; Graziadei, Michele & Smith, Lionel, Trusts; Werro, Franz & Palmer, Vernon V., The Boundaries of Strict Liability; Monateri, Pier Giuseppe & Bona, Marco, Complex Liability; Cartwright, John & Hesselink, Martijn, Pre-contractual Liability; Brüggemeier, Gert & Ciacchi, Aurelia Colombi, Personality Rights in European Tort Law; Banakas, Stathis & Comandé, Giovanni, Personal Injury Compensation; Hondius, Ewoud, Change of Circumstances. For the progress of the project see http://www.jus.unitn.it/dsg/common-core.Google Scholar
67 Bussani, M. & Mattei, U., “The Common Core Approach to European Private Law,” Columbia Journal of European Law 3 (1997–1998): 339–356, 341, who have described it as a cartographic project, rather than as one “engaged in city planning;” see also idem, “Le fonds commun du droit privé européen,” Revue International de Droit Comparé 2000: 29–48, 30–32. The idea that there exists a common core behind national codes goes back to the 1900 congress on comparative law, see Stoffel, , 1198 seq.Google Scholar
68 As the initiators continue to point out, “what use will be made of this map is of no concern for the cartographers drafting it,” see Bussani, M., “‘Integrative’ Comparative Law Enterprises and the Inner Stratification of Legal Systems,” European Review of Private Law 8 (2000): 85–99, 87; Bussani, & Mattei, , RIDC 2000, 31; see also Bussani, M. & Mattei, U., “General Editors’ Preface,” in: idem, Making European Law. Essays on the Common Core Project. Università degli Studi di Trento, 2000: “We all share the sense that knowledge and understanding should come before action.”Google Scholar
69 Sacco, R., “Legal Formants: A Dynamic Approach to Comparative Law,” American Journal of Comparative Law 39 (1991): 1–34 and 343–401.Google Scholar
70 Bussani, & Mattei, , Revue International de Droit Comparé 2000, 35–38.Google Scholar
71 This method is not new. It is inspired by a project undertaken in the 1960s in Cornell under the direction of Rudolf Schlesinger and devoted to the formation of contracts in the world's legal systems, see Schlesinger, R. (ed.), Formation of Contracts: A Study of the Common Core of Legal Systems, vols. I and I. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, 1968.Google Scholar
72 Schlesinger, R., “The Common Core of Legal Systems: An Emerging Subject of Comparative Study,” in: Nadelmann, K. H., von Mehren, A. T. & Hazard, J. N. (eds.), XXth Century Comparative and Conflicts of Law, Essays in Honor of Hessel E. Yntema. Leyden: Sythoff, 1961: 65–79, 73–77.Google Scholar
73 In that respect, the Common Core project seeks to respond to one of the main critiques of contemporary comparative law, see Legrand, , International and Comparative Law Quarterly 45 (1996), 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74 For a critical evaluation of the Common Core project see Nottage, 9–13; for a more positive account of the first published volume see Munday, R., “Book Reviews, Good Faith in European Contract Law,” Cambridge Law Journal 59 (2000): 615–618.Google Scholar
75 This reflects the insight that comparative lawyers at present have an insufficient knowledge about European legal systems other than the French, English or German legal systems. See also the conclusion by Peters, & Schwenke, , 832, on the claims of postmodernism on comparative law:”. the real problems are not moral or cultural blindness, ethnocentricity and legal imperialism, but the lack of full knowledge and understanding of foreign legal rules and cultures. Comparatists have – pure and simple – an incomplete knowledge of many hard facts.”Google Scholar
76 This is, for example, the case of the concept of “responsabilité du fait de la chose,” which was incorporated into Italian and Portuguese law, but which has never been applied in the same strict sense as in French law. On the theory of legal transplants in general see Watson, A., “Legal Transplants and European Private Law,” Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, vol 4.4 (December 2000), http://law.kub.nl/ejcl/44/44-2.html.Google Scholar
77 For a broader account of the role of language in comparative law see Grossfeld, , 12–18.Google Scholar
78 See, for example, Kasirer, N., “Le real estate existe-t-il en droit civil? Un regard sur le lexique juridique de droit civil de langue anglaise,” in: Sacco, R. & Castellani, L., Les multiples langues du droit européen uniforme. Torino: L'Harmattan Italia 1999, 89–113.Google Scholar
79 See Kötz, , Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 6 (1998), 504: “Die spannenden Aufgaben der rechtsvergleichenden Forschung liegen … in Untersuchungen, “die die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen eines gemeineuropäischen Privatrechts klären helfen.”Google Scholar
80 The term is borrowed from Caruso, D., “The Missing View of the Cathedral: The Private Law Paradigm of European Legal Integration,” European Law Journal 3 (1997): 3–32, who apparently borrowed it from Calabresi, G. & Melamed, A. D., “Property Rules, Liability Rules and Inalienability – One View of the Cathedral,” Harvard Law Review 85 (1972): 1089–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
81 See Basedow, J., “Anforderungen an eine europäische Zivilrechtsdogmatik,” in: Zimmermann, R., Knütel, R. & Meincke, J. P. (eds.), Rechtsgeschichte und Privatrechtsdogmatik. Heidelberg: Müller, C.F. 1999:79–100, 99 et seq.; Schulze, 143–147.Google Scholar
82 This suggests that the outcome of the present debate over a European Civil Code is still open, contrary to what has been suggested by some of its supporters, see Lando, O., “The Rules of European Contract Law,” in: The Private Law Systems in the EU : Discrimination on Grounds of Nationality and the Need for a European Civil Code, Working Paper, PE 168.511, http://www.europarl.eu.int/workingpapers/juri/pdf/103_en.pdf, 125: “The resistance of European lawyers to the standardisation of civil law is unavoidable. But it is there to be overcome.”Google Scholar
83 Joerges, , European Review of Private Law 8 (2000), 15 et seq.; Nottage, , 18; on the role of the judiciary see also the contributions to Slaugther, A.-M., Sweet, A. Stone & Weiler, J.H.H., The European Court and National Courts – Doctrine and Jurisprudence. Legal Change in Its Social Context. Oxford: Hart, 1998.Google Scholar
84 Lord Goff of Chieveley, “The Wilberforce Lecture 1997: The Future of the Common Law,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 46 (1997): 745–760, 748.Google Scholar
85 See the claim for “humility, empathy and courage” by Grossfeld, , 32.Google Scholar