Chapter 1 introduces students to the various approaches used to pursue comparative legal studies. It especially presents the orthodox “legal families“ approach to macro-comparative law. The chapter then considers several critiques of that tradition. H. Patrick Glenn challenges the concept of “legal families“ and suggests a “legal traditions” framework to replace it. The chapter then presents the social-contextual approach to comparative law as promoted by Legrand. Finally, the chapter urges students to recognize the ethical implications of comparative law through Frankenberg’s concepts of “distancing” and “differencing.”

This chapter explores the current landscape of Latin American legal systems from a private law and public law perspective. The aim is to show the influences that have shaped each of these fields and their current state of development. The focus is on countries which are leading jurisdictions within the region, or that represent a particular trend or characteristic. Within the private law analysis, after a historical overview of the milestones in its formation process, some select topics are addressed. First, we consider how Latin American legal systems fit into the traditional categories of legal families; then, whether they can form a unique legal family; and, finally, current efforts to harmonise private law. The public law section centres on constitutional law and, in particular, on the New Latin American Constitutionalism (NLAC) movement. We identify the main features of the original NLAC Constitutions and then test them against the recent Chilean experience. The chapter concludes that interesting trends have developed within private and public law in the region but questions their distinctiveness and success.

Comparative lawyers are interested in similarities between legal systems. Artificial intelligence offers a new approach to understanding legal families. This chapter introduces machine-learning methods useful in empirical comparative law, a nascent field. This chapter provides a step-by-step guide to evaluating and developing legal family theories using machine-learning algorithms. We briefly survey existing empirical comparative law data sets, and then demonstrate how to visually explore these using a data set one of us compiled. We introduce popular and powerful algorithms of service to comparative law scholars, including dissimilarity coefficients, dimension reduction, clustering, and classification. The unsupervised machine-learning method enables researchers to develop a legal family scheme without the interference from existing schemes developed by human intelligence, thus providing a powerful tool to test comparative law theories. The supervised machine-learning method enables researchers to start with a baseline scheme (developed by human or artificial intelligence) and then extend it to previously unstudied jurisdictions.

The relationship between comparative law and legal history has been a topic of interest for a long time. But reflections on how methods could combine the historical approaches of legal systems around the world with theoretical or jurisprudential points of view really began with Edouard Lambert’s 1903 book La fonction du droit civil comparé. Using the two meanings of ‘jurisprudence’ (as case law in French language and as legal theory in English), Lambert proposed comparing positive rules while bearing in mind the weight of history and its limits. Following this path, this chapter explores critical and constructive approaches to comparative law through legal history. In the first part of this chapter, history is used to criticise simplistic conceptions of comparative law like ‘legal families’ and ‘national spirit’. In the second part, historical-jurisprudential approaches are defended as a means of more clearly delimiting legal phenomena and facilitating a deeper analysis of the dynamics of law. In conclusion, scholars are and should remain open to developing a diversity of historical-jurisprudential approaches.

H. Patrick Glenn, Professor of Law and former Director of the Institute of Comparative Law at McGill University, passed away in 2014. For the past decades, he had been a central figure of legal scholarship, especially in the global discourse on comparative law. This chapter is the introduction to a collection that intends to honour Professor Glenn’s intellectual legacy by engaging critically with his ideas, especially focusing on his visions of a ‘cosmopolitan state’ and of law conceptualized as ‘tradition’. To this end, the collection brings together an international group of leading scholars in comparative law, legal philosophy, legal sociology, and legal history. This introductory chapter situates Glenn’s work within the context of his trajectory as a scholar of comparative law and reflects critically, in particular, on Glenn’s concept of ‘tradition’.

In the fourth chapter of the book I examine the third and last moment of the genealogy of modern comparative law: comparative law as an autonomous discipline. The mythical moment in which the discipline emerges is the First International Comparative Law Conference organized in Paris in 1900. This conference established the discipline's general objectives - on one hand, the unification and harmonization of legal systems. This purpose, animated by the cosmopolitan spirit of its promoters, emphasized the similarities that the legal orders of the world have and evaluated the idea of unity of law positively. On the other hand, the creation of taxonomies that allow for ordering, describing, and understanding the complexities of the legal world. The paradigmatic product generated by the realization of this objective was the concept of legal families. This idea constitutes one of the axes of twentieth-century comparative law and remains relevant in the happenings of the twenty-first century.The concept of legal families is articulated and developed paradigmatically in the work of René David, in France, and K. Zweigert and H. Kötz, in Germany. In this chapter, I examine the types of subject, geographies, and ideas of legal history created by the legal families narrative constructed by these paradigmatic authors.

This concluding chapter aims to bring together the themes explored in the book, and to identify several research contexts that can largely benefit from the collection. Part I offers a birds-eye view of all book chapters, noting the differences in the evolution of the analysed systems’ administrative law. Swati Jhaveri’s five-pronged typology of the public law of common law systems, presented in Chapter 1, is discussed in Part II, which explores several aspects of each of these sub-categories, critically considers their internal logic, and assesses the utility of this typology. Part III aims to provide a tentative explanatory framework for the analysis of the reasons that have led to the different transformation patterns of the administrative law of these systems. Three bodies of social science research that study change but have little to say on legal change are addressed, and supplemented by an application of Donald Horowitz’s four approaches to legal change, which offer explanatory paradigms for legal change over time. This part ends with a proposal of a five-dimensional grid designed to ease the process of defining factors that may have implicated on change. The chapter ends with a discussion of the robustness of the classic classification of legal systems into ‘legal families’ in general and of the common-law family in particular.