It is a commonplace of Schmitt scholarship that the controversial thinker sought to recapture some of the elan of the pre-Weimar state through his advocacy of effectively almost unlimited presidential government. Seitzer demonstrates how Schmitt believed comparative history itself could reinvigorate the ailing German state by subtly altering prevailing understandings of the relation of theory and practice in law and politics. Treating Schmitt's Constitutional Theory and Guardian of the Constitution as methodologically sophisticated comparative histories, Seitzer turns Schmitt's argument against itself. He shows how Schmitt's comparative histories, when properly executed, support a decentralized solution to the Republic's difficulties directly contrary to Schmitt's in terms of its purpose and effect. Problem-oriented, comparative-historical studies of key features of the Weimar system suggest that the dispersion of political power facilitates an institutional dialogue over constitutional principle and practice that better provides for political stability and democratic experimentation. These studies also suggest that linking forms of justification with institutions establishes a productive tension among norms and institutions that is essential to maintaining the viability of constitutional democracy, both in the short- and long-term. This work will be of considerable value to Schmitt scholars and those interested in German legal and political theory as well as those concerned with broad issues in comparative law and European history and political theory.

This cutting-edge book facilitates debate amongst scholars in law, humanities and social sciences, where comparative methodology is far less well anchored in most areas compared to other research methods. It posits that these are disciplines in which comparative research is not simply a bonus, but is of the essence.

The primary aim of this book is to provide clear and reliable information on a number of central topics in comparative law. At a time when global society is increasingly mobile and legal life is internationalized, the role of comparative law is gaining importance. While the growing interest in this field may well be attributed to the dramatic increase in international legal transactions, this empirical parameter is only part of the explanation. The other part, and (at least) equally important, has to do with the expectation of gaining a deeper understanding of law as a social phenomenon and a fresh insight into the current state and future direction of one’s own legal system. In response to the internationalization of legal practice and theory, law schools around the world have expanded their comparative law programs. Within the legal subjects that form the core of the curriculum there is a greater interest in comparative legal analysis, as well as greater attention to how global developments and international actors and institutions affect domestic law. Transnational legal education based on comparative reasoning is intended to help shape a new generation of lawyers, public servants and other professionals who recognize and respect cultural diversity in an interconnected world. The central topics discussed in this book include: the nature and scope of comparative legal inquiries; the relationship of comparative law to other fields of legal study; the aims and uses of comparative law; the origins and historical development of comparative law; and the evolution and defining features of some of the world’s predominant legal traditions. It also deals with selected theoretical aspects, such as the problem of comparability of legal events; the classification of legal systems into families of law; and the topics of legal transplants, harmonization and convergence of laws. Chiefly intended for students, the book also discusses a number of fundamental issues concerning the development of comparative law, and devotes certain sections to reviewing the salient features of the relevant literature on definitional, terminological, methodological and historical issues.

This book uses the philosophy of Thomas Kuhn to provide a new vision of the development of European comparative law that will challenge and inspire scholars in the field. With the 'empathic' use of some ideas from Kuhn's theories on the history of science – paradigm, paradigm-shift, puzzle-solving research and incommensurability – the book rethinks the modern history of European comparative law from the late 19th century to the modern day. It argues that three major paradigms determine modern comparative law: - historical and comparative jurisprudence, - droit comparé, and - post-World War II comparative law. It concludes that contemporary methodological trends are not signs of a paradigm-shift toward a postmodern and culturalist understanding of comparative law, but that the new approach spreads the idea of methodological plurality.

Is comparative legal history an emerging discipline or a much-needed dialogue between two academic subjects? This research handbook presents the field in a uniquely holistic way, and illustrates how comparative law and legal history are inextricably related. Cementing a solid theoretical grounding for the discipline, legal historians and comparatists place this subject at the forefront of legal science. Comprehensive in coverage, this handbook collates theory and method for comparative legal history, as well as discussing international legal sources and judicial and civil institutions. Particular attention is paid to custom and codification, contracts, civil procedure and ownership. By assessing the evolution of law across European, Asian, African and American environments from the pre-modern era to the nineteenth century, the chapters provide stimulating and enlightening cases of legal history through a comparative lens.A centrepiece for this field of scholarship, this research handbook will be an essential resource for scholars interested in comparative law, legal theory and legal history, from both legal and social science backgrounds.

"... to be consulted before any significant legal debate." W. J. Stewart in: Scots Law Times 1995This volume is concerned with the history of the concept of, or of the remedies for, unjust enrichment in the Civil law and the Common law. But this history is radically different in the two systems - different both in the starting point of each system and in the methods by which progress from that starting point was made.What for the Civil law is the starting point is for the Common law the ultimate outcome. The Civil law from its earliest medieval beginnings had before its eyes, at least as a potential unifying principle, the concept of unjust enrichment which it found in the Corpus Iuris, whereas it is only very recently (and outside the chronological scope of this volume) that the Common law has come to accept such a principle.The methods by which the Civil lawyers progressed from their starting point towards the well articulated concepts of the modern law were those of the interpreter and elaborator of texts which had their own unquestioned authority. And their discussions, which were those of the scholar and the school-room, are well documented.For the Common lawyers, on the other hand, the starting point was nothing but the practice of the courts and their methods were those appropriate to that practice. The plaintiff's remedy in a particular case was everything. Moreover, since the practice of the courts until very recent times is very imperfectly evidenced, the course of the development of the Common law is often difficult to trace. The researches contained in this volume show that it is only with benefit of hindsight, and then only to very limited extent, that one can see that development as leading to the recent acceptance of a doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Since the 1970s West German historiography has been one of the main arenas of international comparative history. It has produced important empirical studies particularly in social history as well as methodological and theoretical reflections on comparative history. During the last twenty years however, this approach has felt pressure from two sources: cultural historical approaches, which stress microhistory and the construction of cultural transfer on the one hand, global history and transnational approaches with emphasis on connected history on the other. This volume introduces the reader to some of the major methodological debates and to recent empirical research of German historians, who do comparative and transnational work.

Now in its second edition, this textbook presents a critical rethinking of the study of comparative law and legal theory in a globalising world, and proposes an alternative model. It highlights the inadequacies of current Western theoretical approaches in comparative law, international law, legal theory and jurisprudence, especially for studying Asian and African laws, arguing that they are too parochial and eurocentric to meet global challenges. Menski argues for combining modern natural law theories with positivist and socio-legal traditions, building an interactive, triangular concept of legal pluralism. Advocated as the fourth major approach to legal theory, this model is applied in analysing the historical and conceptual development of Hindu law, Muslim law, African laws and Chinese law.

This book situates comparative-historical analysis within contemporary debates in political science and explores the latest theoretical and conceptual advances.

This book systematically investigates the past accomplishments and future agendas of contemporary comparative-historical analysis. Its core essays explore three major issues: the accumulation of knowledge in the field over the past three decades, the analytic tools used to study temporal process and historical patterns, and the methodologies available for making inferences and for building theories. The introductory and concluding essays situate the field as a whole by comparing it to alternative approaches within the social sciences. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences will serve as an invaluable resource for scholars in the field, and it will represent a challenge to many other social scientists - especially those who have raised skeptical concerns about comparative-historical analysis in the past.