The method and culture of comparative law - Maurice Adams

Awareness of the need to deepen the method and methodology of legal research is only recent. The same is true for comparative law, by nature a more adventurous branch of legal research, which is often something researchers simply do, whenever they look at foreign legal systems to answer one or more of a range of questions about law, whether these questions are doctrinal, economic, sociological, etc. Given the diversity of comparative research projects, the precise contours of the methods employed, or the epistemological issues raised by them, are to a great extent a function of the nature of the research questions asked. As a result, the search for a unique, one-size-fits-all comparative law methodology is unlikely to be fruitful. That, however, does not make reflection on the method and culture of comparative law meaningless. Mark Van Hoecke has been interested in many topics throughout his career, but legal theory, comparative law and methodology of law stand out. Building upon his work, this book brings together a group of leading authors working at the crossroads of these themes: the method and culture of comparative law.With contributions by: Maurice Adams, John Bell, Joxerramon Bengoetxea, Roger Brownsword, Se?n Patrick Donlan, Rob van Gestel and Hans Micklitz, Patrick Glenn, Jaap Hage, Dirk Heirbaut, Jaakko Husa, Souichirou Kozuka and Luke Nottage, Martin L?hnig, Susan Millns, Toon Moonen, Francois Ost, Heikki Pihlajam?ki, Geoffrey Samuel, Mathias Siems, J?rn ?yrehagen Sunde, Catherine Valcke, Matthew Grellette and Alain Wijffels.Review'In this beautifully produced volume, leading theorists and researchers look at significant aspects of their fields.As a whole, the most important contribution of this volume, however, is having collected essays which all indicate, in various ways, the role of comparative law in enhancing knowledge not only of law but also society, of context and interdisciplinary approaches, and of the significant place of imaginative interpretation for our understanding of law and society'.Esin ?r?c?, The Edinburgh Law Review