The Functional Method as the Staple of Comparative Studies of European Legal History in the Early 21st Century?

D. Poldnikov
{"title":"The Functional Method as the Staple of Comparative Studies of European Legal History in the Early 21st Century?","authors":"D. Poldnikov","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3127475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Europeanization of legal scholarship and legal education facilitates the emergence of comparative legal science as a promising new tool to discover similarities and differences between two or more jurisdictions and their past development. Yet, the specific methodology of such studies is still not clear. Some legal historians hold that comparative legal history does not or should not have its own methodology other than that of comparative law. Others warn against imposing a contemporary agenda and toolbox on legal history. The author of this article aims to clarify this debate by examining the prospect of applying one of the most popular methods of comparative law – the functional method – to the domain of legal history. On the basis of several examples from the European legal past he claims that examining the functions (the social purpose) of legal norms can help legal historians in three ways: first, to determine the objects of comparison and the sources of analysis, despite the variety of verbal shortcuts (the initial stage of research); second, to analyse legal norms from the perspective of solving social problems in the past – to study the 'law in action'; and third, to arrange the results of the research according to meaningful criteria at the final stage","PeriodicalId":121229,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: National eJournal","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law: National eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3127475","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Europeanization of legal scholarship and legal education facilitates the emergence of comparative legal science as a promising new tool to discover similarities and differences between two or more jurisdictions and their past development. Yet, the specific methodology of such studies is still not clear. Some legal historians hold that comparative legal history does not or should not have its own methodology other than that of comparative law. Others warn against imposing a contemporary agenda and toolbox on legal history. The author of this article aims to clarify this debate by examining the prospect of applying one of the most popular methods of comparative law – the functional method – to the domain of legal history. On the basis of several examples from the European legal past he claims that examining the functions (the social purpose) of legal norms can help legal historians in three ways: first, to determine the objects of comparison and the sources of analysis, despite the variety of verbal shortcuts (the initial stage of research); second, to analyse legal norms from the perspective of solving social problems in the past – to study the 'law in action'; and third, to arrange the results of the research according to meaningful criteria at the final stage
功能方法作为21世纪初欧洲法律史比较研究的主旋律?
法律学术和法律教育的欧洲化促进了比较法学的出现,比较法学作为一种有前途的新工具,可以发现两个或多个司法管辖区之间的异同及其过去的发展。然而,这种研究的具体方法尚不清楚。一些法律史学家认为,除了比较法的方法论之外,比较法律史没有也不应该有自己的方法论。其他人则警告说,不要把当代的议程和工具箱强加给法律史。本文的作者旨在通过考察将比较法中最流行的方法之一——功能方法——应用于法律史领域的前景,来澄清这一争论。他以欧洲法学界过去的几个例子为基础,声称研究法律规范的功能(社会目的)可以在三个方面帮助法律史学家:第一,确定比较的对象和分析的来源,尽管有各种各样的语言捷径(研究的初始阶段);第二,从过去解决社会问题的角度分析法律规范——研究“行动中的法律”;第三,在最后阶段根据有意义的标准对研究结果进行整理
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信