History and the law: a love story

hands of legal historians like them, had a similar, moral and political ambition, namely to bring various particular laws closer to one another for the sake of promoting more harmonious, friendly international relations. The primary objective of the driving forces behind the Paris congress, then, was not primarily scientific but practical in nature. As Saleilles acknowledged in his report on the usefulness of comparative law, a lawyer cannot help but draw practical conclusions from the theoretical insights gained from comparing different legal systems. In this regard, Saleilles rejected forms of comparative law consisting in the mere juxtaposition of foreign legal systems or the classification into legal families. One had to confront the different laws and then adapt inspiring foreign laws to the needs of one’s own legal system, taking into account contextual particularities, including local customs and traditions. Saleilles rebuked the exegetical approach of law, promoting a larger view of the sources of the law instead, which included taking inspiration from foreign laws. Lambert, his pupil and admirer, articulated an interesting distinction between comparative law as a ‘science of law’ (science du droit) and a ‘juridical science’ (science juridique). While the former came close to ethnology and sociology, trying to retrieve the eternal patterns guiding the evolution of law as a social phenomenon, the latter had a practical dimension: it wanted to change the laws and the societies that they are operating in. Its end goal was ‘rapprochement’.