Of Judges and Jurisdictions - An Overture to Comparative Legal Reasoning in National Case Law

AuthorThomas Coendet
Pages1-5
ANCILLAIURIS(anci.ch)2014:1Article 1
OfJudgesandJurisdictions
AnOverturetoComparativeLegalReasoninginNationalCaseLaw
“Noforeignjudges”isarecurrentclamorincontemporarySwisspolitics.Withthisslo
gansomeSwisspoliticianschallengetheEuropeanSupremeCourt’sjurisdictionwithinthe
bilateralagreementsbetweenSwitzerlandandtheEuropeanUnion.Treatynegotiations
usuallyassociatedwithsoberdiplomacytherebyreceiveastrongemotionalflavor.Even
academicdiscussionsonmoresubtleformsofhow“foreignlaw”influencesnationallegal
discoursesometimesturnemotional:Shouldcourtsbepermittedtolooktoforeignjurisdic
tionstoguidetheirdecisions,tocreatetheirargumentsbycomparingforeignlawwiththeir
own?Occasionally,suchideaissubjecttoharshcriticism.Concernsraisedagainstitpartially
coincidewiththose“againstforeignjudges”:Suchreferencesto“foreignlaw”lackdemo
craticlegitimacy.Theythreatennationalsovereigntyanddistorttheculturalidentityof
one’sownlaw.Andlegalprofessionalsmayadd:Comparativeargumentsimpurifythedoc
trinalsystemofdomesticlaw.Inanutshell,theinfluenceofforeignlawonnationalcaselaw
needstobeavoided.Forthereisalottolose,butlittletogain.
Proponentsofcomparativelegalreasoningpaintquiteadifferentpictureofforeign
judgesandjurisdictions.TheoriginsoftheiridealeadusbacktotheInternationalCongress
ofComparativeLaw,whichtookplaceinParisin1900.Here,comparativelawbecamethe
academicdevicetoreunitethelegaldiscoursethathadbeensplitupbytheriseofnation
statesinthemodernage.RaymondSaleilles(1855–1912),theorganizerofthecongress,took
thisideaanotherstepfurther.Heheldthatcourtsshouldinterpretandimprovenationallaw
incrossbordermattersbydrawingonaninternationalcommoncoreestablishedbycompar
ativelaw.1Hisbasicargumentiseasytograspandholdstruemorethanever:International
problemsoughttobesolvedinternationally.Aroundthesametime,ErnstZitelmann(1852–
1923)summeduptheadvantagesofcomparativelawinthecatchwordthatcomparativelaw
increasesthe“stockofsolutions”forlegalproblems.2And,halfacenturylater,Konrad
Zweigert(1911–1996)reachedouttocomparativelawasanopportunitytoevadetheobses
1
*Dr.iur.,attorneyatlaw(Zurich).ThearticlerestsessentiallyonthefirstpartofmyPhDthesis:Thomas
Coendet,RechtsvergleichendeArgumentation.PhänomenologiederVeranderungimrechtlichenDiskurs
(Tübingen,2012).Thisfirstpartand,consequently,thisarticleexaminethephilosophicalfoundationsof
comparativelegalreasoningandadvocateamindsetthatgivesthisideaafairchance.Hence,itdoesnot
involveanynormativeclaimormethodologytoproducecomparativearguments.Bothoftheseissuesare
addressedinthefollowingpartsofthethesis:Atheoryoflegalreasoninganalyzes,amongotherthings,
thenormativesignificanceofcomparativearguments(secondpart),andaspecificmethodologicalscheme
aimstoclarifyhowacourtmayproceedincomparingthedomesticlawwithaforeignone(thirdpart).I
thankStephenV.BertiandPhilippEichenhoferfortheirvaluablecommentsonthispaper.
1RaymondSaleilles,LaFonctionjuridiqueduDroitcomparé,in:FritzBerolzheimer(ed.),Rechtswissen
schaftlicheBeiträge,JuristischeFestgabedesAuslandeszuJosefKohlers60.Geburtstag.9.März1909
(Aalen,1981),164–175,168etseqq.
2FollowingRabel,thisstatementhastobeascribedtoZitelmann,cf.ErnstRabel,AufgabeundNotwendig
keitderRechtsvergleichung,in:HansG.Leser(ed.),ErnstRabel,GesammelteAufsätze,vol.III(Tübingen,
1967),1–21,9.
byThomasCoendet*

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT