IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hig/wpaper/79-law-2018.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Dmitry Poldnikov

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

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

Suggested Citation

  • Dmitry Poldnikov, 2018. "The Functional Method as the Staple of Comparative Studies of European Legal History in the Early 21st Century?," HSE Working papers WP BRP 79/LAW/2018, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:79/law/2018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://wp.hse.ru/data/2018/02/21/1165235785/79LAW2018.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    comparative legal history; methodology; functional method; European legal tradition; tertium comparationis; praesumptio similitudinis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K10 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - General (Constitutional Law)

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:79/law/2018. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Shamil Abdulaev or Shamil Abdulaev (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.