Glanert, Simone (2012) Method? In: Pier, G.M., ed. Methods of Comparative Law. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp. 61-81. ISBN 9781849802529.
|The full text of this publication is not available from this repository. (Contact us about this Publication)|
It is hardly an exaggeration to think of method as a disciplinary hallmark. No discipline, it seems, can lay claim to intellectual respectability unless it features an accredited method. But comparative law is unusual in as much as it is commonly reduced to a method — and this, by comparativists themselves. In other terms, comparative law would be a strictly methodological endeavour. Indeed, the leading textbook in the field describes comparative law as a “heuristic method of legal science”. Yet, method remains woefully untheorized. Now, does it do more than betray “science envy”? Can it effectively overcome situation (that of the law and that of the comparativist)? Is it in a position to offer epistemological guarantees of any kind? In sum, how, if at all, is it able to contribute to the credentialization of comparative law? Drawing principally on the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer, Jacques Derrida, and Paul Feyerabend, I seek to revisit method. The outcome of my interdisciplinary enquiry allows me to review fundamentally the very nature of comparative law and to overcome common assumptions that are no longer sustainable.
|Item Type:||Book section|
|Divisions:||Faculties > Social Sciences > Kent Law School
Faculties > Social Sciences > Kent Law School > Centre for European and Comparative Law
|Depositing User:||Jenny Harmer|
|Date Deposited:||03 Aug 2012 09:29|
|Last Modified:||06 Aug 2012 10:39|
|Resource URI:||http://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/30007 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)|
- Depositors only (login required):