From Lerotholi to Lando: Some Examples of Comparative Law Methodology
| LEADER | caa a22 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 378913522 | ||
| 003 | CHVBK | ||
| 005 | 20180305123547.0 | ||
| 007 | cr unu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 161128e20040902xx s 000 0 eng | ||
| 024 | 7 | 0 | |a 10.2202/1535-1653.1126 |2 doi |
| 035 | |a (NATIONALLICENCE)gruyter-10.2202/1535-1653.1126 | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Palmer |D Vernon Valentine |u 1Tulane Law School, vpalmer@law.tulane.edu | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a From Lerotholi to Lando: Some Examples of Comparative Law Methodology |h [Elektronische Daten] |c [Vernon Valentine Palmer] |
| 520 | 3 | |a This Essay argues that there is not, and indeed cannot be, a single exclusive method that comparative law research should follow. The tasks of teaching, research, of law reform, or historical investigation are too varied and contingent to be achieved by a single approach. It would be a serious blow if all matters had to be analysed from one angle or perspective, or treated with the same detail and depth, or prepared to the same degree or in the same way. Instead there should be a sliding scale of methods and the best approach will always be adapted in terms of the specific purposes of the research, the subjective abilities of the researcher, and the affordability of the costs. It cannot be said a priori that one method is always better than another until we know these variables. It is also shown that prescriptions about method must carefully distinguish the principal user groups, for the complex methods of scholars may be unworkable in the practical world where comparisons must be cost-justified. The message from Mount Olympus must not be that comparative law is always forbidding and difficult. The discipline must be accessible and its methods must be flexible. | |
| 540 | |a ©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston | ||
| 690 | 7 | |a Comparative Law |2 nationallicence | |
| 690 | 7 | |a Comparative Law |2 nationallicence | |
| 690 | 7 | |a Methodology |2 nationallicence | |
| 690 | 7 | |a Postmodernism |2 nationallicence | |
| 773 | 0 | |t Global Jurist Frontiers |d De Gruyter |g 4/2(2004-09-02) |q 4:2 |1 2004 |2 4 |o gj | |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.2202/1535-1653.1126 |q text/html |z Onlinezugriff via DOI |
| 908 | |D 1 |a research article |2 jats | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 856 |E 40 |u https://doi.org/10.2202/1535-1653.1126 |q text/html |z Onlinezugriff via DOI | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 100 |E 1- |a Palmer |D Vernon Valentine |u 1Tulane Law School, vpalmer@law.tulane.edu | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 773 |E 0- |t Global Jurist Frontiers |d De Gruyter |g 4/2(2004-09-02) |q 4:2 |1 2004 |2 4 |o gj | ||
| 900 | 7 | |b CC0 |u http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0 |2 nationallicence | |
| 898 | |a BK010053 |b XK010053 |c XK010000 | ||
| 949 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |F NATIONALLICENCE |b NL-gruyter | ||