Sunday, 29 August 2010

Comparative Law Methodology as a Football Match?

Back to my comparative law project: I’ve been reading Sir Basil Markesinis and Jörg Fedtke, Engaging with Foreign Law (Oxford: Hart, 2009). Inter alia, they talk about different approaches to comparative legal research and then wonder …

“which academic school was gaining the upper hand: Hein Kötz, Ulrich Magnus, Walter van Gerven or Reinhard Zimmerman, one might argue, versus Duncan Kennedy, Ugo Mattei, Pierre Legrand or Annelise Riles? That is four on either side, so is it a draw?”

However, I’m really wondering whether there are just these eight comparative lawyers in the world? And, Sir Basil and his colleague would presumably count as well – so according to their logic the traditionalists (the first group) would beat the post-modernists (the second one). More generally, of course, I’m the view that this confrontational approach is not appropriate anyway. To restate a point I made earlier (see here):

“(This article) identifies four ways of ‘being original’ in legal research. (...) Despite the ambition of this article to identify ‘good research’ its attitude is one of tolerance. It does not try to promote a particular way or method of legal research. The four different approaches (and their various sub-cases) cover both traditional and contextual research. They also address both positive and normative aspect of legal research. Thus, this article advocates that legal academics have choice and that ranking of different methodologies should be avoided (…).”

Monday, 2 August 2010

How to decrease your google search hits .....

Introduce a pay wall! As recently done by The London Times (chart based on Google trends searching for “The Times” [blue] and “Times Online” [red]).