A Pledge for the Importance of Comparative Law in the Ongoing COVID Pandemic (and Beyond)

Posted on by Anita Frohlich

I recently attended a meeting on “Comparative Law and the COVID-19 Pandemic” organized by the International Association of Legal Science. The presenters highlighted different local and regional reactions to the global pandemic. For me, these presentations emphasized that countries responded (and are still responding) to the global health threat with highly individualistic legal measures.

From a strictly political perspective, this makes perfect sense: there is an external threat to national security to which the government reacts with isolationism – which is reasonable in the short term. Now that the pandemic has been around for almost two years, however, I believe that it is time to reconsider this approach. In fact, thanks to social media, citizens have cooperated and mobilized across country borders. Hence, I think, it is time for governments to stop trying to reinvent the wheel and to start looking beyond their territorial lines. In other words, globalization makes it essential for legislators to get inspired by their neighbors and to cooperate internationally.

Comparative law could be an important tool for such legal cooperation. Thus, comparative law points out legal synergies while at the same time taking legal singularities and cultures into consideration. The importance of comparative law is true not only for regulations dealing with the current pandemic, but also for other issues of global implications, including legislation on climate change. My hope is that governments and legislators will recognize the increasing relevance of comparative law for solving issues that may have an impact on the future of our global society and our planet.

Sources

Contributions to Zoom Webinar on “Comparative Law and the COVID-19 Pandemic”, in particular by

Comparative Law vs. International Law

Posted on by Anita Frohlich

It has happened to me numerous times: after explaining to a friend, neighbor or simple acquaintance that I am interested in comparative legal issues, I get the reaction “So you are doing international law!” Well, not quite. Hence, in this article, I would like to examine the relationship between comparative law and international law and why they are so often lumped together – not just in conversations, but also when it comes to law degree programs or law journals.

Theoretically, international law and comparative law are two very different things. Comparative law is a legal discipline with its own history, methodology, philosophy and approach. In contrast, international law is a body of law that you can even further divide into public international law – the law governing international institutions and agreements between states – and private international law – conflict of laws on an international level.

Practically, however, one (international law) depends on the other (comparative law). For private international law, this is kind of obvious. Private international law (which is mostly a term used in continental Europe) uses comparative law knowledge to determine how the applicable law would solve an international legal issue and if the outcome would be in accordance with the ordre public.

Maybe a little bit less evident, public international law also benefits from comparative law knowledge and methodology when it comes to either creating or interpreting international legal agreements. Thus, Professor Blakesley writes

[To] understand international law properly, to be able to negotiate, litigate, or even to communicate effectively in the arena of international law, it is necessary to understand that its origin and discipline, its philosophical context, and the mindset of many of its practitioners is “civilian” or a variation on that theme rather than common law in inspiration. To practice international law well, one should also be a comparativist.

Dan E. Stigal, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Medellin v. Texas (2008), even goes one step further and argues that international law usually needs to be implemented by individual states and such implementation relies upon domestic law mechanisms. Thus, knowledge of foreign law is important to determine the outcomes of cases involving international treaties (like the Vienna Convention of Consular Relations in the Medellin case).

In sum, international law greatly benefits from comparative law knowledge and methodologies. Still, I would like to also stress the importance of comparative law as a distinct legal discipline that helps to understand, appreciate and preserve the diversity and richness of the legal systems of the world.

Bibliography

  • C. Blakesley, Introduction at 4, in: The International Legal System, 5th edition (Blakesley et al., 2001).
  • W.E. Butler, International Law and Comparative Law 49-52, in: Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 10 (Bindschedler et al, ed., 1988).
  • Dan E. Stigal, The Nexus Between Comparative Law and International Law, at ComparativeLawBlog (2010), last checked 8/10/2019.

The United States Supreme Court and Foreign Law

Posted on by Anita Frohlich

With this post, we quickly set aside the issue of interdisciplinarity in comparative law and focus on applied comparative law in a broader sense. Specifically, I would like to look at the question whether the United States Supreme Court (and courts in general) should consider foreign law and practices.

In this regard, Justice Breyer of the United States Supreme Court just published his book The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities. The book essentially is a commented synopsis of recent Supreme Court decisions that mention foreign law. Most of these decisions concerned the interpretation of international treaties or statutes where consideration of foreign law is fairly accepted. Sometimes, however, foreign law was consulted on questions relating to the United States constitution and its interpretation. In particular, issues relating to national security and antitrust triggered a look across borders, but also questions about gay rights and the death penalty.

According to Justice Breyer, foreign law – while by no means binding – could be quite “instructive” in cases involving questions of constitutional interpretation in general and more specifically questions relating to the Eighth Amendment and the death penalty.

“It [the Eighth Amendment] uses the word ‘unusual,’ and the founders didn’t say unusual in what context.”

Generally, judges – and lawyers – across borders could learn from each other. Unfortunately, drawing inspiration from abroad is still very limited – not just for ideological reasons, but also because of lack of understanding foreign law and its terminology.

Bibliography

  • Adam Liptak, Justice Breyer Sees Value in a Global View of Law, The New York Times, September 12, 2015 (available here)