Functionalism in Comparative Law and Legal Linguistics

Posted on by Anita Frohlich

With this post, I intend to close the loop by bringing together comparative law and legal linguistics. More specifically, I am going to point out a common denominator of both disciplines: functionalism. Interestingly, functionalism plays an integral part in the development of both areas, though in a somewhat contrary way.

The introduction of functionalism to comparative law has been attributed to Ernst Rabel. Its establishment, however, as a core comparative law methodology is due to the detailed treatment of functionalism by Konrad Zweigert and Hein Kötz in one of the most popular comparative law textbooks Introduction to Comparative Law. According to them, the term functionalism stems from the premise to focus on the functions of the law as the tertium comparationis when comparing two or more legal systems. The question is where to look for the functions of the law: only the written law or law as it is practiced, including social norm or culture. It is safe to say that strict focus on the written law alone is no longer acceptable in comparative law. The extent, however, to which a comparatist should consider other non-traditional sources of law is still subject to great discussion.

Legal translation has traditionally been extremely technical with an exclusive focus on semantics. Any divergence from the text strictu sensu was unacceptable. Only recently, legal translators started to look beyond the text as written. As a result, functions and social purpose of legal norms are becoming more and more relevant in legal linguistics. This kind of functionalism in legal translation is still far from uncontested as it opens the field for interpretation and subjectivity.

This very brief synopsis of the methodological development of comparative law and legal linguistics illustrates the key part functionalism played – and still plays – in both of these fields. Interestingly, the significance of functionalism in these areas seems to be orthogonal. Thus, modern comparative law criticizes functionalism as being too strict and not giving enough consideration to cultural diversity in law. For legal translation, however, functionalism represents a step towards more flexibility that allows a translator to also include cultural aspects into his work.

Bibliography

  • Giuliana Garzone, Legal Translation and Functionalist Approaches: a Contradiction in Terms? in Legal Translation: History, Theory/ies and Practice. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Univ. of Geneva, 395-414 (2000).
  • Jaakko Husa, Comparative Law, Legal Linguistics and Methodology of Legal Doctrine, in: Methodologies of Legal Research, Hoecke and Ost (eds.) 209-228 (2011).
  • Konrad Zweigert and Hein Kotz, An Introduction to Comparative Law 33-47 (1998).

Methodological Pluralism – A Third Phase of Comparative Law?

Posted on by Anita Frohlich

As previously posted, the first phase of comparative law was marked by the acceptance of legal comparison as tool for harmonizing or improving laws and culminated with the Paris Congress. Ernst Rabel was the originator of the second phase of comparative law which compared laws based on their functions. So the question now is if we are still within this second phase of comparative law or if we have already entered a third phase.

On the one hand, the functional method still enjoys controversial popularity in comparative law today. Thus, a renowned comparative law textbook, Introduction to Comparative Law by Zweigert and Koetz, propagates functionalism as comparative law method. Furthermore, numerous articles have been published discussing the validity of functionalism in comparative law. On the other hand, the functional method is far from uncontested today and several “alternatives” have emerged over the past decades: comparative law and economics, numerical comparative law, cultural comparative law … just to name a few.

Such methodological pluralism may be seen as the defining element of a third phase of comparative law. This phase is characterized by not having a single discernible methodology, but a plethora of sometimes controversial approaches that all have their applicability and validity in specific contexts. It depends on the individual comparative work to determine which of these methods is best suitable to answer the question at hand.

The Second Phase of Comparative Law – Ernst Rabel and the Focus on (Social) Functions

Posted on by Anita Frohlich

Due to its purely theoretical nature, the Paris Congress of 1900 left many comparatists with an unsatisfied feeling, mostly with regards to the long-term effects the Congress may have on the reception and acceptance of comparative law research. Most agreed that a new approach was needed. This new approach came several years later with the Austrian Ernst Rabel.

Although Rabel saw comparative law as purely scientific in its quest for legal knowledge, his writings also stress its practical implications. He himself openly lived this dichotomy by being professor and judge at the same time. Yet, the demonstrated two-sidedness of comparative law was not Rabel’s main achievement. Thus, Rabel can be seen as the founder of the functional method in comparative law – a method that even today has a prominent place in comparative law research. It is of note, however, that Rabel never personally mentioned and defined this methodology, but that it was later ascribed to him by his students.

The idea to look at legal functions came from Rabel’s mentor, the legal historian Ludwig Mitteis who taught Rabel to look at the functions of historical legal provisions. Rabel subsequently applied this idea to the comparison of modern legal systems. In particular, Rabel encouraged comparative lawyers to distance themselves from the written text of a norm and focus on its context and application instead.

Rather than comparing fixed data and isolated paragraphs, we compare the solutions produced by one state for a specific factual situation with those produced by another state for the same factual situation, and then we ask why they were produced and what success they had. (Rabel in “Fachgebiete des Kaiser Wilhelm Instituts” at 187 as quoted by Gerber, Sculpting the Agenda of Comparative Law, 199.)

The application of this approach can be seen in Rabel’s four-volume treatise on the “Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Study.”

So what makes Rabel’s work stand out from “first-phase comparative law” as defined by the Paris Congress? First, and foremost, Rabel did not restrain himself to the theoretical definition of a methodology (in fact, he did never really define a specific method), but instead focused on the legal realities in different legal systems and compared their solutions for specific legal issues. Second, Rabel explicitly looked beyond the official legal texts and also considered their applications and interpretations. Third, and as a consequence of the second point, Rabel’s method left room to consider the common law and compare it with the civil law systems of continental Europe. In fact, he spent a good part of his later life in the United States.

It is therefore fair to say that Rabel’s new and innovative take on comparative law marks the beginning of the second phase of comparative law. His students and friends propagated functionalism in comparative law by further developing and promoting his original idea to identify specific social functions of legal rules as terra comparationis.

Bibliography

  • David Gerber, Sculpting the Agenda of Comparative Law: Ernst Rabel and the Facade of Language 190-208, in: Rethinking the Masters of Comparative Law (Annelise Riles, ed., 2001).
  • Christine Godt, The Functional Comparative Method in European Property Law, 2 Europ. LJ 73-89 (2013).
  • Max Rheinstein, In Memory of Ernst Rabel, 5 Am. J Comp. L 185-196 (1956).