Bringing in Foreign Ideas: The Quest for 'Better Law' in Implicit Comparative Law

Abstract

It is one of the common objectives of comparative law to make suggestions on how the law can be improved. In reality, however, comparative lawyers are often uncertain of what to conclude from their findings. For example, having examined a number of legal systems in detail, shall the comparatist recommend the most common approach, a compromise solution with a combination of legal rules, or the most well-designed legal solution? This article suggests that comparatists may also consider that many other comparative disciplines, such as comparative politics, sociology and economics, deal with questions that compare and evaluate legal differences – even if this is not done under the heading of comparative law (thus, here called ‘implicit comparative law’). Such research tends to be less hesitant in making wide-reaching legal and policy recommendations based on cross-country comparisons. This article critically discusses how such research in comparative politics, sociology and economics can help in the quest for ‘better law’ – but also what limitations have to be taken into account as we cross academic disciplines.