Abstract
Comparative legal studies, whether taken as discipline or method, has long been engaged with the conundrum of translation. That is to say, with the question of whether or not it is possible to assert that a legal term, feature or process used in one locus has an equivalent in another, and the extent to which legal features specific to one legal setting, system, culture or mentalite can be ‘understood’ by individuals situated or educated in a different one. Translation is not only an important issue in terms of the focus and content of comparative law, however, but also informs and indeed frames the debate at second order level by permeating both the worldview and method of its proponents. This chapter will discuss how translation and its (im)possibility became the defining criterion within the debate and draw attention to the effect that this second order polarization has had upon contemporary comparative legal studies.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
