Studying Japanese Law Because It's There

Abstract

Comparativists are a defensive lot, accustomed to justifying our field to colleagues and students who do not fully understand what we do. The core question, “Why Compare?” is the starting point for many a course and many a casebook in comparative law. In his short but sweeping essay, John Haley re-asks the classic question in the context of Japan. As prominent scholars of Japanese law now reach out to study China and other neighboring countries, Haley’s question seems particularly timely.1 His answer is provocative and challenging, and with luck will advance a fresh set of work on issues for which Japan should be of great interest. It is hardly my place to disagree that the study of Japanese law is important and can help generate insights into questions of broader theoretical interest. My purpose in this reply is to extend, supplement, and in some places challenge Haley’s claims. Before turning to Haley’s essay in particular, I should state at the outset that I sometimes find the comparativist’s handwringing to be overwrought. The study of law is a practical discipline, but it is also an academic one and academic inquiry by its nature involves a certain responsibility to follow one’s interests regardless of “payoff.” To say that Japanese, or German, or Chinese law are worth studying because those jurisdictions are large and important is to imply that