Abstract
In recent years, the comparative perspective has become increasingly used as a methodological approach to human rights research in the scientific literature. This paper is not intended to summarise the virtues and shortcomings that can be attributed to comparative legal research in the specific field of human rights. Rather, its aim is to critically reconsider its interdisciplinary role and, in particular, to reflect on two of the most popular methods in this field of research: legal comparison and the case study method. Firstly, this paper reviews the method in question, including its typologies and grounds for use. Secondly, it outlines the techniques that determine what and how to compare. Finally, a SWOT evaluation of comparative legal research on human rights is provided, identifying its strengths and weaknesses in order to dispel false myths.
Highlights
The comparative approach has been undeniably important in the production of scientific knowledge, including interdisciplinary human rights research, an area where its use will predictably increase further in the future because it is an attractive proposition for all fields of study
As noted by Landman (2002: 891), comparative research can be considered ‘the best social scientific work’ (Stanfield 1993: 25) or it can be categorically stated that unless one makes comparisons, one cannot claim to be doing science (Sartori 1991) and thirdly, common issues related to human rights research can be found in countries around the world
Such isolation cannot be justified, since an expanded, supranational dimension is needed in order to establish viable legal conclusions on human rights, to be supplemented by approaches and contexts based on political, sociological, economic and anthropological research (Etzioni and Dubow 1970)
Summary
The comparative approach has been undeniably important in the production of scientific knowledge, including interdisciplinary human rights research, an area where its use will predictably increase further in the future because it is an attractive proposition for all fields of study. Given the miscellaneous areas and interests found, this article will explore the complexity and versatility of comparative analysis in human rights research, looking transversally at migrant integration studies This involves identifying what can be compared, how it can be compared, and for the purpose is of making a comparison, and whether it could or should be done, especially bearing in mind the different functions pursued at the methodological level and the most widespread techniques. An explanation of why this method is rarely used is that it is closely related to the social and socio-legal sciences and, to a lesser extent, to the so-called ‘pure normative inquiry’ (Örücü, 2001: 52), which is predominant in other types of legal research on human rights Such isolation cannot be justified, since an expanded, supranational dimension is needed in order to establish viable legal conclusions on human rights, to be supplemented by approaches and contexts based on political, sociological, economic and anthropological research (Etzioni and Dubow 1970)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
