Skip to main content
Login
  1. Home
  2. Uncovering European Private Law
  3. 16. Methods of Comparative Legal Research: How to Set Up and Carry Out a Comparative Legal Research Project
Open Book Publishers

16. Methods of Comparative Legal Research: How to Set Up and Carry Out a Comparative Legal Research Project

  • Marieke Oderkerk (author)
Chapter of: Uncovering European Private Law: A Student Handbook(pp. 311–342)
  • Export Metadata
  • Metadata
  • Locations
  • Contributors
  • References

Export Metadata

Metadata
Title16. Methods of Comparative Legal Research
SubtitleHow to Set Up and Carry Out a Comparative Legal Research Project
ContributorMarieke Oderkerk (author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0448.16
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0448/chapters/10.11647/obp.0448.16
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
CopyrightMarieke Oderkerk;
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2025-06-05
Long abstract

Since the 1990s comparative legal research has been one of the important pillars of

the development of European private law. This chapter aims to discuss methods

of comparative legal research that apply in the field of European private law and

beyond. It is written for both beginner and advanced researchers interested in

engaging in comparative legal research, providing guidelines on how to set up

and carry out such a project in a methodologically sound way. It is based on the

assumption that a methodology (in this case the methodology of comparative

law) provides a researcher a clear set of guidelines (steps that need to be taken

in a certain order) to reach a determined goal. This chapter sets out the various

goals and types of comparative legal research and discusses step by step the

methodological issues that have to be dealt with in the subsequent stages within

a comparative research project. With regard to each methodological question

context-related guidelines are provided on how to come to a scientifically sound

and well-justified answer.

Page rangepp. 311–342
Print length32 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Locations
Landing PageFull text URLPlatform
PDFhttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0448/chapters/10.11647/obp.0448.16Landing pagehttps://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0448.16.pdfFull text URL
HTMLhttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0448/chapters/10.11647/obp.0448.16Landing pagehttps://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0448/ch16.xhtmlFull text URLPublisher Website
Contributors

Marieke Oderkerk

(author)
Professor of Private International Law and Comparative Law at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Prof. Dr. Marieke Oderkerk is Professor of Private International Law and Comparative

Law at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Her research covers a wide range of topics

including doctrinal notions of private international law (PIL) and international family

law. In 1999, she obtained a Ph.D. on a topic related to comparative legal research

methodology at the University of Amsterdam. From 1998 until the end of 2000, she was

a University Lecturer at the Molengraaff Institute for Private Law of Utrecht University.

She then joined the University of Amsterdam as Assistant Professor from October 2000

and as Associate Professor from April 2010 onwards. She was Research Coordinator

of the Amsterdam Institute of Private Law between 2005–2008. In January 2009, she

joined the Centre for the Study of European Contract Law (now ACT). From July 2019

to 2022, she was program director of the Master Privaatrecht (UvA). On 1 August

2022, she was appointed Full Professor of Private International Law and Comparative Law at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and is part-time Associate Professor at the

University of Amsterdam. Furthermore, in 2013 she was installed as Deputy Judge

at the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. See https://research.vu.nl/en/persons/mariekeoderkerk

References
  1. Adams, M., and J. Griffiths, ‘Against “Comparative Method”: Explaining Similarities and Differences’, in M. Adams and J. Bomhoff (eds), Practice and Theory in Comparative Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 279–301, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511863301.013
  2. Adams, M., and M. Van Hoecke, ‘Conclusion: Challenges of Comparison’, in M. Adams and M. Van Hoecke (eds), Comparative Methods in Law, Humanities and Social Sciences (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021), pp. 252–254, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802201468.00018
  3. Bermann, G. A., ‘Comparative Law and International Organizations’, in M. Bussani and U. Mattei (eds), Comparative Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 241–254, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139017206.014
  4. Bogdan, M., Concise Introduction to Comparative Law (Zutphen: Europa Law Publishing, 2013)
  5. Boele-Woelki, K., ‘The Principles of European Family Law: Its Aims and Prospects’, Utrecht Law Review 1.2 (2005), 160–168
  6. Bueno Diaz, O., Franchising in European Contract Law: A Comparison between the Main Obligations of the Contracting Parties in the Principles of European Law on Commercial Agency, Franchise and Distribution Contracts (PEL CAFDC), French and Spanish Law (Munich: Sellier European Law Publishers, 2008)
  7. Bussani, M., and U. Mattei, ‘Preface: The Context’, in M. Bussani and U. Mattei (eds), The Common Core of European Private Law: Essays on the Project (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2002), pp. 1–8
  8. Butler, W. E., ‘Comparative International Law’, in J. M. Smits et al. (eds), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, 3rd edn (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023), pp. 326–327, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839105609.comparative.international.law
  9. Cartwright, J., and M. W. Hesselink (eds), Precontractual Liability in European Private Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008)
  10. Commission Communication, ‘A More Coherent European Contract Law’, COM (2003) 63/16 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0068:FIN:EN:PDF
  11. Coninck, J. de, ‘The Functional Method of Comparative Law: Quo Vadis?’, RabelsZ 74 (2010), 318–350, https://doi.org/10.1628/003372510791090238
  12. Constantinesco, L.-J., Rechtsvergleichung: Die rechtsvergleichende Methode, II (Cologne: Heymanns, 1972)
  13. Cruz, P. de, Comparative Law in a Changing World, 3rd edn (Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish, 2007)
  14. Dannemann, G., ‘Comparative Law: Study of Similarities or Differences?’, in M. Reimann and R. Zimmermann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 390–422, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198810230.013.12
  15. Drobnig, U., ‘Methodenfragen der Rechtsvergleichung im Lichte der “International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law”’, in E. Von Caemmerer, S. Mentschikoff, and K. Zweigert (eds), Ius privatum gentium (Tubingen: Mohr, 1969), pp. 221–223
  16. Drobnig, U., ‘Möglichkeiten und Grenzen intersystemarer Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiete des Zivilrechts’, in G. Gutman and S. Mampel (eds), Probleme systemvergleichender Betrachtung (Berlin: Duncker Humblot, 1986), pp. 195–205
  17. Duin, J. M. L. van, ‘Justice for Both Effective Judicial Protection Under Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Unfair Contract Terms’ (doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2020)
  18. Ebert, K. H., Rechtsvergleichung, Einführung in die Grundlagen (Bern: Stampfli, 1978)
  19. Gambaro, A., and M. Graziadei, ‘Legal Formants’, in J. M. Smits et al. (eds), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, 3rd edn (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023), pp. 452–458, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839105609.formants
  20. Gerber, D. J., ‘Sculpting the Agenda of Comparative Law: Ernst Rabel and the Façade of Language’, in A. Riles (ed.), Rethinking the Masters of Comparative Law (Portland, OR: Hart, 2001), pp. 190–208, https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472559135.ch-007
  21. Gerber, D. J., ‘System Dynamics: Toward a Language of Comparative Law?’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 46.4 (1998), 719–737
  22. Griffiths, J., H. Weyers, and M. Adams, Euthanasia and Law in Europe (London: Hart Publishing, 2008)
  23. Groot, G.-R. de, ‘The Influence of Problems of Legal Translation on Comparative Law Research’, in J. Baaij (ed.), The Role of Legal Translation in Legal Harmonization (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer, 2012), pp. 139–160
  24. Groot, G.-R. de, and H. Schneider, ‘Das Werturteil in der Rechtsvergleichung’, in K. Boele-Woelki et al. (eds), Comparability and Evaluation: Essays on Comparative Law, Private International Law, and International Commercial Arbitration: In Honour of Dimitra Kokkini-Iatridou (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1994), pp. 53–68
  25. Groot, G.-R. de, and C. J. P. van Laer, ‘Legal Translation’, in J. M. Smits et al. (eds), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, 3rd edn (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023), pp. 524–529
  26. Grossfeld, B., The Strength and Weakness of Comparative Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990)
  27. Hesselink, M. W., ‘The Principles of European Contract Law: Some Choices Made by the Lando Commission’, in M. W. Hesselink and G. J. P. de Vries (eds), Principles of European Contract Law; Preadviezen uitgebracht voor de Vereniging voor Burgerlijk Recht (Deventer: Kluwer, 2001), pp. 5–95
  28. Hirschl, R., ‘The Question of Case Selection in Comparative Constitutional Law’, American Journal of Comparative Law 53 (2005), 125–155
  29. Husa, J., ‘Farewell to Functionalism or Methodological Tolerance?’, RabelsZ 67 (2003), 419–447
  30. Husa, J., ‘Functional Method in Comparative Law—Much Ado About Nothing?’, European Property Law Journal 2.1 (2013), 4–21, https://doi.org/10.1515/eplj-2013-0002
  31. Husa, J., Introduction to Comparative Law, 2nd edn (London: Hart 2023)
  32. Hyland, R., Gifts, A Study in Comparative Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)
  33. Jansen, N., ‘Comparative Law and Comparative Knowledge’, in M. Reimann and R. Zimmermann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 290–319
  34. Kahn-Freund, O., ‘Comparative Law as an Academic Subject’, Law Quarterly Review 82.1 (1966), 55–56
  35. Kamba, W. J., ‘Comparative Law: A Theoretical Framework’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 23 (1974), 485–519
  36. Kischel, U., ‘Tertium comparationis’, in J. M. Smits (ed.), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006), pp. 484–491
  37. Kokkini-Iatridou, D., ‘Some Methodological Aspects of Comparative Law: The Third Part of a (Pre-)paradigm’, Netherlands International Law Review 33 (1986), 143–194
  38. Kokkini-Iatridou, D., et al., Een inleiding tot het rechtsvergelijkende onderzoek (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer, 1988)
  39. Kötz, H., ‘Comparative Law in Germany Today’, Revue internationale de droit comparé 51.4 (1999), 753–758
  40. Knapp, V., ‘Quelques problèmes méthodologiques dans la science du droit comparé’, in K. Zweigert and H.-J. Puttfarken (eds), Rechtsvergleichung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaf, 1978), pp. 334–349
  41. Legrand, P., ‘How to Compare Now’, Legal Studies 16.2 (1996), 232–242
  42. Legrand, P., ‘Issues in the Translatability of Law’, in Sandra Bermann and Michael Wood (eds), Nation, Language, and the Ethics of Translation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), pp. 30–50, https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400826681.30
  43. Mattila, H. E. S., Comparative Legal Linguistics: Language of Law, Latin and Modern lingua francas, 2nd edn (Farnham: Routledge, 2013)
  44. Merryman, J. H., ‘Comparative Law and Scientific Explanation’, in J. N. Hazard and W. J. Wagner (eds), Law in the United States of America in Social and Technological Revolution (Brussels: Bruylant, 1974), pp. 81–104
  45. Michaels, R., ‘Explanation and Interpretation—A Response to Julie de Coninck’, RabelsZ 74 (2010), 351–359, https://doi.org/10.1628/003372510791090256
  46. Michaels, R., ‘The Functional Method of Comparative Law’, in M. Reimann and R. Zimmermann (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 339–382, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198810230.013.11
  47. Momirov, A., and A. Naudé Fourie, ‘Vertical Comparative Law Methods: Tools for Conceptualising the International Rule of Law’, Erasmus Law Review 2 (2009), 291–309
  48. Oderkerk, M., ‘The CFR and the Method(s) of Comparative Legal Research’, European Review of Contract Law 3 (2007), 326–331
  49. Oderkerk, M., ‘The Importance of Context: Selecting Legal Systems in Comparative Legal Research’, Netherlands International Law Review 48 (2001), 293–318
  50. Oderkerk, M., ‘The Need for a Methodological Framework for Comparative Legal Research: Sense and Nonsense of ‘Methodological Pluralism’ in Comparative Law’, RabelsZ 79.3 (2015), 589–623, https://doi.org/10.1628/003372515x14339403063927
  51. Örücü, E., ‘Methodology of Comparative Law’, in J. M. Smits (ed.), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006), p. 447
  52. Örücü, A. E., ‘Theories and Presumptions of Comparability’, in M. Aitkenhead (ed.), Law and Lawyers in European Integration. A Comparative Analysis of the Education, Attitudes and Specialisation of Scottish and Dutch Lawyer (Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit, 1988), pp. 20–39
  53. Palmer, V. V., ‘From Lerotholi to Lando: Some Examples of Comparative Law Methodology’, American Journal of Comparative Law 53.1 (2005), 261–290
  54. Peters, A., and H. Schwenke, ‘Comparative Law Beyond Post-Modernism’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 49.4 (2000), 800–834
  55. Podgorecki, A., ‘Social Systems and Legal Systems—Criteria for classification’, in A. Podgorecki et al. (eds), Legal Systems and Social Systems (London: Chroom Helm, 1985), pp. 1–24
  56. Pozzo, B., ‘Comparative Law and Language’, in M. Bussani and U. Mattei (eds), Comparative Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 88–113, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139017206.007
  57. Rabel, E., Aufgabe und Notwendigkeit der Rechtsvergleichung (Munich: Verlag der Hochschulbuchhandlung Max Hueber 1925)
  58. Rabel, E., ‘Die Fachgebiete des Kaiser Wilhelm-Instituts fur ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht’, in M. Planck (ed.), 25 Jahre Kaiser Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung des Wissenschaften III (Berlin: Springer, 1937), p. 77
  59. Reimann, M., ‘The Progress and Failure of Comparative Law in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century’, American Journal of Comparative Law 50 (2002), 671–700
  60. Reitz, J. C., ‘How to Do Comparative Law’, American Journal of Comparative Law 46.4 (1998), 628–631
  61. Rheinstein, M., Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung, ed. by R. von Borries, 2nd edn (Munich: Beck, 1987)
  62. Rihoux, B., ‘Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Systematic Comparative Methods, International Sociology’, International Sociology 21.5 (2006), 679–706, https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580906067836
  63. Sacco, R., Introduzione al diritto comparato, 2nd edn (Turin: Giappichelli, 1980)
  64. Sacco, R., ‘Legal Formants: A Dynamic Approach to Comparative Law (Installment I of II)’, American Journal of Comparative Law 39.1 (1991), 1–34
  65. Samuel, G., ‘The Epistemological Challenge: Does Law Exist?’, in S. Glanert, A. Mercescu, and G. Samuel (eds), Rethinking Comparative Law (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021), pp. 1–30, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786439475.00005
  66. Schlesinger, R., ‘The Common Core of Legal Systems, An Emerging Subject of Comparative Study’, in K. H. Nadelmann, A. T. von Mehren, and J. NN Hazard (eds), XXth Century Comparative and Conflicts Law (Leyden: Sythoff, 1961), pp. 65–79
  67. Schlesinger, R., et al., Formation of Contract—A Study of the Common Core of Legal Systems, II (Washington, DC: Oceana Publications, 1968)
  68. Siems, M. M., Comparative Law, 3rd edn (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2022)
  69. Storme, M. E., ‘Common Core Projects’, in J. M. Smits et al. (eds), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, 3rd edn (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023), pp. 306–317
  70. Valcke, C., ‘Comparative Law as Comparative Jurisprudence: The Comparability of Legal Systems’, American Journal of Comparative Law 52 (2004), 713–740
  71. van Dijk, P., ‘De rechtsvergelijking en het recht der internationale organisaties; enige methodologische notities’, in R. Barents (ed.), Orde: Liber Amicorum Pieter VerLoren van Themaat (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer 1982), pp. 77–98
  72. Vogenauer, S., ‘Sources of Law and Legal Method in Comparative Law’, in R. Zimmermann and M. Reimann (eds), The Oxford Handbook, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 876–901, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198810230.013.28
  73. Watson, A., Legal Transplants: An Approach to Comparative Law (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1974)
  74. Whalen, R., ‘Quantitative Methods in Comparative Law’, in J. M. Smits et al. (eds), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, 3rd edn (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023), pp. 277–283, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839105609.quantitative.methods.comparative.law
  75. Wiener, J. B., ‘Something Borrowed for Something Blue: Legal Transplants and the Evolution of Global Environmental Law’, Ecology Law Quarterly 27.4 (2001), 1295–1372
  76. Zweigert, K., ‘Zur Methode der Rechtsvergleichung’, Studium Generale 13 (1960), 193–200
  77. Zweigert, K., and H. Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law, trans. by T. Weir, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998)
  78. Zweigert, K., and H.-J. Puttfarken, ‘Zur Vergleichbarkeit analoger Rechtsinstitute in verschiedenen Gesellschaftsordnungen’, in K. Zweigert and H.-J. Puttfarken (eds), Rechtsvergleichung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978), pp. 395–429

Export Metadata

UK registered social enterprise and Community Interest Company (CIC).

Company registration 14549556

Metadata

  • By book
  • By publisher
  • GraphQL API
  • Export API

Resources

  • Downloads
  • Videos
  • Merch
  • Presentations
  • Service status

Contact

  • Email
  • Bluesky
  • Mastodon
  • Github

Copyright © 2026 Thoth Open Metadata. Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.