Most of the general works on comparative law present different groupings and classifications of legal systems as part of macro-comparative law.26When systems are classified into macro-groups, different systems are placed into larger entities according to shared elements and characteristics. Systematisation and classification is typical macro-comparison; it deals with comparison of entire legal systems.This kind of macrocomparison seems to have become part of the theoretical canon of comparative law.27 In accord, it is almost impossible even to imagine large books concerning comparative law without them dealing with theoretical questions concerning macro-constructs. Of course, there are also critical contributions to this discussion, typically as regards to earlier classification and grouping methods as well as their criteria and outcomes.28 It is argued here that even while grouping of legal systems appears as overtly theoretical it may also have a practical impact on the readiness to understand and the ease or difficulty of generating knowledge. Legal groups clarify the chaos of understanding an unfamiliar world by means of pre-structuring foreign legal information. In this respect, macro-constructs can have a facilitating methodological purpose related to the hermeneutic understanding and interpretation process.29 jaakko hu sa 113 25 This part of the argument is fully developed in Jaakko Husa, “Legal Families in Comparative Law - AreThey of Any Real Use?”, 24 Retfærd (2001) 15-24. However, the argument has been developed further for the present purpose. 26 See, e.g., Arminjon, Nolde and Wolff (1950) pp. 42-53, Adolf F. Schnitzer, Vergleichende Rechtslehre I (Verlag für Recht und Gesellschaft, Basel 1961) pp. 133-142, Réne David, Les grands systémes de droit contemporains (Dalloz, Paris 1969) pp. 23-33, Zweigert & Kötz (1998) pp. 63-73, Peter de Cruz, Comparative Law in a Changing World (Cavendish, London 1995) pp. 31-40, and Jaakko Husa,“Legal Families”, in Elgar Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law, edited by Jan Smits (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton) 2006 pp. 382-393. 27 See Åke Malmström,“The System of Legal Systems: Notes on a Problem of Classification in Comparative Law”, 13 Scandinavian Studies in Law(1969) pp. 129-149, p. 129. 28 See, e.g., Hein Kötz, “Abschied von der Rechtskreislehre?”, 6 Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (1998) 493-505 (defends legal families against Legrand’s critique). See also Ugo Mattei, “Three Patterns of Law: Taxonomy and Change in World’s Legal Systems”, 45 American Journal of Comparative Law(1997) 5-44 (comparative law has been static in its way of classifying the world’s legal systems). 29 Cf. Malmström (1969) p. 129 (classifications are imperfect, merely means of facilitating description and comparison of existing legal systems). 3.1 Practicality of Theoretical Macro-constructs:The Case of “Legal Families”25
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=