tend to be presented as “the theory of comparative law theory”. In terms of colour-metaphor, it is not just a question of white, but also of shades of grey which do intermingle. Even though it has been part of mainstream comparative law theory to deal with theoretical groupings and classifications that end to taxonomic systems of macro-constructs there has also been a lot of scientia based scepticism toward the whole project of building such constructs. However, even here one can detect a theoretical stress which argues that these macro-constructs are justified as such, but not scientifically good enough.In other words, those macro-constructs that we have are not sufficient; but if we were to struggle very hard we might end up having a more solid and scientifically more reliable macro-grouping of global panorama of law or as philosopher Leibniz called it theatrum legale mundi. So, even while macro-constructs in comparative law have been regarded as important and as a kind of a theoretical heart of comparison, there has not been any consensus concerning even the very nature of them. Many scholarly comparists actually do doubt the very significance of such a project for drawing a scientific map of legal families of the world. From this side of comparative law academia Pier Giuseppi Monateri says that: Today, comparatists are quite obviously, even painfully, aware of the fact that macro classifications and groupings are helplessly rough and also, on many occasions, outdated. In this restricted sense we may, perhaps, say that the thinking in comparative law has developed from the situation in the 1950s.42 Simply, there are widespread postmodern doubts re cht swi s s e n scha f t al s j ur i st i sch e dok t r i n 118 40 See for more detailed discussion Jaakko Husa, “Classification of Legal Families Today – Is It Time for a Memorial Hymn?”56 Revue internationale de droit comparé (2004) 11-38 (criticises the manner in which macro-constructs are built). 41 Monateri,“Everybody’sTalking:The Future of Comparative Law”, 20 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review(1997) 825-846, at 839. 42 Mathias Reimann,“The Progress and Failure of Comparative Law in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century”, 59 American Journal of Comparative Law (2002) 671-700. He describes the present situation by saying that “Many of our taxono3.2 Lacking Scientification of Macro-Constructs: The Case of “Legal Families”40 Thus, frommy viewpoint,the projects to draw a “map” of legal systems… are really biased, non-neutral political projects of governance supported by the use of the academic discipline of comparative law.41
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=