A dichotomy presents itself again in this typical argumentative garment: “I believe…but however”. In short, while Leyland presents certain theoretical methodological ideas, which also see a certain role for idealtype macro-constructs, he ends up by waiving his finger in a manner which implies that even his idea is not going to be scientifically satisfactory and that there are problems that lie ahead.And yet, the urge to build scholarly and, thus, scientifically solid classifications and groupings is still assumed to be there.Why else would he bother, or anyone else for that matter? This is as if one would say that we are not quite there yet, but we do have to keep on trying to get there, no matter what amount of difficulties there are. Even such a balanced comparatist as Örücü has welcomed this classical challenge of making the divisions of legal systems of the world by using largely criticised macro-methods entertained by the old legal families approach.52 So, according to her, “comparative law needs a fresh approach to the classification of legal systems”. But what does she actually mean by “fresh approach”? By reading her texts one grasps the idea according to which more theoretically and scientifically rigorous effort is needed if we are to have better classification of legal systems. Furthermore, she goes on by saying that the strategy of her novel “family trees approach”, which she considers essential, is to conceive the picture of the world’s legal systems objectively and neutrally.53 I take it that she means actually to say that her proposed approach is more scientific i.e. academically more solid than the approaches proposed by others.Accordingly, even the most modern and up-to-date comparatist still seems to share the basic desire of such a science-of-comparative law oriented scholar as was Léontin-Jean Constantinesco. For him this kind of building of macro-constructs was a crucial condition for comparative law’s scientific nature as an “autonomous Disziplin”.54The true re cht swi s s e n scha f t al s j ur i st i sch e dok t r i n 122 51 Leyland (2001) at 232. 52 Örücü, The Enigma of Comparative Law:Variations on a Theme for the Twenty-First Century (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston 2004) at 203. 53 Of Örücü’s idea, see “Family Trees for Legal Systems”, in Epistemology and Methodology of Comparative Law, edited by MarkVan Hoecke (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2004) pp. 359-375. 54 See Constantinesco,“Über den Stil der “Stiltheorie” in der Rechstsvergleichung”, 78 Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (1979) 154-172, p. 154. I believe that a refined version of this method has the potential to result in some productive and insightful analysis. However, it will be apparent that there are several problems to overcome.51
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=