knowledge which combines the specific reason of why one should study with the methodological choices.62 Obviously, we may distinguish different interests of knowledge in the comparative study of law. But if we mention only such interests which are familiar, we may end up with the following ideal-types of interest of knowledge as in the box below. These not exhaustive examples above seem to be a mixture of scientia and prudentia or theoretical purposes and practical purposes.Yet, it would be an error to try to define which of these interests are legitimate and which are not. In practice,many of these interests may be found from a single study combined.Moreover, they all seem to have a rational purpose in their given contexts. So, what is ultimately argued here is that comparative law needs a flexible methodology.This flexible approach seems to have obvious merits. Simply, the contemporary world of law and, thus, also the world of comparing laws are pluralistic and they cannot be squeezed to fit in any Procrustean bed by cutting from Theory (i.e. head) or from Practice (i.e. legs). Richard Hyland puts this nicely: “a new methodology will probably have to be developed for each project”.63To embrace pluralistic epistere cht swi s s e n scha f t al s j ur i st i sch e dok t r i n 126 62 Here it is not possible to embark deeper on this; see for more details Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interest (Beacon Press Boston 1972) [translation from original Erkenntnis und Intresse 1968]. However, here his idea is used only loosely as inspiration rather than being followed in detail. 63 Richard Hyland, Gifts: A Study in Comparative Law(Oxford University Press, Oxford/NewYork 2009) at 69. (Hyland, on the other hand, states that even this idea contains problems). Interest of Knowledge in studying law comparatively 1) law drafter/legislator: search for models for improvement or critique of own law, non systematic comparisons. 2 ) harmoniser: searching for the “best”/“most fitting” model (according to certain crite-ria), comparison of solutions against framework. 3) field of law academic: searching differences or/and similarities against conceptual framework (national or international normative interest of knowledge). 4) comparative law academic: searching explanations to differences and similarities, stretching out strongly to history or sociology of law (non-national/nonnormative interest of knowledge). 5) scientia driven academic comparative law: trying to develop comparative law into a true science, stressing the importance of theory and rigorous methodology (theoretical interest of knowledge). e xemp l i g rat i a
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=