Das Verschwinden der Unterschiede

Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der vergleichenden Methode für die Rechtsgeschichte

Abstract

Legal history and comparative law are said to be twin sisters; thus it has been suggested that legal historians ought to resume a dialogue with their comparatist brethren in order to re-establish European legal unity. However, whether any benefit can be gained from applying comparatist methods to legal history may be doubted, as comparative lawyers bent on a »Europeanization of Legal Sciences« seem to be only too willing to look for similarities while neglecting marked differences. Stefan Vogenauer, for instance, maintains that the view that English and continental methods of statutory interpretation differ fundamentally is nothing but a myth endangering the unification of European Law; accordingly, he endeavours to show the fallibility of this myth by any and every means. His willingness to prove that there is a common core of European principles of statutory interpretation with a long tradition reaching back to the ius commune nevertheless seems highly problematic. The question may be posed whether this avenue of research can be of any value to legal historians.