Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich...

33
Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011

Transcript of Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich...

Page 1: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Comparative Private Law:

Method and purposes

PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M.

University of Zurich

September 19, 2011

Page 2: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Introduction

Comparativomania

What, Why, How?

• What is comparative law?

• Why do we practise comparative law?

• How do we compare?

Page 3: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Definitions

• Comparative law

• Study of foreign law

• Legal Critique

• Conflict of laws

• International law

Page 4: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Purposes of comparative law

• Insight, knowledge

• Legislation

• Interpretation

• Education

• Legal history

• Competition

Page 5: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Legislation, harmonization and unification are the search for…

• common principles• the best solution• a model law• a different law that creates an advantage• a law that is no obstacle for trade• a law that is in compliance with international law

Page 6: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Purposes of comparative law

• Insight, knowledge

• Legislation

• Interpretation

• Education

• Legal history

• Competition

Page 7: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Interpretation: autonomous harmonization (I)

BGE 129 III 335, 350: „Nachvollzogenes Binnenrecht ist im Zweifel europarechts-konform auszulegen. Es ist harmonisiertes Recht und als solches im Ergebnis - wie das Staatsvertragsrecht - Einheitsrecht. Zwar ist es nicht Einheitsrecht in Form von vereinheitlichtem Recht.“

Page 8: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Interpretation: autonomous harmonization (II)

„Wird aber die schweizerische Ordnung einer ausländischen - hier der europäischen - angeglichen, ist die Harmonisierung nicht nur in der Rechts-setzung, sondern namentlich auch in der Auslegung und Anwendung des Rechts anzustreben, soweit die binnenstaatlich zu beachtende Methodologie eine solche Angleichung zulässt. (…).“

Page 9: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Interpretation: autonomous harmonization (III)

„Die Angleichung in der Rechtsanwendung darf sich dabei nicht bloss an der europäischen Rechtslage orientieren, die im Zeitpunkt der Anpassung des Binnen-rechts durch den Gesetzgeber galt. Vielmehr hat sie auch die Weiterent-wicklung des Rechts, mit dem eine Harmonisierung angestrebt wurde, im Auge zu behalten“

Page 10: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Interpretation: autonomous harmonization (IV)

Lugano Convention, First article of the second protocole: “The courts of each Contracting State shall, when applying and interpreting the provisions of the Convention, pay due account to the principles laid down by any relevant decision delivered by courts of the other Contracting States concerning provisions of this Convention.”

Page 11: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Interpretation: filling of gapsArt. 1 CC: „The law shall apply to all legal questions that are covered, according to wording or interpretation, by one of the provisions thereof. In the absence of a provision of law, the judge shall decide according to customary law and, in the absence of such customary law, according to the rule he would establish as a legislator. In this regard, he shall follow established doctrine and tradition.“

Page 12: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Interpretation: filling of gapsBGE 126 III 129, 138: „Namentlich im traditionell grenzüberschreitenden Rechtsverkehr lässt sich überdies eine sachgerechte Rechtsfindung und damit auch Lückenfüllung ohne rechtsver-gleichende Grundlage nicht verwirklichen (…). Dies gilt besonders, wo sich vordringlich wirtschaftspolitische Fragen stellen und darauf zu achten ist, dass durch einen isolationistischen Rechtszustand weder Privilegierungen noch Diskriminierungen auf dem internationalen Markt begründet werden…“

Page 13: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Interpretation: Conflict of laws

Art. 17 IPRG: „The application of provisions of foreign law shall be excluded if it would lead to a result incompatible with Swiss public policy.“

Art. 27 al. 1 IPRG: „A decision rendered abroad shall not be recognized in Switzerland if recognition would be obviously incompatible with Swiss public policy.”

Page 14: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Purposes of comparative law

• Insight, knowledge

• Legislation

• Interpretation

• Education

• Legal history

• Competition

Page 15: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Purposes of comparative law

• Insight, knowledge

• Legislation

• Interpretation

• Education

• Legal history

• Competition

Page 16: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Legal history

• Legal history is also part of comparative law – it’s about legal systemsat different points of time• Historical interpretation of a legal text• Interpretation of a unified or harmonized text• Swiss Civil Code: Historical interpretation is the interpretation of a unification

Page 17: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Purposes of comparative law

• Insight, knowledge

• Legislation

• Interpretation

• Education

• Legal history

• Competition

Page 18: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Purposes of comparative law

Page 19: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Two types of comparative law

• Macrocomparison

• Microcomparison

• Where‘s the difference?

Page 20: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Method of comparative law

• Initial question

• Case method

• Unbiased analysis of all relevant factors, looking at all relevant fields of law, like the local lawyer does

Page 21: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Unbiased interpretation of foreign law (I)

BGer 4C.121/2000, c. 3.c.aa: “Hat ein Gericht seiner Beurteilung ausländisches Recht zugrunde zu legen, muss es das fremde Recht so auslegen und anwenden, wie dies ein Gericht im ursprünglichen Geltungsbereich des anzuwendenden Rechts tun würde (…). Der schweizerische Richter muss sich somit in das Rechtssystem des betreffenden Landes versetzen, ohne freilich Teil desselben zu sein (…).“

Page 22: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Unbiased interpretation of foreign law (II)

“Er hat etwa - namentlich wenn er das mass-gebende Recht selbst erhebt - die in der fremden Rechtsordnung geltende Auslegungsmethodik oder eine allenfalls unterschiedliche Einordnung von Rechtsfiguren zu beachten (…). Dies ent-spricht der rechtsvergleichenden Grunderfahrung, dass zwar jede Gesellschaft ihrem Recht die gleichen Probleme aufgibt, dass aber die verschiedenen Rechtsordnungen diese Probleme auf sehr unterschiedliche Weise lösen, selbst wenn die Ergebnisse gleich sind (…).

Page 23: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Unbiased interpretation of foreign law (III)

“Daraus folgt, dass das schweizerische Gericht bei der Bestimmung der streitentscheidenden Rechtsfragen sowie der Ermittlung und Anwendung ausländischen Rechts nicht ohne Berücksichtigung der Eigenheiten der fremden Rechtsordnung von den in der inländischen Dogmatik verwendeten Denkkategorien und Argumentationsmustern ausgehen darf (…). Bereits unter altem Recht war es überdies unzulässig, die Rechtsanwendungsfrage mit der Begründung offen zu lassen, dass die in Frage kommenden Rechtsordnungen inhaltlich übereinstimmten.“

Page 24: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Example: tort law

Ask a meaningful question and define a meaningful case for the comparison!

Major problems:

• Amount and type of damages

• Procedural particularities

• Sociological facts

Page 25: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.
Page 26: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.
Page 27: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.
Page 28: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Choice of legal systems

• Legal families („daughters, mothers“)

• Innovative legal systems

• More detailled or powerful legal systems

• Language skills

Page 29: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Legal familiesGermanic

Anglo-American Romanistic

NordicFar East

Religious legal systems

Page 30: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Search and Analysis

• Widespread search

• Problematic translations

• Unbiased analysis

• Where are similarities, where are differences?

• Functional equivalence? «Praesumptio similitudinis», presumption of similarity

Page 31: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Search and Analysis• «Praesumptio similitudinis», presumption of

similarity: «The comparatist should assume that different societies face similar needs and that, to survive, any one society must have functionally equivalent institutions that meet these needs. As a consequence, if the comparatist finds no functional equivalent in a foreign legal order, he should check again whether the terms in which he posed his original question were indeed purely fictional, and whether he has spread the net of his researches quite wide enough.»

• Does it work? Which one works better?

Page 32: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

Seven tiny comparisons:• Acquisition of stolen goods at auctions (CH-

Germany)• Exclusion of liability for auxiliaries (CH-

Germany)• Acquisition of property and transfer of risk (CH-

France)• Sweepstake (CH-Germany)• Payment of a non-existent debt (CH-Germany)• Islamic Finance & Banking• The statutory portion in inheritance law (CH-

Germany)

Page 33: Comparative Private Law: Method and purposes PD Dr. Arnold F. Rusch LL.M. University of Zurich September 19, 2011.

•Ask the right question!•Present the solutions!•Is there functional equivalence?•Which system is better?