Inconsistencies in the use of legal culture in comparative legal studies
| Date | 01 October 2018 |
| Author | Balázs Fekete |
| DOI | 10.1177/1023263X18796978 |
| Published date | 01 October 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Inconsistencies in the use of
legal culture in comparative
legal studies
Bal´
azs Fekete*
Abstract
Thispaper is devoted to the discussionand criticalanalysis of the varioususes of the term ‘legal culture’
in recentcomparative legalstudies. It submitsthat the applicationof the concept of legalculture has had
no consensuallyshared approachin comparativelaw; instead, numerousdifferent ways exist.The main
approachesof legal culture in comparativestudies have beenthe use of this concept as (i) background,
(ii) interactions around law,and (iii) a sum of attitudes towardslaw. In addition, the use ofthis term is
even more complicated as certaintypical inconsistenciesmay also be identified. Examplesshow (i) the
confusion of different understandings of legal culture found within the same study; and that (ii) the
under-theorisation and (iii) over-theorisation of legal culture can both be regarded as such typical
inconsistencies. In conclusion,the paper calls attentionto a more restricted,self-reflective and critical
application of this term as the prerequisite of an efficientscholarly use.
Keywords
Comparativelaw, legal culture, methodology, comparison of legal cultures,comparative legal studies
1. Introductory remarks
This paper is dedicated to a methodological controversy seemingly characterising recent compara-
tive law scholarship.
1
The core of this controversy is the application of legal culture in comparative
* Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary
Corresponding author:
Balazs Fekete, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Centre for Social Sciences Institute for Legal Studies, T´
oth K´
alm´
an utca 4
1097 Budapest, Hungary.
E-mail: Fekete.Balazs@tk.mta.hu
1. Here, as a preliminary point, a methodological remark must be made. This article relies on a broad interpretation of
comparative law as such. Besides primary comparative studies, in which at least two legal orders or provisions are
Maastricht Journal of European and
Comparative Law
2018, Vol. 25(5) 551–564
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1023263X18796978
maastrichtjournal.sagepub.com
MJ
MJ
To continue reading
Request your trial