Essay by P. John Kozyris
It is customary at the end of a century to pause to take a long, hard look at what lies ahead; and this time we are not just moving into a new century: we are at the threshold of a new millennium. Although cynics may claim that the year 2000 is no different from any other and that our addiction to the decimal system makes us exaggerate its importance, a pause for reflection seems fitting.
For inspiration in this endeavor, I first looked for futuristic texts and ran into the bestseller, Preparing for the Twenty-First Century. This text is a majestic overview of trends in overpopulation and damage to the environment; biotechnology and automation; the rise of Asia and the collapse of communism; the internationalization of communications, markets, and finance; and the slide into the global village, especially under the influence of the mass media. I found nothing there about law, let alone about comparative law. Doubtless, the increase in cross-border activity is likely to expand the use and utility of comparative law. Can we predict the role of comparative law in the next millennium more specifically than that?
Eager to locate something more directly connected to law, I came across a recent piece by Professor Louis Henkin in which he reports major progress during this century in international law's transition from primitive to modern. Indeed, most worldwide institutions and conventions came into being only in the twentieth century, and international law expanded to encompass human rights and protection of the environment. On the other hand, the proliferation of new states, whose number quadrupled within the century, as well as the centrifugal forces of nationalism and localism, reduce the likelihood of international solidarity.
Henkin also writes of the American Society of International Law, describing its members not only as a group of scholars but also as a major force working to safeguard the rule of law in international relations. Henkin's piece reinforced my belief that before we discuss the future of comparative law we must take stock of the present. We must accept the fact that the growth of comparative law over the same period is less spectacular than that of international law. The American Society of Comparative Law enjoys nowhere near the influence and clout of her international law sister. Comparative law is not really “law” like international or domestic law but is only a method. Yet, we should bear in mind that the comparative method has played a major part in the growth of international law because it is mainly through the study of domestic law that a suitable international legal order is crafted.
Let me confess at the beginning that I am not a comparative law “professional” despite my possessing both common-law and civil-law degrees. The courses I typically offer include Business Associations, Conflict of Laws, European Community Law and Institutions, International Transactions, and Jurisprudence. Only occasionally do I teach something that may be labeled “comparative law”, and my practice in New York City and Paris mostly concerns corporate and international transactions. Yet, the comparative method is constantly on my mind and creeps into my work.
About the Author
P. John Kozyris. Professor of Law, Ohio State University. J.D., Thessaloniki University; M. Comp. L., University of Chicago; J.D., Cornell University; S.J.D., University of Pennsylvannia.
Citation
69 Tul. L. Rev. 165 (1994)