The document discusses techniques for comparing laws between different legal systems. It addresses major challenges in comparative law, including linguistic and cultural differences between systems. It also examines the descriptive, identification and explanatory phases of Kamba's three-stage comparative law approach. Finally, it considers factors relevant to comparing administrative law systems, such as the subjects of administrative law, allocation of powers, procedures, institutions, judicial review and liability.

1. ครั้งที่ ๓
๑ กรกฎาคม ๒๕๕๓
Thursday, 24 June 2010 1

2. เทคนิค
การเปรียบเทียบกฎหมาย
Thursday, 24 June 2010 2

3. an introduction
ข้อควรพิจารณาในการ
เปรียบเทียบระบบศาล
ข้อควรพิจารณาเกี่ยวกับ
กฎหมายปกครอง
Thursday, 24 June 2010 3

4. an introduction
Thursday, 24 June 2010 4

5. Peter de Cruz, "Techniques of
comparative law", in Comparative
law in a changing world
(London, 2007), pp. 219-249.
Thursday, 24 June 2010 5

6. • major pitfalls & perils
• quest for methodology
• methods
Thursday, 24 June 2010 6

7. major pitfalls & perils
• linguistic & • comparability
terminological
problems • legal pattern
• cultural • bias
differences
• exclusion &
• objects of study ignorance
Thursday, 24 June 2010 7

8. linguistic &
terminological
problems
Thursday, 24 June 2010 8

9. cultural differences
between legal systems
Thursday, 24 June 2010 9

10. arbitrary selection of
objects of study
Thursday, 24 June 2010 10

11. comparability in
comparison
Thursday, 24 June 2010 11

12. viability of theory of a
common legal pattern
Thursday, 24 June 2010 12

13. imposition of one’s own
legal conceptions
Thursday, 24 June 2010 13

14. the four ‘law jobs’
• social control
• conflict resolution
• adaptation & social change
• norm enforcement
Thursday, 24 June 2010 14

15. omission of extra-legal
factors
Thursday, 24 June 2010 15

16. the quest for
methodology
• general character • suitability of
of comparative topics
law
• comparative
• subject matter method
requirements
• macro v micro
• test of
functionality
Thursday, 24 June 2010 16

17. clarifying the general
character of
comparative law
Thursday, 24 June 2010 17

18. the subject matter of
the comparison
Thursday, 24 June 2010 18

19. macro-comparison &
micro-comparison
Thursday, 24 June 2010 19

20. comparative method:
requirements
Thursday, 24 June 2010 20

21. the test of functionality
Thursday, 24 June 2010 21

22. comparative legal
methods
• Kamba’s three-stage
approach
• a blueprint
Thursday, 24 June 2010 22

23. Kamba’s
three-stage-approach
Thursday, 24 June 2010 23

24. • the descriptive phase
• the identification phase
• the explanatory phase
Thursday, 24 June 2010 24

25. the descriptive phase
• norms
• concepts
• institutions
• socio-economic problems
• legal problems
• legal solutions
Thursday, 24 June 2010 25

26. the identification phase
• differences
• similarities
Thursday, 24 June 2010 26

27. the explanatory phase
• resemblances
• dissimilarities
Thursday, 24 June 2010 27

28. “no one single method
applicable”
Thursday, 24 June 2010 28

29. a blueprint
Thursday, 24 June 2010 29

30. 1. Identify the problem. 5. Organise the material.
2. Identify the foreign 6. Provisinally map out the
jurisdiction & its parent possible answers to the
legal family. problem.
3. Decide the primary 7. Critically analyse the
sources of law & legal principles.
materials.
8. Set out conclusions
4. Gather & assemble the within the comparative
material relevant to the framework with caveats
jurisdiction being & with critical
examined. commentary.
Thursday, 24 June 2010 30

31. คําถาม?
Thursday, 24 June 2010 31

32. ข้อควรพิจารณาในการ
เปรียบเทียบระบบศาล
Thursday, 24 June 2010 32

33. • comparative law in courts
• comparative law & legislator
• comparativism & the verdict
• case law in non-common law jurisdictions
• styles of judicial decision
• overriding general principles
Thursday, 24 June 2010 33

34. comparative law in
courts
Thursday, 24 June 2010 34

35. • a tool of interpretation
• a tool of law reform
Thursday, 24 June 2010 35

36. sovereignty
v
“uniformity of outcome”
Thursday, 24 June 2010 36

37. “comparison illuminate
our understanding”
Thursday, 24 June 2010 37

38. “The discipline of comparative
does not aim at a poll of
solutions adopted in different
countries. It has the different
and inestimable value of
sharpening our focus on the
weight of competing
consideration.”
Thursday, 24 June 2010 38

39. functional use of foreign law
• a tool of interpretation
• to look for solutions
• to promote a change
• to fill in a gap
• to discard an unsatisfactory solution
Thursday, 24 June 2010 39

40. the three phases
• discovering: what is found
• understanding: what is to
be used
• applying: how far
Thursday, 24 June 2010 40

41. certain practical considerations
• language skills
• national insularity or pride: rule of proof;
common law as a whole
• pressures: time & volume of work
• budget
Thursday, 24 June 2010 41

42. “[A]ll judges cannot be
expected to be
comparatists, but it is
their duty to consult
those who are in a
position to supply the
information needed ...”
Thursday, 24 June 2010 42

43. “[It] cannot be right to
attempt to construe
‘acquiesced’ by
reference only to its
possible meaning at
common law or equity.”
Thursday, 24 June 2010 43

44. comparative law &
legislator
Thursday, 24 June 2010 44

45. • a tool of interpretation
• a tool of law reform
Thursday, 24 June 2010 45

46. justification of
comparativism &
the verdict
Thursday, 24 June 2010 46

47. the authority of case
law in non-common law
jurisdictions
Thursday, 24 June 2010 47

48. interpreters
v
law makers
Thursday, 24 June 2010 48

49. lower courts
v
superior courts
Thursday, 24 June 2010 49

50. styles of judicial
decision
Thursday, 24 June 2010 50

51. • English
• French
• German
• Swedish
• American
Thursday, 24 June 2010 51

52. the relevance of
overriding general
principles
Thursday, 24 June 2010 52

53. • aequitas
• bona fides/good faith
• good morals and public order
• custom
Thursday, 24 June 2010 53

54. คําถาม?
Thursday, 24 June 2010 54

55. ข้อควรพิจารณาเกี่ยวกับ
กฎหมายปกครอง
Thursday, 24 June 2010 55

56. Administrative law?
The subjects?
Power allocation?
The procedure?
The instutions?
The judicial control?
Liability?
Thursday, 24 June 2010 56

57. What is administrative law?
Thursday, 24 June 2010 57

58. What are the subjects
of administrative law?
Thursday, 24 June 2010 58

59. the allocation of
powers
Thursday, 24 June 2010 59

60. administrative
procedure
Thursday, 24 June 2010 60

61. institutions providing
legal redress
Thursday, 24 June 2010 61

62. the judicial control of
power
Thursday, 24 June 2010 62

63. liability of the
administration
Thursday, 24 June 2010 63

64. conclusion
Thursday, 24 June 2010 64

65. คําถาม?
Thursday, 24 June 2010 65