Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Comparative legal history is the study of law in two or more different places or at different times. [1] [2] [3] As a discipline, it emerged between 1930 and 1960 in response to legal formalism, [4] and builds on scattered uses of legal-historical comparison since antiquity. [5] It uses the techniques of legal history and comparative law. [6]
Legal history or the history of law is the study of how law has evolved and why it has changed. Legal history is closely connected to the development of civilizations [ 1 ] and operates in the wider context of social history .
Sources of law are the origins of laws, the binding rules that enable any state to govern its territory. The terminology was already used in Rome by Cicero as a metaphor referring to the "fountain" ("fons" in Latin) of law. Technically, anything that can create, change, or cancel any right or law is considered a source of law. [1]
Legal Systems of the World. Comparative law is the study of differences and similarities between the law and legal systems of different countries. More specifically, it involves the study of the different legal systems (or "families") in existence around the world, including common law, civil law, socialist law, Canon law, Jewish Law, Islamic law, Hindu law, and Chinese law.
In 1923, Henri Lévy-Ullmann developed the first grouping of legal systems based on sources of law: English law (based on custom), civil law (based on written sources), and Islamic law (based on religious revelation). [11] This was the first clear statement of the dichotomy between civil and common law that later became commonplace. [11]
Historical method is the collection of techniques and guidelines that historians use to research and write histories of the past. Secondary sources, primary sources and material evidence such as that derived from archaeology may all be drawn on, and the historian's skill lies in identifying these sources, evaluating their relative authority, and combining their testimony appropriately in order ...
2. comparative history as parallel demonstration of theory – the emphasis is on identifying similarities across relevant cases; 3. comparative history as contrast of contexts – the emphasis is on the differences between cases and the uniqueness of each case. Scholars that use this approach tends to be wary of drawing broad generalizations.
Some sources attempt mainly to state what the law itself says. Some other sources attempt to state the effect of the law, such as a source about social effects or impacts arising from the implementation of a law, a source about a policy recommendation that in someone's opinion should be embodied in a law, a source about the legislative process, or a source on constitutional history.