Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The terms legal transplant, legal borrowing, and reception are commonly used to address the same phenomenon, namely the spread and dissemination of legal models from a donor or exporting legal order to a receiving one. More broadly, reception, transplant, and borrowing refer to the result of a legal reform process that is initiated by a project of legal change based on imitation of laws, doctrines, or judicial decisions already in place in different legal orders.

Within the fabric of such terminology, the notion of legal transplant has been, for the last three decades, the most central. This is largely due to the successful and widely discussed 1974 book by the legal historian Alan Watson, which he devoted to a specific set of borrowings within the realm of private law. The success of Watson's study emerged from the plain recognition that borrowing is usually the driving factor in legal change. Dissent, repeatedly manifested by Pierre Legrand, among others, denied the possibility of transferring rules and laws from one legal order to another.

The scholarly debate on the conditions and effects of legal borrowing seemed favored by the terminology itself. In fact, the very idea of transplanting a rule from one country to another may entail the recognition of an identity between the exporting and the importing legal systems, an identification Watson did not consider.

The denial of the possibility of legal transplants is rooted in the old positivistic conception of legal change as an occurrence based almost exclusively on legislative action. However, like language, music, architecture, and philosophy, law is a dynamic and transnational phenomenon. Legal change occurs constantly, without interruption, and imitation has been, since ancient times, the most common strategy underlying legal reform. The recognition of such circumstances severely curtails the debate surrounding the mere possibility of legal transplants. Legal borrowings simply occur, although they can be more or less effective, more or less persistent.

A Dynamic Approach to Comparative Law

Comparative lawyers have paid particular attention to the phenomenon of legal transplants. At first, the traditional approach, illustrated by René David (1906–1990), envisaged a static mapping of the major legal systems. Following this thread, which was the custom in the first part of the twentieth century, national legal orders were classified and combined within larger groups based on common traits. Such an approach, also used by Konrad Zweigert and Hein Kötz, still influenced by strands of national positivism and by the recognition of enacted legislation as the center of observation, certainly removed some of the emphasis previously placed on the aspect of intrasystem dissemination of rules. Where comparatists recognized mixed systems, such as South Africa or Israel, they were presented as exceptional to the monolithic coherence of the several state legal orders based on the historical development of national law.

Rodolfo Sacco inaugurated a new approach to comparative law in a seminal 1972 study, later presented in English. Progressing from the contributions of Gino Gorla (1906–1992) and Rudolf Schlesinger (1909–1996), Sacco shifted the focus from the static description of legal orders to a dynamic reading of the borrowings that nurture them. If we consider Sacco's starting point, comparative law presupposes the existence of a plurality of legal rules and institutions. A comparativist studies them to establish the extent to which they are identical or different.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading