A CRITICAL APPROACH IN COMPARATIVE LEGAL STUDIES: A Lesson for Islamic Legal Scholarship

Ahmad Rofii(1*),


(1) Fakultas Syariah dan EKonomi Islam IAIN Syekh Nurjati Cirebon
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Kajian perbandingan hukum ortodoks percaya bahwa ada sains perbandingan hukum yang bersifat murni dan obyektif, yang dapat menjaga jarak dari konvensi dan historisitasnya. Melawan asumsi tersebut, tulisan ini berpendapat bahwa anggapan akan obyektifitas dalam kajian perbandingan hukum tidak dapat dipertahankan. Tulisan ini juga berupaya melihat masa depan kajian perbandingan hukum. Ia berpendapat bahwa adalah tidak kritis untuk mengatakan bahwa ada teks hukum yang dapat dipahami di luar konteksnya, karena setiap teks berada dalam situasi tertentu dan lekat dengan konteksnya. Pandangan positifistik terhadap hukum sudah usang. Tugas penelitian perbandingan bukanlah untuk mencari kebenaran-sebagai-ketepatan. Tetapi, ia berupaya untuk menyingkap dimensi laten dari hukum. Obsesi ortodoksi untuk melakukan uniformasi hukum menyembuyikan fakta akan perbedaan.

The orthodox comparative legal studies believe that there is a pure and objective science of comparative legal studies able to distance itself from “conventions” and its historicity. Against this assumption, this paper will argue that the objectivity claim in comparative legal studies is flawed. This paper also attempts to see what the future of comparative legal studies could be. It argues that it is uncritical to say that there is a legal text that can be understood out of its context, because every text is situated and embedded. The positivistic view of law was obsolete. The duty of comparative research is not to search for truth-as-correctness. Rather, it attempts to unconceal the latent dimension of law. The orthodoxy’s obsession to uniformization of law deceives the fact of difference.


Keywords


Comparative legal studies, the orthodoxy, understanding, sameness, alterity

Full Text:

PDF

References


Attia v British Gas Plc (1988) 1 QB 304 (CA).

Bogdan, Michael, “On the Value and Method of Rule-Comparison in Comparative Law” in Heinz-Peter Mansel et al (eds), Festschrif für Erik Jayne (Munich: Sellier, 2004).

Deakin, Simon, Angus Johnston and Basil Markesinis, Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort Law, 5ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

Dudgeon v UK (1981) ECHR, series A, no 45.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Truth and Method, trans. by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G Marshall, 2nd ed. (London: Sheed & Ward, 1989).

Heidegger, Martin, Being and Time trans by Joan Stambaugh (New York: State University of New York Press, 1996).

J. Ahmad Nasir, Jamal, the Status of Women under Islamic Law and Modern Islamic Legislations, 3rd edition (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009).

Krygier, Martin, “Law as Tradition”, Law & Philosophy 5 (1986).

Lawrence et al v Texas (2003) 539 US 558.

Legrand, Pierre, “Comparative Legal Studies and the Matter of Authenticity” Journal of Comparative Law I (2006).

Legrand, Pierre, “Issues in the Translatability of Law” in Sandra Berman and Michael Wood (eds), Nation, Language and the Ethics of Translation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).

Legrand, Pierre, “On the Singularity of Law”, Harvard International Law Journal 47 (2006).

Legrand, Pierre, “Paradoxically, Derrida: For a Comparative Legal Studies”, Cardozo Law Review 27 (2005).

Legrand, Pierre, “The Return of the Repressed: Moving Comparative Legal Studies Beyond Pleasure” Tulane Law Review 75 (2001).

Legrand, Pierre, “The Same and the Different” in Pierre Legrand and Roderick Munday (eds), Comparative Legal Studies: Tradition and Transitions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

Legrand, Pierre, Comparative Law: Course Material for Intensive –Sem 1 (2007).

Mahmood, Tahir, Personal Law in Islamic Counties: History, Text and Comparative Analysis (New Delhi: Academy of Law and Religion, 1987).

McLoughlin v O’Brian (1983) AC 410 (HL).

Oakeshott, Michael, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (London: Metheuen, 1962).

Rorty, Richard, “The Fate of Philosophy” The New Republic, 18 October 1982.

Rorty, Richard, Consequences of Pragmatism (1982), available at at 25 May 2007.

Teubner, Gunther, “Legal Irritants: Good Faith in British Law or How Unifying Law Ends up in New Divergences”, Modern Law review 61 (1998).

Zweigert, Konrad and Hein Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law, 3rd rev ed, trans. Tony Weir (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).




DOI: 10.24235/mahkamah.v1i1.452

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 679 times
PDF - 393 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Mahkamah Indexed By:

  

 

Copyright of Mahkamah (Jurnal Kajian Hukum Islam) ISSN: 2355-0546 (print), ISSN: 2502-6593 (online)

 

Mahkamah (Jurnal Kajian Hukum Islam) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.