tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12963065.post6195469110096885558..comments2024-03-08T07:50:03.816+01:00Comments on ComparativeLawBlog: Can the Calf Devour the Lion?Jacco Bomhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630729945696209221noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12963065.post-78860718794501475362010-03-31T15:46:52.574+02:002010-03-31T15:46:52.574+02:00Nice post. I especially like the parts that say &...Nice post. I especially like the parts that say "I agree with Colin"! But seriously, I think Dan raises many good points about the limitation of my proposed comparative analysis of international law. Indeed, for me it is those challenges and those obstacles that make it particularly fun. But, I am not convinced those challenges and obstacles are insurmountable. I think they are serious, but perhaps only different in terms of degree than the challenges any comparatist faces when engaged in comparative examination of foreign (to the comparatist) legal systems. Comparisons or analysis of fundamentally different legal systems are part of our job description. Even of those with fundamentally different bases - such as in religious legal systems, or political/economic ideological legal systems. The "mere" fact that the participants in the international legal system are states does not, in my opinion, remove them from comparative analysis (and I know that is not what Dan is suggesting). Nor does the failure of a state to follow an ICJ ruling mean the system is any the less different. After all, do we measure the validity of legal system by the percentage of folks that follow the speed limit? I think not, though certainly it can be a useful piece of data in our analysis. Anyway, more later, though I suspect Dan and I are probably more in agreement than disagreement over an attempt to apply our comparative tool chest to international law.Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05987368722100259590noreply@blogger.com