A New Understanding of Comparative Methodology - an Exploration of the Intermediary Jurisprudence of Comparative Legal Studies

This article examines comparative methodology from a very practical angle, simplifying it as a meaningful execution of two or more analytical studies. It makes four overall arguments. First, it argues that, despite the complexities of different comparative methods in law, there is essentially only one feasible approach to comparative legal studies, which is to label and measure differences and similarities between two or more legal systems in pursuit of a specific goal. Secondly, it argues that what distinguishes one comparative study from another is not necessarily related to the comparison itself, but more to what may be called the ‘intermediary jurisprudence’. We define this as the specific tools and contexts that the researcher selects to understand the legal systems being compared, in pursuit of a specific aim. Thirdly, the paper posits that most of the ambiguity surrounding the use of comparative methodology is related to the misuse of its associated technical terms. Finally, it argues that in an increasingly international legal arena, comparative methodology should be studied and taught alongside conventional legal research methods, such as the doctrinal method and the analytical method.