Comparative law’s history as a discipline has been dominated and shaped by various schools of thought and methodologies. Whether employing taxonomic, functionalist, factualist, or structuralist methods, mainstream approaches to legal comparison are beset by a wide array of shortcomings, including hidden ideological assumptions, racial and gender prejudices, socio-economic decontextualization, and a broader ethnocentric bias that places western legal regimes in a relationship of hierarchical superiority to all others. Looking to introduce Max Planck Law researchers to these different schools of thought and methods, and offering them a hands-on toolkit and critical bricolage approach for exposing how comparative legal discourse and research conventionally hides biases and feigns neutrality and objectivity, Professor Frankenberg’s presentation will be of great interest to researchers looking to move beyond sterile discussions of abstract methodological debates to enhancing our knowledge of the actual practices and implications of legal comparison.
A short text on the topic written by Professor Frankenberg will be circulated amongst the registrants one week before the event and will be used as a further basis for discussion. Registration will therefore close relatively early so don’t miss out by registering straight away below.
This event is aimed primarily at Max Planck Law researchers, however, should numbers allow, a limited number of places will be given to non-Max Planck Law researchers based on their written statement and profile submitted via the form below.
This event is organized by Legal Research Methods, an Initiative of Max Planck Law.