“Pravova derzhava”. Issue 36 (2025), pages 629–640.
DOI: 10.33663/0869-2491-2025-36-629-640
Kresin Oleksiy
On the issue of philosophy of comparative jurisprudence
The study is devoted to clarifying the matter of whether comparative jurisprudence has ever risen and whether it can rise to the philosophical level of cognition and whether the philosophical foundations of comparative jurisprudence are special or identical with the metaphysical philosophy of law. The author analyzes the ideas of the founder of comparative jurisprudence, P. J. A. von Feuerbach, and compares them with the interpretation of certain aspects of the philosophy of comparative jurisprudence in modern scientific research with the aim of identifying the cross-cutting issues and peculiarities of its development.
It is argued that from the very beginning, comparative jurisprudence as a way of scientific thinking and a disciplinary project included a philosophical level of understanding the multiplicity of legal orders and provided for a type of philosophizing different from its newborn brother and alter ego — metaphysical philosophy of law. This philosophical level and a special type of philosophizing are immanent to comparative jurisprudence and are the conditions for its full development in modern contexts. The comparative legal outlook has become a generalization of the philosophy of positive law, being inherently non-monistic, non-metaphysical, non-deductive, but pluralistic, social and inductive. Thanks to it, as well as to the comparative legal approach and the complex of comparative legal disciplines it has generated, the unity of the system of legal knowledge has finally been achieved — from the practice-oriented study of national law to the definition of the General in legal development. The philosophy of comparativism is the philosophy of the Individual, the Particular and the General, located horizontally in relation to each other, in mutual connection and one in the other, mediated by time, space and social development.
Key words: comparative jurisprudence, comparative law, philosophy of law, philosophy of positive law, philosophy of comparative jurisprudence.
References
1. Kresin O. V. Do pytannia pro piznavalnu metu porivnialnoho pravoznavstva. Pravova derzhava. 2023. Iss. 34.
2. Kresin O. V. Suchasna mozaika osmyslennia kartyny svitu v porivnialnomu pravoznavstvi. Pravova derzhava. 2024. Iss. 35.
3. Audi R. Epistemology: a contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge. 3rd ed. New York, 2011.
4. Bird A. Inductive Knowledge. The Routledge Companion to Epistemology. New York, 2011.
5. Alston W. Perceptual Knowledge. The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology. Oxford, 1999.
6. von Feuerbach P. J. A. Pohliad na nimetske pravoznavstvo. Porivnialne pravoznavstvo. 2012. No. 1–2.
7. Kresin O. V. Formuvannia teoretyko-metodolohychnyh zasad porivnialnoho pravoznavstva u pratsiah P. J. A. von Feuerbacha. Porivnialne pravoznavstvo: suchasnyi stan i perspektyvy rozvytku. Kyiv, 2011.
8. von Feuerbach P. J. A. Idea ta neobhidnist universalnoi pravovoi nauky. Pryrodne parvo, filosofia prava, zahalne pravoznavstvo. Porivnialne pravoznavstvo. 2012. No. 3–4.
9. Rheinstein M. Comparative Law — Its Functions, Methods and Usages. Arkansas Law Review and Bar Association Journal. 1968. Vol. 22. No. 3.
10. Hicks S. C. The Jurisprudence of Comparative Legal Systems. Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review. 1983. Vol. 6.
11. Martynenko P. F. Tselostnost mira i sravnitelnoe pravovedenie. Porivnialne pravoznavstvo: Antolohia ukrainskoi komparatyvistyky 19–20 cent. Kyiv, 2008.
12. Samuel G. Comparative Law. The Philosophy of Law. An Encyclopedia. New York, 1999.
13. Samuel G. Epistemology and Comparative Law: Contributions from the Sciences and Social Sciences. Epistemology and Methodology of Comparative Law. Oxford, 2004.
14. Samuel G. Law of Obligations & Legal Remedies. London, 2001.
15. Ewald W. Comparative Jurisprudence (I): What Was It Like to Try a Rat? University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 1995. Vol. 143.
16. Legrand P. Alterity: About Rules, For Example. Themes in Comparative Law. In Honour of Bernard Rudden. Oxford, 2002.
17. Husa J. Nicht nur juristische Auslandsforschung: Rechtsvergleichung als Rechtsphilosophie. Rechtstheorie. 2009. Vol. 40.
18. Örücü E. Comparative Motley: Offerings from a Comparative Lawyer. Critical Analysis of Law. 2021. Vol. 8. Iss. 2.
19. Tykhomyrov O. D. Filosofski zasady porivnialnoho pravoznavstva. Filosofia porivnialnoho pravoznavstva. Kyiv, 2015.
20. Tykhomyrov O. D. Filosofsko-naukoznavchi zasady iurydychnoi komparatyvistyky. Porivnialne pravoznavstvo. 2012. No. 1–2.
21. Tkachenko O. Postmetafizychna interpretatsia tertium comparationis — konstytuant prava-iak-filosofii. Porivnialne pravoznavstvo. 2012. № 3–4.
22. Tkachenko O. Nehatyvnyi prostir iurydychnyh konstruktsiy — terytoria pravovoho porivniannia iak pravovoi filosofii. Filosofia porivnialnoho pravoznavstva. Kyiv, 2015.
23. Kresin O. V. Filosofia prava i filosofia porivnialnoho pravoznavstva: deiaki mirkuvannia. Suchasni problem porivnialnoho pravoznavstva. Uzhgorod, Kyiv, 2015.
24. Kresin O. V. Zrozumity Patryka Glenna. Porivnialno-pravovi doslidzhennia. 2014. No. 2.
25. Kresin O. V. Stanovlennia teoretychnyh zasad porivnialno-pravovyh doslidzhen u druhiy polovyni 18 — pershyi tretyni 19 stolittia. Kyiv, 2017.
26. Kresin O. V. Formuvannia porivnialno-pravovoho myslennia varshavskyh iurystiv u pershiy tretyni 19 stolittia. Kyiv, 2021.
27. Zoller E., Bermann G. A., Glenn P. at all. Comparative Law: Problems and Prospects. American University International Law Review. 2011. Vol. 26. Iss. 4.