How Comparative Trade Law? Why Comparative Trade Law?

Abstract

This chapter uses the “malaise” literature in comparative law-focusing on the critiques of Duncan Kennedy and Mathias Reimann-as a starting point for examining two questions: How should comparative trade law be practiced, and why pursue it as a field? Although Kennedy and Reimann approach the perceived malaise from different perspectives, their critiques converge on two points: comparative law lacks a clearly articulated methodological framework and has failed to define a coherent set of disciplinary aims. The chapter considers whether scholars of comparative trade law, if they wish to avoid a similar predicament, should develop a more disciplined and less eclectic approach than the broader field of comparative law. Alternatively, they may conclude that such disciplinary consolidation is unnecessary. The chapter outlines Kennedy's and Reimann's critiques of comparative law, respectively. It then draws questions from these critiques to explore the challenges comparative trade law faces in establishing itself as a distinct field of comparative legal scholarship.