PART ONE: General Topics 3
1.The Discipline of Comparative Law 3
A.The Uses （Misuses, and Abuses） of Comparative Law 5
B.The Purposes of Comparative Law 10
C.Some Approaches to Comparative Legal Studies 15
1.Micro.or Rule.based Comparisons 18
a.Comparison of Legal Terms 19
b.Comparison of Legal Concepts 20
c.Comparison of Norms 21
d.Comparison of Sources of Rules 22
e.Comparison of Legal Institutions 23
f.Comparison of Bodies of Norms 23
2.Macro.Comparisons 24
a.Comparison of Legal Organizations 25
b.Comparison of Legal Systems 25
c.Comparison of Mentalites 26
d.Comparison of Juristic Styles 26
e.Comparison of Legal Philosophies 27
f.Comparison of Legal Traditions 29
g.Comparison of Legal Cultures 30
D.Classifications in Comparative Law 30
1.Language as a Model for Classifications in Law 31
2.Legal Families 33
3.Some Suggestions for Possible Taxonomic Studies 38
a.Bottom.up Approach 38
b.Top.down Approach 40
c.Comparison at the Middle, including Legal Transplants 42
4.On Using Language as a Tool for Classification 44
Summary 46
2.Comparative Legal Linguistics 51
A.Legal Linguistics 52
1.The History of Legal German 53
2.The History of Legal English 54
3.Characteristics of Legal German 57
4.Characteristics of Legal English 65
B.Language and Legal Predictability 74
Summary 86
3.Comparative Jurisprudence 89
A.Three Conceptions of Law 91
1.Legal Positivism 91
2.Natural Law 93
3.Legal Realism 95
B.Evaluating the Jurisdictions 96
1.Is Law Autonomous or Interdisciplinary? 101
a.Germany 103
b.The United States of America 105
c.Sweden 108
d.England and Wales 109
2.Is Law Complete or Incomplete? 110
a.Germany 112
b.The United States of America 113
c.Sweden 114
d.England and Wales 114
3.Determinable Versus Indeterminable 115
a.Germany 116
b.The United States of America 118
c.England and Wales 120
d.Sweden 122
4.Predictability of the Law Versus Individual Justice 122
a.Germany 124
b.The United States of America 124
c.England and Wales 125
d.Sweden 125
5.Formality Versus Morality 126
a.Germany 128
b.The United States of America 129
c.England and Wales 129
d.Sweden 130
Summary 130
PART TWO: Legal Actors 141
4.Lawyers 141
A.Historical Development 141
1.Germany 141
2.England and Wales 145
3.Sweden 147
4.The United States of America 148
B.Modern Legal Education 150
1.Germany 150
2.England And Wales 157
3.Sweden 159
4.The United States of America 159
C.The Legal Profession 163
1.Germany 163
2.England and Wales 166
3.Sweden 168
4.The United States of America 170
Summary 172
5.Judges and Judiciaries 176
A.Historical Development 176
1.Germany 176
2.England and Wales 180
a.Common Law Courts 180
b.Chancery 181
3.Sweden 182
4.The United States of America 183
B.Court Structure 185
1.Germany 185
a.Ordinary Jurisdiction 185
b.Specialist Jurisdiction 187
Ⅰ.LABOR MATTERS 187
Ⅱ.SOCIAL MATTERS 187
Ⅲ.TAX MATTERS 187
Ⅳ.ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 188
2.England and Wales 188
a.Tribunals 188
b.Magistrates’ Court 189
c.County Court 190
d.Crown Court 191
e.High Court of Justice 192
f.Court of Appeal of England and Wales 193
g.Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 193
3.Sweden 194
a.Special Courts 194
b.Ordinary Jurisdiction 195
c.Administrative Jurisdiction 197
4.The United States ofAmerica 198
a.The Federal Court System 199
b.The California State Courts 201
C.The Selection, Training, and Tasks of Judges 202
1.Germany 202
a.Training and Selection 202
b.Tasks 203
2.England and Wales 204
a.Selection 204
b.Education 206
3.Sweden 206
4.The United States of America 207
a.Federal Courts 207
b.The California State Courts 208
Summary 209
6.Lay Judges and Juries 214
A.Historical Development 214
1.Germany 214
2.England and Wales 218
a.Justices of the Peace 219
b.Juries 220
3.Sweden 221
4.The United States ofAmerica 224
a.Justices of the Peace 224
b.Juries 225
B.Selection and Training 227
1.Germany 227
2.England and Wales 232
a.Justices of the Peace 232
b.Juries 236
3.Sweden 237
4.The United States of America 239
a.Justices of the Peace 239
b.Juries 240
C.Justifications for Lay Judges and Juries 241
1.Germany 241
2.England and Wales 245
3.Sweden 248
4.The United States of America 249
a.Justices of the Peace 249
b.The Institution of the Jury 250
c.Civil Juries 252
d.Criminal Juries 253
Summary 255
PART THREE: Legal Rules 261
7.Legal Reasoning 261
A.Law, Rules, Norms, Making Law, and Finding Law 261
1.Finding the Law: the Normsuche 262
2.Systematization and the Normsuche 263
3.Putting a Judicial Gloss on a Statute 268
4.Making Law 269
B.Four Steps in Making and Applying the Law 273
C.The Thinking Processes in Making Law 277
D.Logic and Legal Reasoning 280
1.Logical 280
2.Reasoning by Deduction 281
3.Reasoning by Induction 281
4.Reasoning by Analogy 281
5.The Logical Syllogism 283
6.The Legal Syllogism or “Subsumption” （Applying the Law to the Facts） 284
E.Mischaracterizations of Common Law Reasoning 287
Summary 292
8.Statutes and their Construction 294
A.Historical development 294
1.Germany 295
2.England and Wales 303
3.Sweden 306
4.The United States of America 308
B.Legal Sources and Hierarchies 310
1.Germany 313
a.Constitutional Law 313
b.European Law 314
c.International Law 314
d.Statutory Law 315
e.Legal Regulations 315
f.Ordinances （by.laws） 315
g.Collective Bargaining Agreements 316
h.Administrative Rules 316
i.Customary Law 316
j.Case Law （Richterrecht） 316
k.Expert Opinion Law （Juristenrecht）? 317
2.England and Wales 317
3.Sweden 320
4.The United States ofAmerica 321
C.Statutory Interpretation 324
1.Germany 324
a.Linguistic Interpretation 325
b.Historical Interpretation 327
c.Teleological Interpretation 330
2.England and Wales 332
3.Sweden 335
a.Grammatical Interpretation （logisk.grammatisk tolkning） 335
b.Systematic Interpretation （systematisk tolkning） 336
c.The Teleological Methods of Interpretation （subjektiv och objektiv lagtolkning） 336
4.The United States ofAmerica 337
Summary 339
9.Judicial Precedents 343
A.Historical Development 344
1.Germany 344
2.England and Wales 347
3.Sweden 350
4.The United States of America 352
B.Statutes Regarding Precedential Effect 354
1.Germany 354
a.The Vertical Effect of Precedents 354
b.The Horizontal Effect of Precedents 356
2.England and Wales 358
3.Sweden 359
a.The Vertical Effect of Precedents 359
b.The Horizontal Effect of Precedents 360
4.The United States ofAmerica 361
C.The Modern Use of Precedents 362
1.Germany 362
2.England and Wales 371
3.Sweden 374
4.The United States of America 375
D.Precedents and Politics in the German Federal Constitutional Court 377
1.The FCC as Institution 379
a.Organization of the FCC 379
b.Appointment of Judges to the FCC 380
c.Jurisdiction of the FCC 381
d.Normative Force of the FCCs Judgments 381
2.Departures from Precedent by the FCC 386
a.Style of FCC Judgments 386
b.Kinds of Departures 386
c.Departures by the First Senates of the FCC 387
d.Departures by the Second Senate of the FCC 392
3.Short Comparison with the U.S.Supreme Court 395
4.Explaining the Small Number of Departures from Precedent by the FCC, and the Large Percentage of Political Departures 396
Summary 402
CONCLUSION 411
BIBLIOGRAPHY 437
INDEX 455