‘Difference’ and ‘Similarity’ in Comparative Law: Lessons from Process-Relational Philosophy
Identification
- Public canonical key
- radar:r-d1ff9c17809ec2ee8e73f5a161e1409c
- Authors
- Stephenson, R.
- Reported year
- —
- Reported language
- English
- Source type
- publication
- First detected
- 2026-11-13T15:28:27.568161+00:00
- Last metadata observation
- 2026-11-13T15:28:27.568161+00:00
- Last HTTP verification
- Not checked
Documentary abstract — original language
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>Functionalism has been increasingly challenged by legal comparatists questioning its nature and suitability. These epistemologically-focused critiques have effectively dichotomised modern comparative law methods, leaving two undertheorised possibilities, namely, the functionalist model—understood in conventional positivist (and substance-ontic) lexes—and emergent postmodern approaches as typified by Pierre Legrand’s system of ‘negative comparative law’ protocols. This article explores an often-neglected alternative grounded in process-relational philosophy. As shown by re-examining Ernst Rabel’s original model, its central claim is that a synthesis of early functionalist theory and process-relational principles exposes postmodern critiques as imprecise and overstated—arguably misconceiving key notions of ‘difference’ and ‘similarity’, and consequently failing to appreciate how greater awareness of the correct order and relationships between levels of abstraction can enhance the nature and possibilities of comparative legal knowledge.</jats:p>
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1017/cjlj.2025.10042
- HANDLE
- 21.11116/0000-0011-AFBE-3
Documentary context
- Documentary family
- unknown
- Source-reported types
- publication
- Publishers
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Entity mentions are not evidence of legal recognition. Jurisdiction studied is separate from author affiliation country.
Sources
OpenAIRE · Record 1
Cite this reference
Stephenson, R.. ‘Difference’ and ‘Similarity’ in Comparative Law: Lessons from Process-Relational Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2025.10042
JSON · CSL-JSON · BibTeX · RIS · CSV · JSON-LD ·
APA, Chicago, ISO 690: bibliographic formats using available fields. OSCOLA / Bluebook: structured data only; full legal citation compliance is not claimed without verification of required elements.
- APA
- Stephenson, R.. ‘Difference’ and ‘Similarity’ in Comparative Law: Lessons from Process-Relational Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2025.10042
- Chicago
- Stephenson, R.. ‘Difference’ and ‘Similarity’ in Comparative Law: Lessons from Process-Relational Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2025.10042
- ISO 690
- Stephenson, R.. ‘Difference’ and ‘Similarity’ in Comparative Law: Lessons from Process-Relational Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2025.10042
Warning: Undefined array key "last_link_verified" in /home/clients/e27d81e12f04d2bfd747aa264540ac56/sites/_UDTR_APP/legal_library_reference.php on line 31
UDTR Global Rights of Nature Legal Library. ‘Difference’ and ‘Similarity’ in Comparative Law: Lessons from Process-Relational Philosophy. Documentary record: https://www.declarationuniverselledesdroitsdelarbre.org/global-rights-of-nature-radar/reference/r-d1ff9c17809ec2ee8e73f5a161e1409c/ · Last HTTP verification: not performed
Research dossiers and documentary relations
Source roles
Bibliographic / original publication source · https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2025.10042
An authority link alone does not verify a legal claim. Abstracts and full texts remain subject to their source terms.
Documentary status
Relevance pending
Library
This identity is not yet included in the Legal Library.