Comparative law in developing court practice in small jurisdictions : mission possible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract : The purpose of this article is to discuss the transformative role of comparative law in the development of small nations with short legal histories, compelled to rely on borrowed ideas, concepts and regulations to create their own legal culture and reality. As a small country Estonia does not possess the necessary legal expertise or court practice in many specific areas. Here, comparative law in both of its functions – rules-based and context-based research – provides great help. The article explains how comparative law has been used in the framing of the Estonian system of civil law as well as of specific statutes. In the drafting process, a comparative law method was used to provide drafters with strategic options drawn from an array of legal systems, codes and provisions. The notion of legal transplants is widely used and explained, but in small countries, using transplants may be the only technique for building up a national legal system. The article also focuses on analysing whether the courts may use comparative law as a legal basis for developing private law. The last part of the article is dedicated to the use of comparative law in Estonian court practice, in order to illustrate that there are limits to using comparative law methods. Models of core countries may differ in their suitability because of the differences in ability to successfully absorb legal transplants or because the level of development of the society as a whole does not support the reception of transplants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".