The Communicative Function of Legal Transplants in Mixed Legal Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyzes the definition of the communicative function of law from the point of view of legal communication between the dependent legal systems of the former colonies. In this context, the “evergreen issue” arises about legal transplantation, the legal transfer of norms and institutions and reception of nomadic legal constructs. The modern comparative lexicon uses three types of metaphors related to the interaction of legal systems and their law hybridization: anthropomorphic, communicative and mechanical metaphors. Among the best-known cases of legal transplantation, the authors pay attention to the spread of codes, the diffusion of common law, and the emergence of mixed legal systems. They explore the positivist concept of “legal transplants,” which appeared in comparative discourse thanks to the theory of Alan Watson. The article discusses the comparative opposition to this theory — the so-called cultural concept of legal transplants (transferists vs. culturalist debate), as well as the musical metaphor “legal transposition” and the process of diffusion of law in dependent legal systems. The practice of legal transplants in mixed common law systems and their application in practice are analyzed in national jurisdictions. The article shows criminal legal bijuridism and the process of the so-called “diffuse codification” in India, Canada, Australia and other British former colonies, which is an example of codistics communication of dissimilar political and legal cultures and circulation of model codes between them. In conclusion, attention is drawn to the discourse of the effectiveness, applicability and effectiveness of transplants. It is concluded that the success — failure discourse of legal transplants depends on the degree of communicativeness of transplanted and receptive constructs, their ability to “speak” in an understandable language for the host cultural environment of law.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".