Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T02:23:28.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Applied Evolutionary Theory: Explaining Legal Change in Transnational and European Private Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Jan M. Smits

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This contribution aims to apply some insights from evolutionary theory to transnational commercial law and to the harmonisation of private law in the European Union. By doing so, it hopes to provide a fresh perspective to the theoretical underpinning of the development of both transnational commercial law and European private law. For transnational commercial law, it has already been well explained that the transformation of the role of the State led to new forms of governance. If there was previously a State monopoly on providing legal certainty and enforcement mechanisms, today the goods of legal certainty and enforcement are often provided by others rather than the State institutions, in particular in cross-border transactions. In European private law, an organic development – in which the role of the national States is also rather limited – is the most likely way to create a successful unified law. Both developments raise many questions. This contribution only aims at providing a framework to deal with one of these questions: how to explain (or even predict) the evolution of law beyond the State (of which transnational commercial law and European private law are important examples)? If legal development can no longer be explained by positivist or natural law thinking, can evolutionary theory fill the gap?

Type
Research Article
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 4: Special Issue - ‘Law, the State and Evolutionary Theory’ , 01 April 2008 , pp. 477 - 491
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 It builds on two previous articles: Smits, Jan M., The Harmonisation of Private Law in Europe: Some Insights from Evolutionary Theory, 31 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 79 (2002) and Smits, Jan M., How to Predict the Differences in Uniformity between Different Areas of a Future European Private Law? An Evolutionary Approach, in The Economics of Harmonizing European Law, 50 (Alain Marciano and Jean-Michel Josselin eds., 2002).Google Scholar

2 See e.g. Calliess, Gralf-Peter, Transnational Civil Regimes: Economic Globalization and the Evolution of Commercial Law, in Legal Certainty Beyond the State: Empirical Studies and Theories of Change (Volkmar Gessner ed., 2008) and Zumbansen, Peer, Transnational Law, in Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, 738 (Jan Smits ed., 2006).Google Scholar

3 See further Jan M. Smits, The Making of European Private Law (2002).Google Scholar

4 See now Michaels, Ralf and Jansen, Nils, Private Law Beyond the State? Europeanization, Globalization, Privatization, 54 American Journal of Comparative Law 843 (2006).Google Scholar

5 The wide variety of approaches in the present issue of the German Law Journal is evidence of this. Also see Kitcher, Philip, Philosophy of Biology, in The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy 819 (Frank Jackson and Michael Smith eds., 2005).Google Scholar

6 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859).Google Scholar

7 See Rodgers, William H., Law and Biology, in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, Vol. II, 451 (Peter Newman ed., 1998) and Elliott Sober, The Nature of Selection (1984).Google Scholar

8 Elliott Sober, Philosophy of Biology 9 (1993).Google Scholar

9 Id., 9 and Kitcher (note 5), 821.Google Scholar

10 Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995), 21. Also see Edward O. Wilson, Consilience (1998), declaring biology to be the mother of all science.Google Scholar

11 Friedrich A. Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty (1973-1979).Google Scholar

12 By e.g. Edward O. Wilson, Sociobiology: the new Synthesis (1975) and R. Alexander, The Biology of Moral Systems (1987).Google Scholar

13 See e.g. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, Economics and Evolution (1993) and Evolutionary Economics (1993).Google Scholar

14 See e.g. Henry Plotkin, Evolution in Mind: an Introduction to Evolutionary Psychology (1979).Google Scholar

15 See further Edward O. Wilson, Sociobiology (1975).Google Scholar

16 Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: the Modern Denial of Human Nature (2002).Google Scholar

17 F.C. Von Savigny, Vom Beruf unsrer Zeit für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft (1814), reprint 1967 and System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, vol. I (1840), 290.Google Scholar

18 H.J. Sumner Maine, Ancient Law (1861).Google Scholar

19 Leaving aside the relevance of their work today, Cf. Elliott, E. Donald, The Evolutionary Tradition in Jurisprudence, 85 Columbia Law Review 38, 43 (1985): ‘by modern standards Savigny's work seems hopelessly metaphorical and unscientific.’ Also see Clark, R.C., The Interdisciplinary Study of Legal Evolution, 90 Yale Law Journal 1238 (1981).Google Scholar

20 Vromen, Jack J., Evolutionary Economics: Precursors, Paradigmatic Propositions, Puzzles and Prospects, in Economics and Evolution 45 (Jan Reijnders ed., 1997), 52.Google Scholar

21 See now the draft Common Frame of Reference: Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law: Draft Common Frame of Reference, Interim Outline Edition (Chr. Von Bar, E. Clive and H. Schulte-Nölke eds., 2008).Google Scholar

22 This section is based on my account of path dependence in Smits (note 1), 79.Google Scholar

23 Hirshleifer, Jack, Evolutionary Models in Economics and Law, in Evolutionary Economics (Ulrich Witt ed., 1993), 205.Google Scholar

24 Stephen J. Gould, Wonderful Life (1989).Google Scholar

25 Hodgson, , supra note 13, 204.Google Scholar

26 See e.g. Roe, Mark J., Chaos and Evolution in Law and Economics, 109 Harvard Law Review 643, 667 (1996).Google Scholar

27 On this, see James Gordley, The Philosophical Foundations of Modern Contract Doctrine (1991) and James Gordley and Arthur Taylor Von Mehren, An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Private Law, 461 ff. (2006).Google Scholar

28 Roe, , supra note 26, 646.Google Scholar

29 Id., 647.Google Scholar

30 Alan Watson, Legal Transplants 96 (1974).Google Scholar

31 See further Roe (note 26), 648.Google Scholar

32 Gambaro, Antonio, Perspectives on the Codification of the Law of Property: An Overview, 5 European Review of Private Law 497 (1997).Google Scholar

33 See further, Dreher, Meinrad, Wettbewerb oder Vereinheitlichung der Rechtsordnungen in Europa?, 54 Juristenzeitung 105, 109 (1999): ‘Da Wissen und Kosten eng miteinander verbunden sind, stellt Unwissenheit zumindest vor Informationskosten und begrenzt so auch die Faktormobilität ganz entscheidend.’Google Scholar

34 Quoted by Benson, Bruce L., Evolution of Commercial Law, in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, Vol. I (Peter Newman ed.), 90 (1998).Google Scholar

35 Mattei, Ugo and Cafaggi, Fabrizio, Comparative Law and Economics, in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, Vol. I (Peter Newman ed.), 346, 348 (1998).Google Scholar

36 See The Reception of Continental Ideas in the Common Law World 1820-1920 (Matthias Reimann ed., 1993).Google Scholar

37 Hirshleifer, , supra note 23, 205.Google Scholar

38 See further, Kraus, Jody S., Legal Design and the Evolution of Commercial Norms, 26 Journal of Legal Studies 377 (1997) and Barnard, Catherine, Social Dumping and the Race to the Bottom: some Lessons for the European Union from Delaware, 25 European Law Review, 57-78 (2000).Google Scholar

39 Barnard (note 38) 57.Google Scholar

40 Id., 70.Google Scholar

41 Hayek, F.A., Notes on the Evolution of Systems of Rules of Conduct, in Studies in Philosophy and Economics 66 (1967); see further the critical assessment by Vanberg, Viktor, Spontaneous Market Order and Social Rules, in Witt (ed.), (note 13), 482.Google Scholar

42 Elliott, supra note 19, 70.Google Scholar

43 Cooter, R. and Kornhauser, R., Can Litigation Improve the Law Without the Help of Judges?, 9 Journal of Legal Studies 139 (1980).Google Scholar

44 See further, e.g. Smits, Jan M., European Private Law: A Plea for a Spontaneous Legal Order, in European Integration and Law 55 (Deirdre M. Curtin et al, 2006).Google Scholar

45 Tiebout, C., A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures, 64 Journal of Political Economy 416 (1956). Also see Ogus, A., Competition Between National Legal Systems: A Contribution of Economic Analysis to Comparative Law, 48 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 405 (1999).Google Scholar

46 Brandeis, L., in: New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262: ‘It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.’Google Scholar