Tag: Comparative law

Comparative Law Teaching in the UK – Where are we in 2025?

Posted on by aj.bell

by Prof Paula Giliker, University of Bristol and former President of the British Association of Comparative Law (BACL)

In this post, Prof Giliker evaluates survey findings taking stock of the current state of comparative law teaching in the UK; the text first appeared on the BACL blog on 30 October 2025: Comparative Law Teaching in the UK—Where are we in 2025? – British Association of Comparative Law

BACL meeting, photo by Zheng Hong See

In July 2025, BACL members gathered with invited guests to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the British Association of Comparative Law, reflecting on comparative law scholarship, past, present and future (see image). I had the great honour to present and evaluate the results of the 2025 BACL survey of comparative law teaching in UK universities. The survey results are detailed below. A previous survey, published by Esin Örücü in 2002, had found no standard comparative law syllabus across universities, and that the majority of law academics in UK universities favoured national-centred teaching with reference to international or foreign law only as ‘appropriate’. While Örücü had observed a growing sense that EU membership and globalisation were challenging traditional parochialism, she concluded that comparative law teaching remained ‘an interesting but ornamental addition to a crammed curriculum’.

Has this Position Changed?

The 2025 BACL survey received responses from BACL representatives in 39 institutions in England (33), Wales (1), Scotland (4), and Northern Ireland (1).  It covered a range of pre- and post-1992 universities. The survey asked four questions:

Q1: Do you teach comparative law and how do you interpret ‘comparative law’ in your institution?

Only 4 institutions (Aston, Lincoln, Middlesex, Oxford Brookes) indicated that comparative law was not actively taught in some form in their institution.  The italicized words are, however, important in that this does not necessarily mean that the other universities teach distinct comparative law modules, but simply that comparative law is integrated in some way into UG and PG curricula.

Free text responses were sought to the question how to interpret ‘comparative law’.  The majority (78%) opted for a conventional response:

  • Comparing the similarities and differences of different legal systems: 78%

The survey, however, also found reflection on the difficulties of defining comparative law:

  • It is used widely, with the term ‘comparative’ being used without necessarily having reference to any comparative methodology: 19%
  • No single institutional interpretation and variation between staff: 28%

The emphasis was on micro-comparison with reference to private and public law.  There was also a sense (19%) of certain modules being labelled comparative without ‘necessarily having any comparative methodology included’ (Oxford). Only a fifth of respondents mentioned methodology in their answer to this question (Answer expressly referred to methodology: 22%).  Only four respondents (Essex, Kent, LSE, QUB) mentioned non-EU/non-US jurisdictions or transnational law in this answer.

Q2. Does comparative law feature exclusively within a research (e.g. dissertation or research projects) rather than a teaching context at your institution?

A vast majority here (81%) regarded comparative law as featuring both in terms of research and teaching. There was consensus, however, that there was a clear need for students wishing to undertake dissertations at UG or PG level to have some training in comparative research skills even where comparative law was not generally taught.

Although a number of institutions have dedicated comparative law UG modules, notably directed at those studying abroad, those without dedicated modules emphasised how comparative approaches are being used in both UG and PG teaching. This is consistent with universities seeking to attract international students; the Glasgow respondent noted that in his institution, module titles including the words ‘international’, ‘commercial’ or ‘comparative’ are viewed as likely to appeal to students. This seems to be particularly apparent at LLM level. The LSE respondent argued that the classroom experience is enhanced by ‘having students from a wide range of jurisdictions & backgrounds in the room. This facilitates class discussion … [T]his is usually the case, certainly on the LLM’.

Q3. If you teach comparative law, is it offered ONLY as a dedicated UG or PGT module at your institution?

  • Yes: 10.5%
  • It is offered more broadly in UG and PGT contexts: 71%
  • Not offered at all: 18.5%

The low percentage of institutions that only (note the restriction) provide dedicated UG or PGT modules (10.5%) should not be seen as negative but that the majority of institutions (71%) consider comparative law teaching more broadly.  In 1998, Peter Birks argued in his article, ‘The Academic and the Practitioner’ ((1998) 18 Legal Studies 397, 408) that:

… we are still leaving comparative … law in a ghetto, in the sense that some scholars do comparative research and then the same scholars run comparative law courses which are taken by some students … So far as it is possible for an observer to see what is going on, most of our teaching appears to assume that only English law counts.

The survey indicates that this “ghettoisation” is no longer so apparent in 2025. The majority of institutions surveyed have UG and PGT modules that have comparative elements in their syllabus. What is important is that comparative law teaching should no longer be seen in terms of whether the institution provides a stand-alone comparative law module, but to what extent teaching involves comparative elements.  The latter may mean teaching UG and PG students comparative approaches to topics as diverse as private law, constitutional law, human rights or family law. For the 18.5% of respondents who do not have the opportunity to teach comparatively, given that the respondents were BACL representatives with a research interest in comparative law, this does demonstrate an untapped source of comparative law teaching, although many were able to supervise comparative research projects at these institutions.

Q4: If the answer to Q3 is yes or comparative law is offered more broadly in UG and PGT contexts, please tell us more about how comparative law is offered at your institution.

  • Offered at UG level: 68%
  • Offered at PG level: 62%
  • Teaching includes methodology (including dissertation training): 53%
  • Using materials beyond Western legal systems: 47%

This element of the survey sought qualitative information about how comparative law was taught. The answers revealed both traditional modes of teaching and more diverse attempts to include comparative law elements in the curriculum. What is clear is that the picture differs considerably from that of 2002. In 2015, UK university recruitment numbers were uncapped and, in 2025, we see a more diverse student population. In 2023/24 there were 732,285 overseas students studying at UK higher education providers or 23% of the total student population. 75,490 of these students were from the EU and 656,795 from outside the EU: International students in UK higher education – House of Commons Library.  Mathias Siems ((2021) 41 Legal Studies 373, 374) argues that, despite Brexit, the UK also remains a popular destination for international academics attracted by its career opportunities, openness to overseas job applicants and the English-language medium of teaching. These academics will inevitably be drawn to include comparative elements in their teaching: ibid., 382. More negatively, however, some institutions have withdrawn comparative law modules due to the retirement of key staff, lack of student interest or curriculum change.

The survey identified dedicated UG modules, including in Scotland modules dedicated to the study of Mixed Legal Systems (Strathclyde), but also a great number of modules where comparative law formed part of the syllabus dedicated to a specific area of law, e.g. constitutional law, corporate law, family law, evidence, international economic law, legal history, or international and comparative human rights law.  Certain respondents expressed concern as to what extent these latter modules integrate methodology into the teaching or rely simply on “foreign” examples to discuss the topic in question. York, for example, has the aim of integrating comparative law into other elements of the curriculum instead of offering a dedicated module. The York respondent (a highly respected comparative law theorist) expressed concern, however, that this approach left no place for the theories of comparative law.

More positively, respondents identified interest both at UG and PG level and, in particular, recognition of the utility of using comparative methodology lectures to assist with dissertation training. A number of respondents noted that a substantial proportion of PG students describe their research projects as comparative in one way or another. The Durham respondent remarked: ‘Comparative law features mostly in research, including among PGRs.’

A healthy 47% of respondents reported using sources beyond Western legal systems. This is boosted by the use of comparative law teaching to support UG degrees with a study abroad element beyond Europe, Scots interest in other mixed legal systems such as South Africa, and with a number of institutions now providing joint LLBs with Global or International law. This again evidences the internationalisation of both the curriculum and the student intake.

Conclusions

The survey presents a picture of comparative law teaching that is changing to respond to globalisation and internationalisation in UK universities.  The diverse backgrounds of teaching staff also facilitate comparative approaches to law teaching, presenting UK universities with the opportunity to enrich their curricula. There have been blows, however. The loss of the Erasmus+ scheme due to Brexit means that there is no funding for EU staff teaching exchanges or incoming Erasmus students, with students in England, Wales and Scotland subject to the uncertainties of Turing funding. Equally, there is evidence that the introduction of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) has led some universities to focus on making their students ‘SQE ready’ and to regard teaching comparative law as a luxury rather than as essential part of the law student’s learning experience.

Drawing on these findings, I would argue that there are three ways in which UK comparative law academics can promote comparative law teaching in UK universities.  First, by embracing globalisation and internationalisation as an opportunity to promote comparative approaches to law in the syllabus. Second, by emphasising the utility of comparative law teaching in producing students ready for the global law market. Thirdly, by fighting for the integrity of comparative law teaching, not least in advocating that students need to be provided with a basic understanding of methodology, including the dangers of legal transplants, when studying comparative material or engaging in comparative research.

The Future?

What will a teaching survey undertaken in 2050 on the centenary of the BACL reveal?  What is certain is that the efforts of comparative law academics present and future will play a part in shaping that response.

Can we avoid ‘false friends’ in transnational commercial law conventions? – the case of adequate assurance of performance under the CISG

Posted on by foluke.adebisi

by Dr Katarzyna Kryla-Cudna, The Law School, University of Bristol

The concept of faux amis (‘false friends’) has been used in the literature to describe terms used in an international convention which seem familiar to an interpreter but which, in fact, are defined differently in the convention to in the domestic legal system the interpreter is used to. Several instances of faux amis have been identified on the basis of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). One major example can be found in the US case of Delchi Carrier SpA v Rotorex Corp., which required an interpretation of Article 74 CISG. This provision states that ‘damages may not exceed the loss which the party in breach foresaw or ought to have foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the contract.’ The US court understood this rule as a reference to the ‘familiar principle of foreseeability established in Hadley v Baxendale.’ Hadley v Baxendale is the leading English case on remoteness of damage and has also gained recognition in the US. Rather than referring to the preparatory works and other materials examining the specific meaning of the foreseeability rule under the CISG, the court thus reached for an analogy from its own jurisdiction. (more…)

Sound Scholarship

Posted on by lee.mcconnell

By Dr Chathuni Jayathilaka and Prof Gwen Seabourne, Centre for Law and Historical Research (University of Bristol Law School)

Although based in England, the Law School is home to experts on a variety of different jurisdictions – for example, Dr Chathuni Jayathilaka, who teaches contract, commercial comparative and Roman law is a specialist on Scots private law and Scots Legal History. She has recently published a monograph entitled Sale and the Implied Warranty of Soundness and here, she explains it to Gwen Seabourne of the Centre for Law and History Research.

GS: So, Chathuni, tell us about your new book (with translation for common lawyers!). It’s about a topic in Scots private law, isn’t it?

CJ: Yes. Sale and the Implied Warranty of Soundness deals with an under-researched area of Scots law: the common law contract of sale. This contract, which still regulates transactions featuring real property (i.e. land) and intangible property, has been subjected to little analysis in the past two centuries. The last book on this topic, Mungo Brown’s A Treatise on the Law of Sale, was published almost 200 years ago, in 1821.

As a result, there are a number of gaps in knowledge in this area. One of the major issues is that the default rules which apply under the Scots common law contract of sale have never been coherently systematised. Another is that it is not clear whether the same default rules applied to all contracts of sale, regardless of whether the property involved was real, personal or intangible. Historically, a number of the default rules developed exclusively through case law featuring one type of property, and there is disagreement about whether such rules apply to transactions featuring other types of property. (more…)

Understanding Vicarious Liability in Tort – The value of a comparative perspective

Posted on by lee.mcconnell

By Prof Paula Giliker, Professor of Comparative Law (University of Bristol Law School)

In this blog, I will discuss two recent publications which address comparatively the doctrine of vicarious liability in tort and demonstrate the value of a comparative perspective in this field.  Vicarious liability is a rule of responsibility which is found across the common law of tort and typically renders an employer strictly liable for the torts of its employees provided that the tort takes place in the course of employment.  The idea of holding an employer liable to pay compensation to victims of its employees’ torts, regardless of the absence of personal fault, is not, however, unique to the common law.  Ideas of strict liability for the torts of others may also be found in civil law systems, although in some systems it is subject to a rebuttable presumption of fault (see, generally, Giliker, Vicarious Liability in Tort (CUP, 2010) and J Spier (ed), Unification of Tort Law: Liability for Damage Caused by Others (Kluwer Law International, 2003)).  In all systems, it has proven controversial with some commentators arguing that the imposition of no-fault liability on employers conflicts with notions of corrective justice and notably, in a number of systems, it has been questioned to what extent liability can be said to be founded on economic justifications based on enterprise risk and loss distribution via social or private insurance. (more…)

Researching European Union Tort Law in the Era of Brexit

Posted on by legalresearch

By Prof Paula Giliker, Professor of Comparative Law (University of Bristol Law School).

October 2017 marked the publication of the Edward Elgar Research Handbook on EU Tort Law. This is part of the series of Research Handbooks in European Law published by leading Law publishing house, Edward Elgar, which offer authoritative reference points for academics, students, and practitioners studying or working in EU law, private law and comparative law. The aim is to be comprehensive and informative, but also accessible for those approaching the subject for the first time.

The Research Handbook on EU Tort Law is edited by University of Bristol Professor of Comparative Law, Paula Giliker, but also contains contributions from other Bristol academic staff including Dr Jule Mulder, Dr Albert Sanchez-Graells and Professor Keith Stanton, together with 14 other contributions ranging from the UK and Ireland to France, Germany, the Netherlands and Hungary. This truly international project seeks to examine the extent to which EU-sourced law (directives, judicial decisions, regulations, Treaty provisions) have created new rights in the law of tort on which claimants can rely in either the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) or national courts.

The variety of areas of law in which EU-sourced tort law can be found is striking, as highlighted in Giliker’s introductory chapter, ‘What do we mean by “EU tort law”?’ Contributors discuss actions in the CJEU (Gutman), State liability for breach of EU law (Granger), product liability (White), competition law (Odudu and Sanchez-Graells), data protection law (Stauch), employment law (Mulder), insurance law (Davey), financial services law (Stanton) and the law relating to unfair commercial practices (Riefa and Saintier). Further contributions examine what we mean by compensatory remedies in EU law (Leczykiewicz), whether we can identify a culture of EU tort law (Niglia and Knetsch) and the possibility of harmonising European tort law more generally (Martin-Casals, Blackie and Faure). Finally, Giliker examines the future of EU tort law, both as a substantive area of law and as a concept in need of clarification and further academic debate. (more…)

Comparing UK and Irish law: A special relationship?

Posted on by legalresearch

By Prof Paula Giliker, Professor of Comparative Law (University of Bristol Law School) and former President of the British Association of Comparative Law.

The British Association of Comparative Law (BACL) held its annual seminar, jointly with the Irish Society of Comparative Law, at University College, Dublin on 5 September 2017. The joint seminar was chaired and organised by Professor Paula Giliker. To celebrate BACL’s first annual seminar in Ireland, the seminar reflected on the relationship between UK and Irish law in the fields of land law, banking regulation, language legislation and consumer law.  The seminar was sponsored by publishers, Intersentia.

The seminar sought to examine different features of the relationship between Irish and UK law: the tensions of the past, the similar problems faced by two common law jurisdictions in the light of a global banking crisis, linguistic diversity and demands for consumer law reform and the future, with one jurisdiction remaining within the European Union and the other deciding to leave.  (more…)

New Challenges for European Comparative Law

Posted on by legalresearch

By Dr Jule Mulder, Lecturer in Law (University of Bristol Law School).

Dr Jule Mulder has published an article on European comparative law methodology entitled New Challenges for European Comparative Law: The Judicial Reception of EU Non-Discrimination Law and a turn to a Multilayered Culturally-informed Comparative Law Method for a better Understanding of the EU Harmonization.[1] This article argues that comparative law needs to explore its critical potential when engaging with the European harmonization process and its effects on the law of the Member States. (more…)

Penalty clauses and the courts – Does the UK approach differ from the rest of Europe?

Posted on by legalresearch

by Prof Paula Giliker, Professor of Comparative Law (University of Bristol Law School).*

Contractual penalty clauses raise questions going to the heart of contract law: should the courts enforce clauses which make payment of a large sum of money due on breach of contract? The argument is that such clauses act as a penalty for breach and are used by economically stronger parties to “discourage” the other party from breaching the contract. The sums in question are often extortionate and bear no resemblance to the true losses of the parties. Should the courts intervene – and diminish the parties’ freedom to contract as they will – or should they simply enforce the contract?

This question was addressed by the UK Supreme Court in Cavendish Square Holdings BV v Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67) and raises profound questions of the role of judges in policing contractual agreements and the “morality” of contract law. (more…)

Roundtable on Comparative Law and Interdisciplinarity: Practical Approaches

Posted on by legalresearch

By Dr Jule Mulder, Lecturer in Law (University of Bristol Law School).

The University of Bristol Law School hosted a roundtable on Practical Approaches towards Comparative Law and Interdisciplinarity on 8 February 2017. It was organised by Dr Giorgia Guerra (University of Padua, Italy) and Dr Jule Mulder (University of Bristol, UK). The roundtable brought together a number of comparative law researchers and provided a small and informal forum to consider interdisciplinary approaches within the context of European comparative private law and constitutional law. It explored how research on modern technologies, social sciences and arts and humanities can enrich comparative law projects within the context of (European) private and constitutional law. The presentations were chaired by Dr Athanasios Psygkas and Prof Paula Giliker. (more…)

The law governing an arbitration clause

Posted on by legalresearch

By Prof Jonathan Hill, Professor of Law (University of Bristol Law School).

A leading commentator has observed that ‘[t]he choice of the law applicable to an international commercial arbitration agreement is a complex subject’ (Born, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, 2014) p 472). This complexity is reflected by the case law illustrating that the courts of different countries adopt different approaches to certain common scenarios. One area of divergence is the case where parties to a contract containing an arbitration clause choose state A as the seat of arbitration, but the law of state B as the law governing the matrix contract: which law governs the arbitration clause – the law of the seat or the law of the country chosen to govern the substantive contract?

Some legal systems, influenced in part by the doctrine separability (according to which a contractual arbitration clause is, conceptually, treated as a contract separate and independent from the matrix contract) and article V.1.a of the New York Convention of 1958, take the view that, in the absence of an express choice by the parties of the law applicable to the arbitration clause, the law of the seat should govern questions of material validity. English law, however, has never taken this view – although, arguably, the Court of Appeal came close to doing so in C v D [2007] EWCA Civ 1282. (more…)