Why method
Comparative legal research is easy to do badly. Done well, it grounds claims about legal practice in evidence that travels beyond a single jurisdiction. Done badly, it strings together superficial similarities and produces conclusions that do not survive contact with practice.
This Working Paper sets out the methodological commitments that govern the Institute's comparative work. It is a statement of practice, not a prescription for the field.
Case selection
Our case selection privileges depth over breadth. Each comparative project specifies its selection logic — why these jurisdictions, why this time-window — and notes the limitations that selection imposes on the claims that can be drawn.
Source discipline
Primary sources where available; secondary sources where necessary, with provenance noted. Translations are checked. Statutory text is read in its operational context, not in isolation. Judicial decisions are read with attention to procedural posture.
The limits of comparison
Comparison illuminates and obscures in equal measure. The same statutory phrase carries different work in different systems. The same procedural form rests on different institutional foundations. Our comparative work foregrounds these limits rather than papering over them.