154 / 274
GAZETTE
SEPTEMBER 1976
no single method existed and that methods could vary
according to the problems involved. It was necessary
to employ the method or methods which appeared the
most suitable in each individual case. The Committee
attached particular importance to the functional types
of approach and to taking sociological factors into
consideration.
It was noted that Common Law jurists and lawyers
trained in Continental law had a tendency to approach
problems in aw ay that was perhaps different, but it
also became apparent that this did not constitute any
basic difference. Indeed, it had been observed of late
that there was a trend in the Common Law countries
towards the adoption of legislative texts, whereas in
the countries where written law prevailed, the existence
of legal texts that were often old and no longer con-
sonant with the established facts of modern life, made
it necessary to adopt the most liberal case law solutions.
3. The Committee was obviously concerned by
linguistic impediments.
It considered that they should
be overcome.
The view was expressed that teaching of a theoretical
nature on foreign law should be accompanied by in-
struction in the legal terminology applicable to each of
those legal systems. Such teaching should be extended
wherever it existed and introduced where it did not.
Teaching should be adapted to the needs of the theor-
etical instruction it was designed to support. If a student
had acquired a good knowledge of a foreign legal
terminology, that would moreover enable him to receive
teaching in foreign law provided by a teacher who was
a national of the State using the relevant legal system,
and who would be able to express himself in his own
language.
The Committee discussed the problem of dictionaries
and approved of the work that had already been done
in this field. It thought that the continued production
of bilingual dictionaries would be useful so long as it
was clear that such dictionaries should be of an in-
stitutional nature and should not confine themselves
to single legal words in isolation.
4. The Committee studied the problems of teaching
within the field allotted to it, i.e. specialised teaching.
Committee members thought that several types of
specialised teaching could be distinguished.
For example, a distinction could be made between
the teaching of a given system to foreign students by a
teacher who was himself a foreigner and the teaching of
foreign students by a teacher who was a national of
the State which used the system in question.
It was also clear that specialised teaching could be
provided not only for students at a given level of study
(notably postgraduates) but also for people who were
already working, in which case it would form part of
a system of permanent education.
Using teachers to teach the law of their own country
in foreign universities seemed an excellent idea. The
Committee expressed the wish that the mobility of
teachers should be ensured as effectively as possible.
It was desirable that States should remove any ob-
stacles to such mobility, in particular by relaxing or
removing any administrative or tax restrictions. The
Committee thought that young research workers should
benefit from the same uniformly advantageous arrange-
ments, and using lecturers and lectors with a knowledge
both of law and of languages seemed particularly
desirable.
From among the various ways of developing the
teaching of comparative law the Committee singled
out a number of solutions which could be adopted.
One answer was to have twinning arrangements
between two or more universities or other institutions.
Another arrangement would pinpoint study and research
themes which were being worked on jointly by several
institutions and which led to symposia or seminars
being organised in each of the participating institutions
in turn.
5. The Committee wished to stress the importance of
research
in the field of comparative law. Members of
the Committee described the various research institutes
which existed in their countries. It was essential that
the activity reports of these institutes and centres should
be circulated among the various bodies.
The Committee was very much in favour of develop-
ing research centres in each of the member States,
provided that such expansion did not result in over-
lapping. In States where national research institutes
did not exist it seemed desirable to encourage the
setting-up of such institutes. Having institutes or centres
to co-ordinate activities in certain member States
seemed a solution worth adopting on a larger scale. A
flow of information between the various centres in one
and the same State allowed for a maximum of research
with a minimum of means. The international exchange
of information between the various national bodies
should also be stepped up.
To enab le foreign research workers to pursue their
researches at another country's centre, the present
scholarship systems should be expanded so that increased
funds could be made available to a larger number of
research workers. Work in international teams seemed
to hold out promising prospects.
C.
Law Reform
The Commission agreed that an opportunity should
be created for the discussion within the framework of
the Council of Europe (as distinct from the narrower
ambit of the EEC) of :
(a) the possibility of forming a group to consider the
problems which should naturally go to a body of the
nature of a European Law Commission; and
(b) the practical steps necessary for the formation
and maintenance of such a group.
The Commission did not wish to formulate concrete
proposals as it was not the correct body for this purpose,
but does wish to put forward the idea for consideration
and development by the appropriate persons and bodies.
It was thought that the suitable composition of such
an assembly might consist of persons experienced in
comparative law and persons experienced in related
disciplines.
It was thought essential that such discussion should
involve the representatives of the relevant governments.
It was thought that, without in any way pre-empting
the discussions, the proposed working group might
consist of a small number of experienced comparative
lawyers, who would have the advice of persons experi-
enced in national law and in related disciplines.
Two rather different proposals which commended
themselves to the Commission were the possibility of
restatements of parts of the law and secondly the pro-
duction of precisely-drafted model laws on more specific
topics.
It was thought that the first restatements might be
concerned with the law of contracts and other
obligations.
It was not intended that either of these activities
should result in binding obligations as the activities
were intended as catalysts for the historical process of
unification of law where that was both practical and
useful.
155