The volume under review gathers the contributions to a Conference held in Kortrijk on 10-11 June 2010, focussing on the “Draft Common Frame of Reference” (DCFR) and Belgian private law. The book looks at the DCFR both as a model for the national legislatures and as the basis for scholarly discussions. In fact, the contributions aim on the one hand at a thorough analysis of the DCFR rules and, on the other, at a comparison of those rules with Belgian private law in an attempt to ascertain which of the DCFR provisions could be used to modernize Belgian law and, which would be felt as unfamiliar and therefore rejected, or would lead to no concrete advantage to the national law. The outcome of the contributions is to no surprise for those accustomed to comparative law and the critical literature on the DCFR. There are areas in which the DCFR comes truly like a restatement of common rules shared by the European traditions and areas where the DCFR fails to be a reliable model for Europe. Despite the diversity of results in the assessment of the DCFR rules in comparison with national law, and – one could say – exactly in virtue of these diversities, the book is worth reading also for a non-Belgian lawyer. It is so because it provides an interesting intellectual exercise that proves to be very useful in the perspective of the building of a European legal scholarship. Comparative law teaches us that without a shared legal culture the operative success of any legal integration effort is deemed to fail.

The Draft Common Frame of Reference: National and Comparative Perspectives, by Vincent Sagaert, Matthias E. Storme and Evelyne Terryn (eds), (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2012), Book Review

FIORENTINI, FRANCESCA
2013

Abstract

The volume under review gathers the contributions to a Conference held in Kortrijk on 10-11 June 2010, focussing on the “Draft Common Frame of Reference” (DCFR) and Belgian private law. The book looks at the DCFR both as a model for the national legislatures and as the basis for scholarly discussions. In fact, the contributions aim on the one hand at a thorough analysis of the DCFR rules and, on the other, at a comparison of those rules with Belgian private law in an attempt to ascertain which of the DCFR provisions could be used to modernize Belgian law and, which would be felt as unfamiliar and therefore rejected, or would lead to no concrete advantage to the national law. The outcome of the contributions is to no surprise for those accustomed to comparative law and the critical literature on the DCFR. There are areas in which the DCFR comes truly like a restatement of common rules shared by the European traditions and areas where the DCFR fails to be a reliable model for Europe. Despite the diversity of results in the assessment of the DCFR rules in comparison with national law, and – one could say – exactly in virtue of these diversities, the book is worth reading also for a non-Belgian lawyer. It is so because it provides an interesting intellectual exercise that proves to be very useful in the perspective of the building of a European legal scholarship. Comparative law teaches us that without a shared legal culture the operative success of any legal integration effort is deemed to fail.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11368/2708681
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact