A Dialogue on Comparative Functionalism

Abstract

The use of the functional method when comparing legal systems remains debated, even to such an extent that some authors have discarded functionalism as a fruitful method. The two authors of this paper ask what we can still expect from functionalism. While Husa presents an argument in favor of rule-of-thumb functionalism, Smits claims that functionalism has a bright future if it is reshaped. The authors present their arguments by way of a dialogue that was written for the ‘Legal debates’-section of the Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law.

Keywords: functionalism, comparative methodology, rules of thumb