The Word Commons and Foreign Laws

74 Pages Posted: 11 Oct 2012

See all articles by Thomas O. Main

Thomas O. Main

University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law

Date Written: October 10, 2012

Abstract

Dual trends are colliding in U.S. courts. The first trend is a tidal wave of cases requiring courts to engage the domestic laws of foreign legal systems; globalization is the principal driver of this escalation. The second trend is a profound and ever-increasing skepticism of our ability to understand foreign law; the literature of pluralism and postmodernism has illuminated the uniquely local, language-dependent, and culturally embedded nature of law. Courts cope with this dissonance by finding some way to avoid the application of foreign law. But these outcomes are problematic because parties are denied access to court or have their rights and responsibilities determined pursuant to the wrong law.

This article offers an exposition of lexical meaning to explain the source of these oppositional trends and to illuminate possible solutions. Legal words and ideas transcend geographic, social, and cultural boundaries. For this reason, the words of another legal system look familiar and, thus, appear knowable to an outsider. Yet autonomous national legal systems tend to tailor the meanings of these shared words for idiosyncratic purposes. Thus ironically — even paradoxically — the more commonly a word is used, the less predictable is its meaning. This differentiation of meanings makes actual knowledge of the foreign law difficult to achieve.

As a framework for examining this phenomenon, this article demonstrates that the common meaning of a word is a limited resource. The common meaning of a word erodes when legal systems assign a new meaning to a shared word. Idiosyncratic meanings are useful and generative, but they also introduce an important negative externality because the common meaning of a word is essentially the starting point for measuring the meaning of that word in a foreign system. The more robust the common meaning, the lower the measurement costs. The prototypical solutions to common-pool problems — privatization and regulation — are infeasible here. And ubiquitous efforts to unify, approximate, or harmonize laws tend to exacerbate the problem rather than help solve it.

We could drop the pretense that we are able to understand foreign law and eliminate the demand for it. Or, if the doctrines are going to presume familiarity with foreign law, we must address the supply-side and ensure that courts are, in fact, better able to ascertain foreign law.

Keywords: Foreign Law, Tragedy of the Commons, Globalization, Law and Language, Common Meaning, Conflict of Laws, Civil Procedure, Comparative Law

JEL Classification: K33, K40, K41

Suggested Citation

Main, Thomas O., The Word Commons and Foreign Laws (October 10, 2012). Cornell International Law Journal, Forthcoming; UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2160037

Thomas O. Main (Contact Author)

University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law ( email )

4505 South Maryland Parkway
Box 451003
Las Vegas, NV 89154
United States
702-895-2927 (Phone)
702-895-2482 (Fax)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
60
Abstract Views
457
rank
356,587
PlumX Metrics