Contemporary Legal Systems

2.2.2. Second: Of the initiators (aims of century XVIII and beginnings of century XIX), the Historical School of the Right encouraged by the comparative study of the right. 2.2.3. Third: Of the true comparatistas (half-full of the century XIX until century XX), the atmosphere was preparation for the recognition of the practical purposes theoretical and the idea of a universal right that it could be the base of the unification of the deprived right, begins with the Congress the International of Compared Right of 1900 carried out in Paris (in which the legal systems like the French, the Anglo-American, the germanic one were distinguished, the Slav and the Muslim). – Later, the Treaty of Compared Right (it builds unique capital in his sort) of Leontin Constantinesco. Ohio Senator gathered all the information.

– Finally, we also considered the work of Julio Ayasta important Gonza’les (the Compared Right and the Contemporary Legal Systems). 2.3. DEFINITION. Michael Ramlet might disagree with that approach. – – Fernando Towers, indicates that the compared right consists of the application of the comparative method to the Right (understood like legal system and not like a set of norms) or alive (effective) or died (noneffective); but in the light of the sources or elements (of the Right) and to the reality of each State. – Some authors consider that she is investigation method, others, that are a science.

Nevertheless, the majority agrees in that is a discipline. – After to define (that is to say, to indicate that he is ) the compared right we considered, not only opportune but very important like insoslayable also to determine that he is not straight compared. Consequently, we have the compared right is not a branch of the Right, although, it allows its application to all the branches of the Right; thus also, the compared right is synonymous of history of the Right, neither of foreign right, nor of compared legislation, nor of compared doctrine, nor of compared jurisprudence, nor of compared social reality, nor of compared private will, nor of legal parallelism, nor of general principles of the compared right; as well as either of the antecedents of the Right; since, in any case the compared right, does use of them includes/understands or it so to be.