Comparative Reasoning in European Supreme Courts

Peeking into each other's backyard and getting inspired by how a similar problem has been tackled by a neighbour or a colleague is certainly nothing new. Moreover, in most professions, acknowledging such inspiration coming from abroad will not pose a problem. For instance, it would only be welcomed if an English doctor suggested a less known but much more effective treatment in a hospital in Birmingham with reference to German expertise in successfully treatingthe same illness. There might be, however, a problem with similar argument in law. Modern positive law has been construed as a territorial national enterprise: for solving a legal dispute in Birmingham,only English law matters. English judges therefore ought to apply English common law and English statutes. What the Germans say or do in similar cases is irrelevant. This book is about judicial peeking: when and why do judges use inspiration from other systems in solving cases in national law? The book examines the frequency and the genuine practice of judicial peeking across national boundaries in contemporary Europe. It evaluates these findings and on their basis asks what theymean for our understanding of judicial reasoning and judicial function today.