Hatis: The Anti-Theoretical Nature of Civil Law Contract Scholarship and the Need for an Economic Theory in the last decade, for two reasons: (a) the triumph of the free mar ket and capitalism in Europe-at-large which led, in Eastern Europe to a drafting or revision of civil codes(esp. contract and property law) that are better-suited for free market economies and more conducive to economic development(Ostas 1992; Ostas Leete 1995 and Rubin 1994: 1997; cf. Atiyah 1995: 27-34), and(b) the growing concern of the European Union for the unification of European private law in general and contract law in particular, well as the trend toward the internationalization of contract law ( Farnsworth 1990: 227-230) Therefore, European contract law is not dead. It is wounded but alive and it seems that it has a good chance of recovery. Ho the continuing absence of general theories developed in Europe or influenced by the ones developed in Common law do- mains seems puzzling for Common law scholars, until they realize what the most plausible explanation of this phenomenon is: in Civil law there is no need for theories since the legislator, mainly through the codes, has proclaimed what the law should be and the judge is(supposedly) a mere interpreter, useful only for accommo- dating trivial twists of facts. In such a static universe, where is the need for theory? II See esp. Lando & Beale(1995), Hondius(1989 1994a; 1994b), Hartkamp et al. (1994), Hartkamp(1998), as well as the papers in the Symposium(1997). For international developments towards unification, see also Kozyris(1989),Vis- casillas(1996), Honka(1996)and the Symposium (1995)on"The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts"and Hartkamp(1994)for a comparison of the UNIDROIT and European law principles of contract law with CISG. See also Ruston Works(1980), Bennett(1980), Williams(1986)and Lando(1987)on the1980 European Community Convention on the Law Ap- plicable to Contractual Obligations. But see the pessimistic remarks by Horla- her(1994). More generally, on the problem of the unification of national laws, ee Gazes(1997: 41-67, esp. 59 n. 109). Sykes(1999)is also a skeptic concern- ing regulatory harmonization, preferring a legal system that tolerates regulatory differences subject to legal constraints, and that relies on mutual recognitionHatzis: The Anti-Theoretical Nature of Civil Law Contract Scholarship and the Need for an Economic Theory 8 in the last decade, for two reasons: (a) the triumph of the free mar￾ket and capitalism in Europe-at-large which led, in Eastern Europe, to a drafting or revision of civil codes (esp. contract and property law) that are better-suited for free market economies and more conducive to economic development (Ostas 1992; Ostas & Leete 1995 and Rubin 1994; 1997; cf. Atiyah 1995: 27-34), and (b) the growing concern of the European Union for the unification of European private law in general and contract law in particular, as well as the trend toward the internationalization of contract law (Farnsworth 1990: 227-230).11 Therefore, European contract law is not dead. It is wounded, but alive and it seems that it has a good chance of recovery. How￾ever, the continuing absence of general theories developed in Europe or influenced by the ones developed in Common law do￾mains seems puzzling for Common law scholars, until they realize what the most plausible explanation of this phenomenon is: in Civil law there is no need for theories since the legislator, mainly through the codes, has proclaimed what the law should be and the judge is (supposedly) a mere interpreter, useful only for accommo￾dating trivial twists of facts. In such a static universe, where is the need for theory? 11 See esp. Lando & Beale (1995), Hondius (1989; 1994a; 1994b), Hartkamp et al. (1994), Hartkamp (1998), as well as the papers in the Symposium (1997). For international developments towards unification, see also Kozyris (1989), Vis￾casillas (1996), Honka (1996) and the Symposium (1995) on “The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts” and Hartkamp (1994) for a comparison of the UNIDROIT and European law principles of contract law with CISG. See also Ruston & Works (1980), Bennett (1980), Williams (1986) and Lando (1987) on the “1980 European Community Convention on the Law Ap￾plicable to Contractual Obligations.” But see the pessimistic remarks by Horla￾cher (1994). More generally, on the problem of the unification of national laws, see Gazes (1997: 41-67, esp. 59 n.109). Sykes (1999) is also a skeptic concern￾ing regulatory harmonization, preferring a legal system that tolerates regulatory differences subject to legal constraints, and that relies on mutual recognition where appropriate