and assessed before we move into a ' new century for comparative law. (11)However urgent this may be, it is not the aim of the present study. Neither is it the main concern of the present study to question whether the above are the prime objectives of comparative law. One might, for example prefer to understand the prime function of comparative law to be the provision of wider access to legal knowledge, to further universal knowledge and understanding of the phenomena of law, (12) and regard comparative law primarily as the critical extraction of this legal knowledge from individual instances In earlier years comparative law was categorised as descriptive, applied, 'abstract or speculative Other categorisations in comparative law are also well known: internal/external descriptive/dogmatic/applied/contrasting; legislative/scholarly/scientific or theoretical formal/dogmatic/historical; comparative nomoscopy/nomothetics/nomogenetics; and, macro comparison/micro comparison. Towards the end of the twentieth century, however, a number of distinct approaches to comparative law have become prominent and have gained dominance over the others. On the one hand these approaches may enhance the prospects of comparative law, on the other, they could swallow it and change its character 1. 2 Comparative law. Facing new trend There are four such distinct trends worth mentioning in comparative law discourse today comparative law and legal philosophy(comparative jurisprudence); comparative law and legal history(historical comparative law or historico-comparative perspective); comparative law and culture (comparative legal cultures and law and culture studies); and comparative law and economIcs Its advocates claim that only the combination of comparative law and legal philosophy can reach a true understanding of law. The combination of comparative law and legal history is used by the new ius commune seekers and legal transplant scholars. The combination of comparative law and culture, which took the form of ' law and society studies in the 1970s and law and popular culture in the 1980s, now seeks to involve comparative law studies in order to provide a better understanding of multi-culturalism and integration. The comparative law and economics movement, very much in vogue to day, endeavours to set up competing legal systems as an alternative to harmonisation and codification to find the most efficient solutions to global problems 1. 2. 1 Comparative law: Legal theory and jurisprudence The first of these trends was initially the outcome of the search for a true meaning for comparative law attempting to establish comparative law not only as a discipline in itself, but also as just another term for sophisticated legal analysis (13)As 'a local or national science of law is a contradiction in adjecto, (14)Yntema, who equated legal research to comparative law, said in 1952 in this sense comparative law is another name for legal science (15)This is a negation of a national legal science. Thus far this trend is perfectly satisfactory. More recent comparative law literature, however, reflects a wish for a different combination. In his article 'Comparative Lawand assessed before we move into a 'new century for comparative law'.(11) However urgent this may be, it is not the aim of the present study. Neither is it the main concern of the present study to question whether the above are the prime objectives of comparative law. One might, for example, prefer to understand the prime function of comparative law to be the provision of wider access to legal knowledge, to further universal knowledge and understanding of the phenomena of law,(12) and regard comparative law primarily as the critical extraction of this legal knowledge from individual instances. In earlier years comparative law was categorised as 'descriptive', 'applied', 'abstract or speculative'. Other categorisations in comparative law are also well known: internal/external; descriptive/dogmatic/applied/contrasting; legislative/scholarly/scientific or theoretical; formal/dogmatic/historical; comparative nomoscopy/nomothetics/nomogenetics; and, macro comparison/micro comparison. Towards the end of the twentieth century, however, a number of distinct approaches to comparative law have become prominent and have gained dominance over the others. On the one hand, these approaches may enhance the prospects of comparative law, on the other, they could swallow it and change its character. 1.2 Comparative law: Facing new trends There are four such distinct trends worth mentioning in comparative law discourse today: comparative law and legal philosophy (comparative jurisprudence); comparative law and legal history (historical comparative law or historico-comparative perspective); comparative law and culture (comparative legal cultures and law and culture studies); and comparative law and economics. Its advocates claim that only the combination of comparative law and legal philosophy can reach a true understanding of law. The combination of comparative law and legal history is used by the 'new ius commune' seekers and legal transplant scholars. The combination of comparative law and culture, which took the form of 'law and society studies' in the 1970s and 'law and popular culture' in the 1980s, now seeks to involve comparative law studies in order to provide a better understanding of multi-culturalism and integration. The comparative law and economics movement, very much in vogue to day, endeavours to set up competing legal systems as an alternative to harmonisation and codification to find the most efficient solutions to global problems. 1.2.1 Comparative law: Legal theory and jurisprudence The first of these trends was initially the outcome of the search for a true meaning for comparative law attempting to establish comparative law not only as a discipline in itself, but also as 'just another term for sophisticated legal analysis'.(13) As 'a local or national science of law is a contradiction in adjecto',(14) Yntema, who equated legal research to comparative law, said in 1952, 'in this sense comparative law is another name for legal science'.(15) This is a negation of a national legal science. Thus far this trend is perfectly satisfactory. More recent comparative law literature , however, reflects a wish for a different combination. In his article 'Comparative Law