THE AUTHOR:
Jake Lowther, PhD Candidate at the Centre for Private Comparative Law, Institute of Law Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences
International arbitration is, in many ways, comparative law in practice. An understanding of the role of comparative law, how it should be employed, its limits, and its value may be crucial. In this vein, in Warsaw on 4 November 2025, the Centre for Comparative Private Law (“Centre”) at the Institute of Law Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences (“Institute”) hosted its inaugural event, a lecture by Professor John Cartwright (Emeritus, University of Oxford) on “The Value of Comparative Law.” The event brought together academics, practitioners, and students from Poland and abroad to reflect on the continued significance and evolving challenges of comparative legal studies. As the director of the Institute, Professor (Prof. dr hab.) Celina Nowak gave the opening remarks. She highlighted that the launch of the Centre, which aims to become a hub for research and discussion on private law, comparative private law, and arbitration law in Poland, marks a new chapter for the Institute. This article provides reflections from Cartwright’s lecture in Warsaw and underlines the “value” of comparative law for arbitration practitioners and scholars.
A Younger Discipline
The event was organised by Professor dr hab. Beata Gessel-Kalinowska vel Kalisz, who was introduced as “the driving force behind the Centre”. Gessel set the stage by tracing the history of comparative law, noting that while the practice of comparing laws and legal systems can be traced back to ancient Greece. However, comparative law as a formal discipline is relatively young.
Gessel identified 1869 as a pivotal year, when the first comparative law association was established in France, followed by similar developments in Oxford and Japan. However, she argued that comparative law truly became a formal academic discipline in 1900, with the first International Congress of Comparative Law (“Congress”). The Congress hails the starting point for comparative law as a recognized field, where scholars began systematically comparing legal systems. While the initial focus was on French and German law, later the value of English common law was also recognized.
According to Gessel, comparative law initially served mainly as a source of information and a means to identify common features across legal systems. Over time, it also became a tool for proposing concepts and frameworks that could be shared among nations, foreshadowing later developments such as the European Union.
Gessel also touched on the scepticism of the field that emerged after World War II, referencing scholars like René David who questioned whether comparative law was truly a separate discipline or merely a methodology applicable across various branches of law.
In concluding, Gessel posed the event’s central question: 125 years after the first Congress, what is the “value” of comparative law today? She then introduced Professor Cartwright as a leading figure whose work, particularly his book “Contract Law: An Introduction to the English Law of Contract for the Civil Lawyer”, has been influential for both students and practitioners in civil law jurisdictions. She praised the book for the way it addresses complex questions, such as the absence of a general principle of good faith in English law, and expressed her hope that the lecture would provide similarly valuable insights for both common and civil law lawyers alike.
Why Comparative Law Matters
Cartwright’s lecture offered perspectives on why comparative law remains vital. Drawing on decades of experience as a comparative private law expert, Cartwright argued that comparative law is not merely an academic exercise, but a tool for understanding, improving, and sometimes harmonizing legal systems. He emphasized that comparative law is an essential discipline not only for researchers, but for all lawyers, whether student, practitioner, judge, or arbitrator. This is especially so given our increasingly globalized legal environment. Professor Deli later observed that Cartwright’s lecture could be structured around four pillars:
- harmonisation,
- development of legal technique,
- overcoming boundaries of fundamental principles, and
- inspiration to respond to new demands.
Harmonisation
Like Gessel, Cartwright also traced the roots of modern comparative law back to the Congress. He focused on the ongoing debate over whether the field’s primary function is to serve the harmonisation of the law or its scholarly understanding. Cartwright illustrated how comparative law has informed legal reforms, from 19th-century English contract law’s selective borrowing from the French Civil Code to the UK Law Commission’s use of comparative evidence in modernising contract doctrine. However, Cartwright cautioned that harmonisation should not be a default goal but part of a nuanced process. It can be successful only when reforms are tailored to the importing system’s legal structure and culture.
Developing Legal Technique
For Cartwright, comparative law is not just about mapping similarities and differences but about developing the technical skills to navigate foreign legal systems. He highlighted the importance of knowing where to “look” for the law. For example, a contract law question under English law might fall within a different doctrinal compartment in a civil law system. In this respect, language and legal classification present significant challenges. Cartwright presented the functional method as an essential starting point for comparative legal analysis. It asks the question, “how do different legal systems solve the same practical problem?”
However, such a method needs to be complemented by a deep understanding of each system’s context, sources, and legal culture, without presuming similarity. True comparative law, Cartwright argued, requires more than surface-level comparison of texts. Rather, it demands a deep understanding of legal concepts, structures, sources, and the “mentality” of each system, i.e., the deeper, often unspoken assumptions and ways of thinking that guide legal reasoning and decision-making.
Overcoming Boundaries
A recurring theme during the lecture was the way comparative law can challenge the boundaries of what a system considers “fundamental.” For example, English contract law and the objective interpretation rule versus the civil law approach to pre-contractual negotiations. A good comparative legal analysis can reveal the historical and policy reasons behind the respective doctrines, promoting a deeper understanding of their respective origins and purposes, enabling legal systems to defend, refine, or, where justified, redraw them.
Finding Inspiration
Cartwright concluded his lecture by highlighting the pragmatic value of comparative law in today’s cross-border legal landscape. He argued that literacy in comparative law is essential, whether for drafting contracts or resolving disputes. This is particularly the case in international arbitration, where tribunals and counsel are required to pivot between different legal traditions and procedural norms, and comparative reasoning is a necessity.
Cartwright issued a “manifesto for comparative law,” urging the integration of comparative law, legal history, and theory into the core of legal education, to equip students to meet the demands of a globalised world. In Cartwright’s view:
“Students need to learn not just what the law is, but why it is the way it is, and how it might change”.
Panel Reflections: From Theory to Practice
The lecture was followed by interventions from prominent scholars and practitioners, Professor Maria Beatrice Deli (Universitas Mercatorum, Rome), Professor Fryderyk Zoll (University of Osnabrück and Jagiellonian University), and David Brynmor Thomas KC (International Arbitrator), moderated by Professor Gessel-Kalinowska vel Kalisz.
Professor Deli highlighted the close relationship between comparative law and private international law, noting how comparative analysis has shaped harmonization efforts, legal techniques, and evolving concepts such as public policy and habitual residence. For Deli:
“Comparative law cannot be considered just an instrument for private international law. There is something more, a sort of intellectual kinship… This kinship is what allows us to move beyond national limitations and to develop legal solutions that are both principled and adaptable.”
Professor Zoll reflected on the academic experience of comparative law in Poland and Germany, emphasizing the importance of looking “under the skin” of legal systems and the risks of superficial comparison.
David Brynmor Thomas KC brought a practitioner’s perspective, stressing the daily relevance of comparative law in international arbitration. He called for greater attention to comparative procedural law, noting its practical impact on dispute resolution and its potential as an entry point for students. He also made “a plea for a comparative procedural law”, noting its importance for producing procedural norms.
Key Takeaways
The event shone a spotlight on the discipline of comparative law and its importance in international arbitration. It emphasised that the field is not just about legal texts, but about language, context, and mentality. One recurring theme was the value of comparative law in legal education. As Cartwright noted:
“We need to be open to asking these kinds of questions, and to start with the students, because they are the practitioners, judges, and arbitrators of the future.”
The role of research institutes such as the new Centre and Oxford Law Faculty’s Institute of European and Comparative Law is therefore critical to advance the field. Their work promotes the inclusion of comparative law in legal education, which in turn equips the lawyers of tomorrow with the techniques to navigate and shape a globalised legal landscape.
The “value” of comparative law lies in its potential to build bridges between different legal cultures and traditions, broaden horizons, foster understanding, promote legal development, and even harmonization in a globalized world.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jake Lowther refers to himself as a “civilized common law lawyer”, having first qualified in Australia and then in Sweden. He is currently Specialist Counsel at the SCC Arbitration Institute (“SCC”) in Stockholm. Jake is also PhD candidate at the Centre for Private Comparative Law, Institute of Law Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences. Prior to joining the SCC, Jake was an Associate in the M&A and dispute resolution teams at Nordic-Baltic law firm Magnusson. Before this Jake worked in Seoul, Korea as Foreign Legal Specialist at the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board’s international division, KCAB INTERNATIONAL. Jake also has experience of arbitration practice in Germany, which he obtained alongside completing the International Dispute Resolution LL.M. program at Humboldt-University of Berlin. Jake began his legal career at Ashurst in Australia, where he worked in the employment, M&A, and infrastructure teams.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
