Table Of ContentIus Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice 28
Daniel Halberstam
Mathias Reimann Editors
Federalism and
Legal Unifi cation
A Comparative Empirical Investigation
of Twenty Systems
Federalism and Legal Unification
IUS GENTIUM
COMPARATIVEPERSPECTIVESONLAWANDJUSTICE
VOLUME28
SeriesEditors
MortimerSellers
UniversityofBaltimore
JamesMaxeiner
UniversityofBaltimore
BoardofEditors
MyroslavaAntonovych,Kyiv-MohylaAcademy
NadiadeAraújo,PontificalCatholicUniversityofRiodeJaneiro
JasnaBakšic-Muftic,UniversityofSarajevo
DavidL.CareyMiller,UniversityofAberdeen
LoussiaP.MusseFélix,UniversityofBrasilia
EmanuelGross,UniversityofHaifa
JamesE.Hickey,Jr.,HofstraUniversity
JanKlabbers,UniversityofHelsinki
CláudiaLimaMarques,FederalUniversityofRioGrandedoSul
AnicetoMasferrer,UniversityofValencia
EricMillard,WestParisUniversity
GabriëlMoens,CurtinUniversity
RaulC.Pangalangan,UniversityofthePhilippines
RicardoLeitePinto,LusíadaUniversityofLisbon
MizanurRahman,UniversityofDhaka
KeitaSato,ChuoUniversity
PoonamSaxena,UniversityofDelhi
GerrySimpson,LondonSchoolofEconomics
EduardSomers,UniversityofGhent
XinqiangSun,ShandongUniversity
TadeuszTomaszewski,WarsawUniversity
JaapdeZwaan,ErasmusUniversityRotterdam
Forfurthervolumes:
http://www.springer.com/series/7888
Daniel Halberstam • Mathias Reimann
Editors
Federalism and Legal
Unification
A Comparative Empirical Investigation
of Twenty Systems
123
Editors
DanielHalberstam MathiasReimann
EricSteinCollegiateProfessorofLaw HesselE.YntemaProfessorofLaw
UniversityofMichiganLawSchool UniversityofMichiganLawSchool
AnnArbor,MI,USA AnnArbor,MI,USA
ISBN978-94-007-7397-4 ISBN978-94-007-7398-1(eBook)
DOI10.1007/978-94-007-7398-1
SpringerDordrechtHeidelbergNewYorkLondon
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2013952745
©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaDordrecht2014
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartof
thematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,
broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinformation
storageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodology
nowknownorhereafterdeveloped.Exemptedfromthislegalreservationarebriefexcerptsinconnection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered
and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of
this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the
Publisher’slocation,initscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalwaysbeobtainedfromSpringer.
PermissionsforusemaybeobtainedthroughRightsLinkattheCopyrightClearanceCenter.Violations
areliabletoprosecutionundertherespectiveCopyrightLaw.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication
doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant
protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication,neithertheauthorsnortheeditorsnorthepublishercanacceptanylegalresponsibilityfor
anyerrorsoromissionsthatmaybemade.Thepublishermakesnowarranty,expressorimplied,with
respecttothematerialcontainedherein.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
Preface
If federalism means unity in diversity and diversity in unity, the uniformity of
lawsoughttobecentraltothediscussionaboutwhetherfederalismdeliversonits
promise.Thisgroundbreakingbookbeginsthatconversationinearnest.
The International Academy of Comparative Law was innovative when in
Novemberof 2008it convenedat the Institute for LegalResearch of the National
Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City its first thematic congress
entitled “The Impact of Uniform Law in National Law: Possibilities and Limits”.
Forthefirsttime,theAcademyhostedacongressonadiscretetheme,asopposedto
the much largermulti-themedWorld Congressesof Comparativelaw traditionally
heldevery4years.
Among the topics selected for this thematic congresswas uniformityof law in
federalsystems. The conferencetherebysparkedthe inquirythat led to this book.
Professors Daniel Halberstam and Mathias Reimann have conducted a detailed
comparativestudy yielding remarkablydeep and precise understandingsbased on
comparativeempiricalresearchacrossarangeoflegalsystems,includingArgentina,
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, the
Netherlands, Russia, Spain, South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the
United States, Venezuela, as well as the supranationalentity that is the European
Union.Theselegalsystemsspanthecivilandcommonlawworldsandarediverse
intermsofage,size,structure,andpopulation.
Professors Halberstam and Reimann chose these systems according to their
workingdefinitionof a federalsystem as “a compoundpolity with multiplelevels
of government each with constitutionally grounded claims to some degree of
organizationalautonomyanddirectlegalauthorityoveritscitizens.”Theyengaged
national experts to prepare a national report for each system and to provide the
informationnecessaryfortheirowncross-cuttingcomparativeanalysis.
The resulting comparative investigation is divided into three distinct parts: the
differentmodesof legalunification,the currentlevelof unificationacross various
systemsandareasoflaw,andananalysisandexplanationoftheresults.
The first part traces how unification or harmonizationof law may stem from a
variety of sources, including the exercise of coercive central governmentpowers,
v
vi Preface
variousformsofvoluntarycoordination(which,inturn,involvecomponentgovern-
mentinitiativesandnongovernmentalactorswhodraftrestatements,principlesor
modellaws),andnationalsystemsofprofessionaleducation.ProfessorsHalberstam
andReimann show the varyingdegreesto which these differentfactorscontribute
tolegalunification.Theyconcludethattheimpetusforunificationstemsprincipally
from central sources of power, especially central legislation, with other factors
playing a less instrumental role. This conclusion alone will be both useful and
sobering as some federal systems, such as the supranational European Union,
contemplatedifferentwaysofincreasingtheuniformityoflawwithinitssystem.
In the second part, the authors examine the level of unification that has been
achievedacrossavarietyofdimensions.
After considering uniformity by area of law and by federation, Professors
HalberstamandReimannconsiderseveralhypothesesaboutwhatdrivesunification.
Theyevaluateandcautiouslyconfirmtheimportanceof“legislativecentralization,”
consider and end up rejecting the independent significance of “structural central-
ization,” and, to the surprise of those who thought that legal traditions no longer
matter, cautiously confirm a “legal traditions” hypothesis. This latter finding will
require comparative law scholars to rethink the currently fashionable conclusion
thatweliveinaworldthathasescapedthesignificanceofthecivilv.commonlaw
divide.
This ambitious study provides by far the most comprehensive and systematic
examination of legal unification in federal systems to date. No other study has
attemptedtoconsidermorethanoneortwoareasofthelawandmorethanasmall
handfuloflegalsystems.
Finally,themethodologyoftheresearchuponwhichthepresentvolumerestsis
highlyoriginal.Itcomplementsthelargelytheoreticalliteraturewithaninnovative
effortat data collection and analysis. The work thus expandsour appreciationnot
onlyoftheparticularsubjectathand–legalunificationinfederalsystems–butof
theprofoundutilityandcontinuedpromiseofthecomparativelawmethod.
NewYorkandMexicoCity GeorgeA.Bermann
JorgeA.SánchezCordero
Acknowledgements
This book is the result of a collaborativeeffort.We thank the NationalReporters,
whoseindividualreportsmaybefoundinPartIIofthisbook,fortheircontributions.
Thisprojectwould nothave beenpossible withoutthem. We also thank the many
additionalexperts,whoaretoonumeroustomentionhere,fortheirtimeandeffort
tofilloutscorecardsasexplainedinAppendix2.
We give special thanks to Jennifer Miller, a Ph.D. student in the University of
Michigan Department of Political Science, and to Joanna Lampe, a J.D. student
at the University of Michigan Law School, for outstanding research assistance,
to Cynthia Bever and Pamela Tanner, our faculty assistants at the University of
MichiganLawSchool,forextraordinaryhelpinmanagingthisproject,andtoSarah
BullardandMarthaKreutzerforhelpineditingthenationalreports.
WearegratefultoourcolleaguesJennaBednar,StevenCroley,JohndiNardo,Jim
Hines,KenKollman,RickLempert,J.J.Prescott,AdamPritchard,andMarkWest
forvaluablecommentsanddiscussions.WealsothanktheUniversityofMichigan
LawSchoolandtheCookResearchFundforsupport.
Three nationalreportsare based on earlier publications.Jeffrey Kahn, Nikolay
Balayan,andAlexeiTrochev,“TheUnificationofLawintheRussianFederation,”
25 Post-Soviet Affairs 310–346 (2009); Aline Grenon, “Unification of Laws in
Federal Systems: The Canadian Model” in: Nathalie Vézina (ed.), Uniform Law:
LimitsandPossibilities33–61(Quebec:Carswell,2009);andLouisF.DelDucaand
PatrickDelDuca,“AnItalianFederalism?—theState,itsInstitutions,andNational
Culture as Rule of Law Guarantor”, 54 American Journal of Comparative Law
799–842(2006).Wethankthoseauthorsandpublishersfortheirpermissiontouse
thosematerialshere.
Finally,wethanktheInternationalAcademyofComparativeLaw,underwhose
auspicesthefirsteditionofthisstudywaspublishedlastyear.
AnnArbor DanielHalberstam
June1,2013 MathiasReimann
vii
Contents
PartI ComparativeAnalysis
1 FederalismandLegalUnification:ComparingMethods,
Results,andExplanationsAcross20Systems........................... 3
DanielHalberstamandMathiasReimann
PartII NationalReports
2 TheArgentineFederalLegislativeSystem............................... 71
AlfredoM.Vítolo
3 TheAustralianFederation:AStoryoftheCentralizationofPower.. 87
CherylSaundersandMichelleFoster
4 FederalismandLegalUnificationinAustria............................ 103
AnnaM.GamperandBernhardA.Koch
5 Belgium:ABrokenMarriage?............................................ 121
Alain-LaurentVerbeke
6 FederalismandLegalUnificationinBrazil.............................. 153
JacobDolingerandLuísRobertoBarroso
7 UnificationofLawsinFederalSystems:TheCanadianModel ....... 169
AlineGrenon
8 TheEuropeanUnion:AFederationinAllbutName .................. 191
JanWouters,HanneCuyckens,andThomasRamopoulos
9 UnificationofLawsintheFederalSystemofGermany................ 237
JürgenAdamandChristophMöllers
10 India:FromPoliticalFederalismandFiscalCentralization
toGreaterSubnationalAutonomy........................................ 255
SunitaParikh
ix
