The Ideological (mis)framing of comparative procedure

This article critiques the pervasive role of ideology in comparative studies of civil procedure, rejecting the notion that scholarly interpretation is purely technical. It highlights three main harms of ideological influence: misinterpretations of legal systems, flawed rule transplants, and exclusion of Global South perspectives. These drawbacks stem from the comparatist’s tendency to adjust reality to fit ideological preconceptions, leading to distortions in comparative analysis. While ideology often distorts comparative analysis, its complete exclusion risks neglecting moral and social dimensions. Thus, the article calls for a balanced methodology: a descriptive analysis rooted in culturalism to account for the ideological and societal underpinnings of legal systems, and a normative analysis employing functionalism to define universal objectives like judicial independence, due process, and access to justice. This dual approach emphasizes the dynamic interplay between objective and subjective perspectives, recognizing that comparatists inevitably engage with their own ideological beliefs. By integrating cultural and functionalist methodologies, the paper proposes a sound framework for leveraging ideology constructively in comparative civil procedure studies.