Abstract

During last decades, the critical debate in comparative legal studies has been at the origin of new approaches. Traditional instruments of the comparatism have been revisited. We could talk about a methodological turn. This turn and the plurality of methods have an important consequence: the openness of the community of comparative lawyers. Actually comparative lawyers are more open and see with suspicion those who advocate the "right" comparative method. In the past, comparative law as discipline needed may be to be supported. This is no longer true. It seems useless in times of globalization. On the contrary, the efforts must be maintained in order to spread a demanding comparative legal research. This requirement implies first of all the justification of methodological and political choices in the comparative enquiry. The comparative researcher must tell why he compares. Consciously or unconsciously, he too often hides his goals and this practice produces a weak comparative speech what is not enough justified.