Abstract

A proposal for studies in comparative legal reasoning: The paper aims at addressing the method of comparative legal reasoning concerning fundamental rights. The paper's central claim is that comparative legal reasoning should not assume the likeness of reasonableness scrutiny, even within the Western Legal Tradition. On the contrary, differences should be underlined in order to compare arguments. The Author's proposal consists in distinguishing two phases within the so-called reasonableness scrutiny, with a view to perform a correct comparison of legal argumentations. The first phase is the identification of the purpose of the law, while the second one consists in the means/ends test, which aims at challenging external and internal congruence of the law.