This mini course introduced by Mr Le grand was very interesting to me. It made me think about all I learned and totally questioned my perception of the comparative law. The teacher explained us that the field of comparative law is governed by a structuring antagonism in the way that on one hand all the comparatists value foreign law but on the other hand they all disagree over number of issues. His lecture was focused on two different approach of comparative law: First the functionalism which has been the dominant point of view for 40 years and the alternative approach which Mr Le Grand was defending. He tried to show as charitable as possible the technical divergences of these two methods but also the difference of perception of the role of the comparative law they implies.

In this lecture diary I will not go deep inside the different methods used today to compare the law. I chose to focus on the mains point of the two different perceptions of the comparative law nowadays present on the field.

Hein Kötz has been the most influential comparatist in the field of comparative law this last 40 years he published with the cooperation of the famous lawyer Konrad Zweigert in 1969 “introduction to comparative law” which has become the leading textbook in the field. In this book he introduced the method which he considered to be the best to compare the law. According to Kötz one of the aims of the comparative law is to determine what system is the best. The lawyer “has to decide which solution of the possible solution is most suitable and just”. He wants an harmonized legislation in order to avoid conflicts and make the exchanges between the nations simpler.
I. The field of comparative law

First, Kötz delaminate the field of the comparative law: According to him comparatist shall focus on “those parts of private law which are relatively apolitical”. Pierre Legrand found this too limited. He thinks and I agree with him that everything is comparable. Public law