Abstract：Since the 1990s, due to the inherent limitations of normative comparison, the lack of value-free functional comparison, and the excessive deconstruction of cultural comparison, modern comparative law has fallen into an academic recession. Criticized for being overly instrumental, utilitarian and fragmented, the comparative legal community has attached more importance to comparative methods than to comparative principles. In the 21st Century, contemporary comparative law has shown substantive changes in research methods, academic purports, discipline orientations, research modals, and leading topics. As a representative frontier field of contemporary comparative law, foreign-aid comparative law rose and fell in the 1960s and 1970s, revived in the 1990s, and is thriving in the contemporary era. By taking an empirical analysis based on the core concept of “legal transplant”, the academic landscape of today’s foreign-aid comparative law can be vividly shown.In terms of the transplant positions, traditional comparative legal scholars tend to hold affirmative, negative, and skeptic attitudes towards legal transplant. In comparison, the optimistic attitudes of foreign-aid comparative legal scholars towards legal transplant can be divided into three positions, including modernization-oriented legal evolution, means-oriented legal instrumentalization, and culture-led legal enlightenment, thus leading to wholesale, retail, customized, and ranking legal transplant strategies respectively.In terms of transplant objects, foreign-aid comparative legal scholars generally prefer to adopt the system theory of law and manage to introduce quantitative legal description on the basis of qualitative legal interpretation. Under the guidance of national legal pluralism, the transplant objects of foreign-aid comparative law mainly include the transplant of legal rules at the substantive and procedural levels, the transplant of legal institutions at the implementation level, and the transplant of legal culture by means of profession-oriented legal education and training.In terms of transplant motivations, foreign-aid comparative legal scholars mostly hold a utilitarian mentality of legal transplant, that is, a self-seclusion strategy of legal development will deprive a country of the opportunity for legal modernization. No matter what type of legal transplant strategy is to be adopted, factors such as efficiency, pressure, investment, and reputation must be taken into consideration. In practice, the transplant motivations are diverse and complex.In terms of transplant standards, foreign-aid comparative legal scholars are gradually concerned about developing internal standards for legal transplant to safeguard the interests of transplant countries from the perspectives of “national domestic needs” and “people’s interests first”， thus avoiding legal colonialism inherent in external standards. At the same time, foreign-aid comparative legal scholars also proceed to put a premium on the social context and demand side of legal transplant by adopting a participant’s perspective.In a nutshell, foreign-aid comparative law is a scholarly field based on rich practice of legal assistance and a countermeasures study strongly driven by the legal assistance industry. Nevertheless, its outstanding practical character cannot guarantee that it can truly establish inclusive comparative principles of law in line with the interests of recipient countries.This article has four intellectual innovations first, situating the study of comparative law in the contemporary scholarly context based on the modern comparative legal tradition, thus revealing one of the most representative academic branches of the contemporary comparative law from the perspective of international legal assistance. Second, fleshing out the conception of legal transplant by integrating institutional export, cultural infiltration, and capacity building together, thus taking reform-oriented legal transplant as the main thread running through the paper. Third, systematically unfolding the scholarly evolution of the foreign-aid comparative law from four perspectives, including transplant positions, transplant objects, transplant motivations, and transplant standards. Fourth, envisioning the academic character of the foreign-aid comparative law, with a special focus on its internal tension between practical character and inclusive character.
1 英］威廉·推宁： 《全球化与比较法》，吴大伟译，见［英］埃辛·奥赫绪、［意］戴维·奈尔肯编： 《比较法新论》，马剑银、鲁楠等译，北京：清华大学出版社，2012年，第78-101页。 2 德］K.茨威格特、［德］H.克茨： 《比较法总论》，潘汉典等译，北京：法律出版社，2003年。 3 朱景文： 《法律全球化：法理基础和社会内容》，见南京师范大学法制现代化研究中心编： 《法制现代化研究》第六卷，南京：南京师范大学出版社，2000年，第341-358页。 4 Watson A.， “Comparative law and legal change，” The Cambridge Law Journal， Vol. 37， No. 2 （1978）， pp. 313-336. 5 Legrand P.， “The impossibility of ‘legal transplants’，” Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law， Vol. 4， No. 2 （1997）， pp. 111-124. 6 美］戴维·杜鲁贝克： 《论当代美国的法律与发展运动（上）》，王力威、潘汉典译，《比较法研究》1990年第2期，第46-53页。 7 Hager L. M.， “The role of lawyers in developing countries，” American Bar Association Journal， Vol. 58， No. 1 （1972）， pp. 33-38. 8 Burg E. M.， “Law and development： a review of the literature & a critique of ‘scholars in self-estrangement’，” The American Journal of Comparative Law， Vol. 25， No. 3 （1977）， pp. 492-530. 9 Cao L.， Culture in Law and Development： Nurturing Positive Change， New York： Oxford University Press， 2016. 10 Franck T. M.， “The new development： can American law and legal institutions help developing countries？” Wisconsin Law Review， Vol. 1972， No. 3 （1972）， pp. 767-801. 11 Berkowitz D.， Pistor K. ＆ Richard J.-F.， “Economic development， legality， and the transplant effect，” European Economic Review， Vol. 47， No. 1 （2003）， pp. 165-195. 12 英］马瑟亚斯·M.西蒙斯： 《数值比较法学：为了降低复杂性，在法律上我们是否需要统计论据？》，邓云成、许崇强译，《交大法学》2014年第4期，第124-136页。 13 美］威廉·B.埃瓦尔德： 《比较法哲学》，于庆生、郭宪功译，北京：中国法制出版社，2016年。 14 Friedman L. M.， “Coming of age： law and society enters an exclusive club，” Annual Review of Law and Social Science， Vol. 1 （2005）， pp. 1-16. 15 美］J.H.梅里曼、［美］D.S.克拉克、［美］L.M.弗里德曼： 《“法律与发展研究”的特性》，俗僧译，《比较法研究》1990年第2期，第55-61页。 16 Tamanaha B. Z.， “The rule of law and legal pluralism in development，” Hague Journal on the Rule of Law， Vol. 3， No. 1 （2011）， pp. 1-17. 17 法］勒内·达维德： 《当代主要法律体系》，漆竹生译，上海：上海译文出版社，1984年。 18 Miller J. M.， “A typology of legal transplants： using sociology， legal history and argentine examples to explain the transplant process，” The American Journal of Comparative Law， Vol. 51， No. 4 （2003）， pp. 839-885. 19 Gopal M. G.， “Law and development： toward a pluralist vision，” in American Society of International Law （ed.）， Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting， vol. 90， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1996， pp. 231-237. 20 张文显： 《论立法中的法律移植》，《法学》1996年第1期，第6-9页。 21 法］伊夫·德兹莱、［美］布莱恩特·加思： 《法律与法律制度的输入与输出：国家“宫廷斗争”中的国际战略》，鲁楠译，见［英］戴维·奈尔肯、［德］约翰尼斯·菲斯特编： 《法律移植与法律文化》，高鸿钧等译，北京：清华大学出版社，2006年，第307-324页。 22 Gillespie J. & Nicholson P.， “Taking the interpretation of legal transfers seriously： the challenge for law and development，” in Gillespie J. & Nicholson P. （eds.）， Law and Development and the Global Discourses of Legal Transfers， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2012， pp. 11-36. 23 Gillespie J.， “Relocating global legal scripts in local networks of meaning，” in Gillespie J. & Nicholson P. （eds.）， Law and Development and the Global Discourses of Legal Transfers， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2012， pp. 38-63. 24 英］杰弗里·塞缪尔： 《认识论与比较法：来自科学与社会科学的贡献》，见［德］马克·范·胡克编： 《比较法的认识论与方法论》，魏磊杰、朱志昊译，北京：法律出版社，2012年，第44-92页。 25 英］R.科特雷尔： 《存在法律移植的逻辑吗？》，马剑银译，见［意］D.奈尔肯、［英］J.菲斯特编： 《法律移植与法律文化》，高鸿钧等译，北京：清华大学出版社，2006年，第95-127页。 26 日］大木雅夫： 《比较法》，范喻译，北京：法律出版社，2006年。 27 鲁楠： 《“一带一路”倡议中的法律移植——以美国两次“法律与发展运动”为镜鉴》，《清华法学》2017年第1期，第22-40页。 28 德］伯恩哈德·格罗斯菲尔德： 《比较法的力量与弱点》，孙世彦、姚建宗译，北京：清华大学出版社，2002年。
2023, Vol. 53 
