Legal comparison is facing the need to find its own place in the network of discourses formed by the post-metaphysical rationality of modernity. Own philosophical and methodological meanings may be produced when the intellectual territory of legal comparison covers the binary opposition of paradigms which opposition allows raising and solving the issues of fundamental importance for legal thinking. The current confrontation between the universalist and the singular approaches is unable to resolve this issue, given that there is a fundamental unity between them. The latter may be formulated as a paradigm of self-sufficiency of law. Therefore, the key issue of comparative legal discourse is constituting of the oppositional paradigm of lacking self-sufficiency of law.

The aim of the article is to explicate the fundamental ontological foundations of the idea about lacking self-sufficiency of law as a necessary prerequisite for conceptualization of the corresponding paradigm of comparative legal rationality.

The paradigm of self-sufficiency of law rests upon ontological solipsism. In the universalism of functionalism it appears in the perception of legal differences as evidence of imperfection of law. Hence a respective orientation towards replacing the language of national law and order with the neutral and universal language of functionalist concepts. Solipsism of the legal differences approach can be observed when foreign law is regarded as a source of threats to own identity. The main purpose of comparative jurisprudence is seen in the preservation of distances between legal orders historically formed by cultures. The fundamental rule of the paradigm of self-sufficiency of law is non-participation of the foreign in the existence of own law.

The paradigm of lacking self-sufficiency of law should overcome the solipsism of universalism and singularity. The fundamental ontology project by M. Heidegger may be its ideological basis. A reference to foreign law is regarded as a mode of existence of own law. The space between legal orders is the domain of being-as-being. Legal comparison is the procedure of truth of own law bringing the legal nothing into the legal discourse domain.

Modern technological civilization creates an existential threat to the existence of law. Artificial intelligence and the blockchain technology lay the foundations for a qualitatively different functioning of civilization. The prospects and consequences of replacing a discourse with algorithms become the key issue of legal comparison imparting it an independent philosophical and methodological status.

List of legal documents 

Authored books

1. Kelly J, A short history of Western legal theory (Oxford University Press 2003) (in English).

2. Kerimov T, Nerazreshimosti [Unsolvabilities] (Akademicheskij Proekt; Triksta 2007) (in Russian).

Edited and translated books

 3. Gerber D, ‘Sculpting the agenda of comparative law: Ernst Rabel and the facade of language’ in Riles A (ed), Rethinking the masters of comparative law (Hart Publishing 2001) (in English).

4. Hyland R, ‘Comparative law’ in Patterson D (ed), A companion to philosophy of law and legal theory (Blackwell Publishing 1999) (in English).

5. Legrand P, ‘The same and the different’ in Legrand P and Munday R (eds), Comparative legal studies: traditions and transitions (Cambridge University Press 2003) (in English).

6. – – ‘Issues in the translatability of law’ in Bermann S and Wood M (eds), Nation, language, and the ethics of translation (University Press 2005) (in English).

7. Örücü E, ‘A theoretical framework for transfrontiermobility of law’ in Jagtenberg R and others (eds), Transfrontier mobility of law (Kluwer Law International 1995) (in English). 8. Badyu A, (Voz) vrashenie samoj filosofii [(Re) Turn of Philosophy Itself] (per, Machina 2003) (in Russian). 9. Cvajgert K i Kyotc H, Vvedenie v sravnitelnoe pravovedenie v sfere chastnogo prava [Introduction to Comparative Law in the Field of Private Law] (per, Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya 2000) (in Russian).

10. Hajdegger M, Vvedenie v metafiziku [Introduction to Metaphysics] (per, VRFSh 1998) (in Russian).

11. – – ‘Iskusstvo i prostranstvo’ [‘Art and Space’] v Vremya i bytie [Time and Being] (per, Respublika 1993) (in Russian).

12. – – Osnovnye problemy fenomenologii [Basic Issues of Phenomenology] (per, VRFSh 2001) (in Russian).

13. Harari Yu, Homo Deus. Za lashtunkamy maibutnoho [Homo Deus. A Brief history of Tommorow] (Fors Ukraina 2018) (in Ukrainian).

14. Romano K, Avantyura vremeni [Time Adventure] (per, RIPOL klassik 2017) (in Russian).

15. Stalev Zh, ‘Sravnitelnyj metod v socialisticheskoj pravovoj nauke’ [‘Comparative Method within Socialist Legal Science’] v Tumanov V (red), Sravnitelnoe pravovedenie [Comparative Law] (Progress 1978) (in Russian).

16. Varga Ch, ‘Pravo i yazyk? Pravo kak yazyk? Ob okonchatelnom edinstve ontologii i epistemologii’ [‘Law and Language? Law as Language? About Ultimate Unity of Ontology and Epistemology’] v Antonov M (red), Zagadka prava i pravovogo myshleniya [Enigma of Law and Legal Thinking] (ID Alef-Press 2015) (in Russian).

Encyclopedias

17. Tkachenko O, ‘Istyna v pravi’ [‘Law Truth’] v Maksimov S ta inshi (red), Velyka ukrainska yurydychna entsyklopediia [The Great Ukrainian Legal Encyclopedias], t 2 (Pravo 2017) (in Ukrainian). 18. – – ‘Filosofiia tsyvilnoho prava’ [‘Philosophy of Civil Law’] v Maksimov S ta inshi (red), Velyka ukrainska yurydychna entsiklopediia [The Great Ukrainian Legal Encyclopedias], t 2 (Pravo 2017) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

19. Gordley G, ‘Comparative legal research: its function in the development of harmonized law’ [1995] 43 (3) The American Journal of Comparative Law(in English).

20. Legrand P, ‘Foreign law: understanding understanding’ [2011] 6(2) Journal of comparative law (in English).

21. Arkhireiska Т, ‘Blokchein – innovatsiina tekhnolohiia postindustrialnoi ekonomiky’ [‘Blockchain: Innovative Technology of Postindustrial Tconomic’] (2017) 7 Biznesinform 128 (in Ukrainian).

22. Davidova I, ‘Tehnolohiia blokchein: perspektyvy rozvytku v Ukraini’ [‘Blockchain Technology: Perspective of Development in Ukraine’] (2017) 26 Chasopys tsyvilistyky (in Ukrainian).

23. Klimenko I ta Lozova G ta Akimova L, ‘Zastosuvannia blokcheintekhnolohii v publichnomu upravlinni’ [‘Application of Blockchain Technology in Public Management’] (2017) 20 Demokratychne vriaduvannia (in Ukrainian).

24. Selivanov M, ‘ElektronniI sud: IT-tehnolohii v sudovomu protsesi yak sposib pokra shchennia prohnozovanosti sudovyg rishen’ [‘Electronic Court: IT-technology in the Trial as a Way to Improve Predictability of Court Decisions’] (2018) 1 Pravo Ukrayini (in Ukrainian).

Conference papers

25. Tkachenko O, ‘Negatyvnyj prostir yurydychnyh konstrukcii – terytoriia pravovoho porivniannia yak pravovoii filosofii’ [‘Negative Space of Legal Constructions – Theterritory of Legal Comparison as a Legal Philosophy’] v Kresin O (red), Filosofiia porivnialnoho pravoznavstva [Philosophy of Comparative Law] (Instytut derzhavy i prava NAN Ukrainy 2015) (in Ukrainian).

Dissertations

26. Tkachenko O, ‘Funktsionalistska paradygma porivnialno-pravovyh doslidzhen’ [‘The Functionalist Paradigm of Comparative-Legal Studies’] (dys kand yuryd nauk, Kyivskyi nac un-t vnutr sprav 2011) (in Ukrainian).

Websites

27. Kassen B, ‘Effekt sofistiki’ [‘The Effect of Sophismy’] <https://poisk-istini.com/ literatura/effekt-sofistiki-barbara-kassen> (accessed: 26.12.2018) (in Russian).

28. Valdenfels B, ‘Svoya kultura i chuzhaya kultura. Paradoks nauki o chuzhom’ [‘Own Culture and Foreign Culture. The Paradox of Science about Foreign’] <https://web. archive.org/web/20130309124353/http://anthropology.rinet.ru/old/6/wald.htm> (accessed: 26.12.2018) (in Russian).