Theoretical and methodological basis of the comparative historical and legal method development




comparative historical and legal method, the effectiveness of the method, historical, legal, epistemological significance, historical and legal knowledge


Problem setting. Development of any scientific method is always both a question of its structural and functional characteristics and place in the system of scientific methods, and a comment as for practicability of such methodological work. This paper attempts to give a detailed response to the major comments and objections arising in respect of the separation as an independent means of special and scientific knowledge of comparative historical and legal method.

Recent research and publications analysis. Analyzing research and publications within the theme of the scientific article, it should be noted that attention to methodological issues of both general and legal science at the time was paid by such prominent foreign and domestic scholars as I. D. Andreev, Yu. Ya. Baskin, O. L. Bygych, M. A. Damirli, V. V. Ivanov, I. D. Koval'chenko, V. F. Kolomyitsev, D. V. Lukyanov, L. A. Luts, J. Maida, B. G. Mogilnytsky, N. M. Onishchenko, N. M. Parkhomenko, O. V. Petryshyn, S. P. Pogrebnyak, V. I. Synaisky, V. M. Syryh, O. F. Skakun, A. O. Tille, D. I. Feldman and others. It should be noted that, despite a large number of scientific papers in this field, the interest of research partnership in the methodology of history of state and law science still unfairly remains very low.

Paper objective. The purpose of this scientific paper is theoretical and methodological rationale for the need of separation and development of comparative historical and legal method in the form of answers to more common questions and objections that arise in scientific partnership in this regard.

Paper main body. Development of comparative historical and legal means of knowledge is quite justified because it meets the requirements of the scientific method efficiency, which criteria are the speed for achieving this goal, ease of use of one or another way of scientific knowledge, universality of research methods, convenience of techniques that are used and so on. Combining the three research approaches – comparative, historical and legal, comparative historical and legal method is more effective than two separate methods - comparative and historical, and comparative and legal. Epistemological potential of comparative historical and legal method is quite great, and is to ensure the integrity and continuity of the historical and legal knowledge that is carried out in comparative way. Application of this method allows you without breaking the research itself into separate semantic blocks to start and continue it both from the analysis of the "historical" and learning of the "legal".

Conclusions. Value of the comparative historical and legal method in the methodology of historical and legal science will be very significant. This can be explained by the fact that this means of knowledge allows to go beyond the known and look from a different angle on already known facts and regularities of the state and legal development. In fact, a comparison in the field of the history of state and law is one of the few methodological tools capable to do away with the stereotype which has been formed in the historical and legal science recently. In addition, comparative historical and legal method can serve as the epicenter of all the research methodology, but the comparative analysis can be the main problem of scientific work with the production of relevant tasks. Comparative historical and legal method as a basis of a study directly causes its scientific novelty, because in the course of comparison of historical and legal objects those of their characteristics and features that were previously unknown are revealed, and new laws are opened.

Author Biography

Д. А. Шигаль, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University

Doctor of Law Associate Professor of History of State and Law Ukraine and foreign countries


Andreev, I. D. (1964). O metodah nauchnogo poznanija. Moscow: Nauka, 184.

Baskin, Ju. Ja., Fel'dman, D. I. (1971). Mezhdunarodnoe pravo: problemy metodologii (Ocherki metodov issledovanija). Moscow: Mezhdunarodnie otnosheniya, 176.

Bygych, O. L. (2002). Misce porivnjal'nogo metodu v pravovij metodologii'. Pravova derzhava: Shhorichnyk naukovyh prac' Instytutu derzhavy i prava im. V. M. Korec'kogo NAN Ukrai'ny, 13, 448−455.

Bojko, I. S., Babin, B. V. (2011). Porivnjal'ne pravoznavstvo. 2nd edition. Odesa: Feniks, 152.

Bykovskij, S. N. (1931). Metodika istoricheskogo issledovanija. Lviv: GAIMK, 204.

Damirli M. A. (2003). Specifika istoriko-pravovogo poznanija i novyj oblik istoriko-pravovoj nauki. Aktual'nі problemi polіtiki, 16, 416–424.

Ivanov, V. V. (1985). Metodologija istoricheskoj nauki. Moscow: Vysshaja shkola, 168.

Koval'chenko, I. D. (2003). Metody istoricheskogo issledovanija. 2nd edition. Moscow: Nauka, 486.

Kolomijcev, V. F. (2001). Metodologija istorii (Ot istochnika k issledovaniju). Moscow: «Rossijskaja politicheskaja jenciklopedija» (ROSSPJeN), 191.

Luc' L. A. (2006). Teorija porivnjal'no-pravovogo metodu. Metody ta zasoby porivnjal'no-pravovogo doslidzhennja. Derzhava i pravo. Jurydichi i politichni nauky, 31, 489−496.

Nechuhrin, A. N., Sidorcov, V. N., Shutova, O. M. et. al. (1996). Metodologija istorii. Minsk: NTOOO «TetraSistems», 240.

Mogil'nickij, B. G. (1989). Vvedenie v metodologiju istorii. Moscow: Vyssha shkola, 175.

Nurmatov, M. H. (1971). Metody i formy nauchnogo poznanija (Material k lekcii s metodicheskimi sovetami). Tashkent: «UKITUVChI», 39.

Onishhenko N. M. (2009). Do pytannja pro ponjattja «porivnjal'nogo prava derzhavoznavstva» (dejaki pidhody do analizu ta vyvchennja). Chasopys Kyivskogo universitetu prava, 1, 11−15.

Parhomenko, N. M. (2006). Do vyznachennja metodiv doslidzhennja dzherel prava. Derzhava i pravo. Jurydychni i politychni nauky, 33, 10−17.

Pogrebnjak, S. P., Luk’janov, D. V., Bylja-Sabadash, I. O. et. al.; Petryshyn, O. V. (Ed.) (2011). Porivnjal'ne pravoznavstvo. Kharkiv: Pravo, 272.

Rysina, E. P. (2010). Special'no-istoricheskie metody issledovanija pravovoj politiki. Istorija gosudarstva i prava, 12, 7−9.

Saidov, A. H.; Tumanov, V. A. (Ed.) (2000). Sravnitel'noe pravovedenie (osnovnye pravovye sistemy sovremennosti). Moscow: Jurist, 448.

Sinajskij V. I. Tehnika juridicheskoj metodologii v svjazi s obshhim ucheniem o metodologii. Available at:

Skakun O. F. (2007). Princip edinstva logicheskogo i istoricheskogo metodov v sravnitel'nom pravovedenii: otkrytaja lekcija. Kyiv; Simferopol: Institut gosudarstva i prava im. V. M. Koreckogo NAN Ukrainy. Izdatelstvovo «Logos». Serija nauchno-metodicheskih izdanii «Akademija sravnitelnogo pravovedenija», 5, 31.

Stepin, V. S., Elsukov, A. N. (1974). Metody nauchnogo poznanija. Minsk: «Vyshjejshaja shkola», 152.

Syryh, V. M. (1980). Metod pravovoj nauki: (Osnovnye elementy, struktura). Moscow: Juridicheskaya literatura, 176.

Tille A. A. (1975). Socialisticheskoe sravnitel'noe pravovedenie. Moscow: Juridicheskaya literatura, 208.

Tihomirov, Ju. A. (1996). Kurs sravnitel'nogo pravovedenija. Moscow: Norma, 432.

Uvarov, A. I.; Danilov, A. I. (Ed.) (1965). Struktura teorii v istoricheskoj nauke. Metodologicheskie i istoriograficheskie voprosy istoricheskoj nauki, 3, 35−65.

Mayda, J. (1970). Quelques réflexions critiques sur le droit comparé contemporain. Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé, 22 (1), 57–82. doi: 10.3406/ridc.1970.17602



How to Cite

Шигаль, Д. А. (2015). Theoretical and methodological basis of the comparative historical and legal method development. Problems of Legality, (129), 19–28.



Theory and history of state and law