The non-retroactivity of crimes and punishments has become a rule of customary international law. How it did so is an interesting and complex story about the use of comparative law in the making of international law. This rule of international human rights law can be demonstrated as rigorously from practice and opinio juris as any other rule of customary international law. It is sometimes said that less evidence of state practice is necessary to treat an international human right as customary international law. Rules of human rights law, however, are far safer and more secure if grounded in practice as well as opinio juris. Legality is an excellent tool for making such a demonstration of technique in human rights law....

One constitutes oneself as a comparatist by rejecting the fixity of conceptually homogenized understandings and by marking a third location that is neither one nor the other but, disputing the territories of both, something else besides. For the comparatist-at-law, the third space is distinguishable from the laws being compared (it is neither outside or astride those laws) while not being reducible to a composite of the pre-existing laws. In the third space, there takes place a re-articulation projecting meaning beyond any signification obtaining in the situated laws. As it displaces them, the third space can properly be regarded as effectuating an othering of those laws. The third space introduces another other to the comparison-at-law (when it comes to comparison, one...

Some ten years ago Austria and Germany have adopted corporate governance codes. These codes were modelled after the English corporate governance code. The two codes and rules of corporate law based on these codes have become firmly established in the Austrian and German legal system. They have been absorbed into the national jurisdiction. The presentation will examine the effect these transplants have had on Austrian and German law. Has the adoption of English corporate law rules led to convergence? Have the rules changed as a result of the transplantation? To what extent has Austrian and German law interpreted the transplanted rules in light of their origin?