Jun 14 2015

San Marcos

Posted by domain admin in News
Tags: | Add comment

The dogmatic method repeats what other authors said, through the right of appointment, while in the comparative method are made comparisons, i.e., only a part of comparative law. The latter is more broad than the simple legal comparatacion, for example can speak of receptions, transplants, mergers, divisions, harmonisation, unification, among other many legal figures of comparative law. To comparative law, we devoted a treatise which has the following name Treaty of comparative law, which appears on the unit’s post degree in law from the universidad nacional mayor de San Marcos, which I donated a few weeks ago and I hope to be liked by everyone, therefore, I hope that you have received from the legal communitythrough comments, which can be positive and negative, and in this sense it is clear that we hope that the same terms of publication in various locations. If a lawyer read this work it is clear that it can have a basic idea of comparative law, however, the subject of the present headquarters are two methods that are the comparative method and the dogmatic method, which have great importance not only in the doctrine but also in other sources of law, which is subject of study in various locations. Comparative law is not exactly the same that the comparative method, but that this last form part of the first. Comparative law and the comparative method are the subject or can be the application to all legal disciplines, and the same is true for the dogmatic method, i.e., ta information embodied in the present work all know, however, we wrote it to disseminate more knowledge to students of pre degree of law, not only of Peruvian law, but also of foreign law. The dogmatic method is more developed than the comparative method, at least in the Peruvian law, which must be matter of estudeios and also publications in law. If these are known issues can be best legal researchers, and in any case the sources of law are more than 20, but did not cover all knowledge, but only a part of it. In other words, the knowledge human is more broad that legal knowledge, i.e., this last part of the first, which is known to all lawyers worldwide and thus do not intend to say, know it all, but only a part of the law, which increases with the passage of time. Original author and source of the article.

Comments are closed.