The world has more than 200 states. Many states are federations and hence consist of multiple jurisdictions. Seemingly there is thus ample room for a social science approach to comparative law. In this perspective, each legal order produces a data point. Variance in the solutions adopted by different legal orders is used as evidence that a certain legal design causes greater justice, better political stability, higher welfare, or more equity. The results could motivate the strife for legal betterment, by the way of legal transplants. This Article cautions against the dangers inherent in this empirical enterprise. In a nutshell, the danger results from the fact that mere correlation (some jurisdictions are associated with some outcomes) is not causation (a difference in legal design is responsible for the difference in outcomes). Yet for choosing between alternative legal regimes, causation would be critical. The Article explains why comparative law is a conspicuously challenging source of empirical evidence. It discusses possible solutions.

中文翻译：

---

比较法跨学科应用的挑战

世界上有200多个国家。许多州是联邦，因此由多个司法管辖区组成。因此，似乎有足够的空间采用社会科学方法来研究比较法。从这个角度来看，每个法律命令都会产生一个数据点。不同法律秩序所采用的解决方案的差异被用来证明某种法律设计会带来更大的正义、更好的政治稳定性、更高的福利或更多的公平。结果可以通过法律移植的方式激发法律改进的斗争。本文对这种实证事业所固有的危险提出了警告。简而言之，危险源于这样一个事实，即单纯的相关性（某些司法管辖区与某些结果相关联）不是因果关系（法律设计的差异导致结果的差异）。然而，对于在替代法律制度之间进行选择，因果关系至关重要。这篇文章解释了为什么比较法是一个极具挑战性的经验证据来源。它讨论了可能的解决方案。