2.3 Comparative Research Approach

The approach: law studied across systems — the juxtaposition that reveals each system's own logic and the alternatives' possibility. The method: macro-comparison (the legal families' contrast — the common-law, civil-law and hybrid worlds) vs. micro-comparison (the institution's detail — Nepal's bail rules vs. India's; the family-law chapters across South Asia); the functional method (comparatio's golden rule: how does each system solve the same problem? — not "does Nepal have a tort of negligence?" but "how does each system compensate the wrongfully injured?"); the legal-transplant analysis (the borrowed rule's fate in the new soil). Strengths: the reform's menu (the options' catalogue for the legislator), the interpretation's aid (the foreign precedent's persuasive use), the understanding's mirror (the home law seen afresh). Limits: the comparability traps (the false friends — same words, different worlds), the spectator's error (the foreign rule without its context), the data-access barriers. Nepali exam-anchors: the 2074 codes' comparative drafting (the civil-law models adapted); the Muluki Ain's own hybridity; the Indian- and-common-law inheritance beside the civilian imports.