Although one looks at the above examples, it can be seen that there have been a number of cases where legal transplants have been successful. At the same time, however, the cases that led to failure should not be overlooked for discussion. Some scientists, who have rightly pointed out the impracticability of this concept, can be highlighted by these examples. German law: German codes have not been transported as widely as French codes. They were transplanted to Japan at the end of the 19th century, and then to some African countries. The reasons for the small expansion of German codes lie in the fact that Germany had few colonies, because it had arrived late in the rush to different parts of the world. There are other reasons for this weak influence. The codes were somewhat sophisticated and complex. The third reason is that of the beginning of the 20th century. When German laws were introduced, many countries in Germany had already passed laws from France and Great Britain. So there were small legal gaps that needed to be filled in countries in Africa and elsewhere.
Mattei U (1994) Efficiency in Legal Transplants: An Essay in Comparative Law and Economics. Int Rev Law Econ 14:3-19 The study of legal transplantation is important in the common law course because legal transplantation often takes place in developing countries like Ethiopia with different customary law systems. Often, transplanted laws come from advanced legal systems for a variety of reasons. Such transplanted laws call into question, officially or on paper, the validity of customary law. In fact, customary rights are still little affected. The adoption of Western laws represents the interaction between two legal principles with very different assumptions and methods. Thus, the study of transplanted laws, their history, reasons and theories is important in the customary law course. The other current is that of culturalists, like Legrand, who are convinced pessimists who do not believe in the existence of legal transplants and categorically deny the possibility of legal transplants.
Some of them have even stated that transplanted laws are nothing more than unwanted irritations of the existing culture. They go even further, claiming that the rules are not “explicit” and rely heavily on “subjective” cultural meaning. Apart from successful legal transplantation, India was also prone to failure. The Charter of 1683 authorized the establishment of admiralty courts in India. In addition, due to the authority of the Charter of 1687 and 1726, a mayor`s court was established in Madras and English laws were also applied to citizens there. However, the English were not subject to any law, neither local nor English. However, the very concept or idea of legal transplantation has been highly controversial from the beginning. Various thinkers have objected to the relevance of this idea, arguing that each individual society has its own exceptional characteristics in terms of history, culture, norms, behavior, values, morals, and development. Therefore, every society operates in its idiosyncratic way, and therefore a single law with equal efficiency cannot be imposed on every society.
However, it is recognized that the term “legal transplants” refers to the movement of legal norms or specific laws from one State to another during the process of legislation or legal reform. However, as a result of these contradictory theses, their theories clash not only on how to assess the feasibility of a proposed legal transplant, but also on the general conclusions that can be drawn about the usefulness of legal transplants as a tool of comparative scientists. Other scientists discuss almost every aspect of legal transplantation theory. Kahn-Freund`s disagreements with Watson begin with Watson`s thesis that there is no inherent relationship between a state`s law and its society. It asserts that laws should not be separated from their purpose or the circumstances in which they are made. Kahn-Freund asserts: “We cannot assume that rules or institutions are transferable, believing that there are degrees of transferability. Ewald summarizes Kahn-Freund`s theory: “Legal institutions can be more or less integrated into the life of a nation and thus more or less easily transferred from one legal system to another; Yet the law is so deeply entrenched at one end of the spectrum that transplantation is virtually impossible. The debate on transplantation in comparative law has been held back in a competition between eminent jurists who argue that transplants can survive anywhere and that legal transplants are impossible and irrelevant because the law is implanted in culture and cultures cannot be transferred. This debate has remained as hidden as it has illuminated the relationship between the law and society as a whole. Malaysia has experienced one of the most ingenious legal transplants. Not only was there a merger of two laws, common and civil, but alongside these, there was also a combination of local and customary Islamic laws that were thus persecuted.
This was done in order to preserve and preserve the secularism of the country and to respect the religious feelings of the population. Singapore and Malaysia also adopted Australia`s trade regulation rule in 1973. [7] Countries such as Australia, Singapore and New Zealand have also played a crucial role in advancing Malaysian corporate law.