Towards the German Doctrine Interpretation and Criticism of the Construct of Comparative Criminal Law Studies

It is difficult to deny the usefulness of the method of comparative jurisprudence. Studying the foreign experience of jurisprudence makes it possible to penetrate deeper into understanding the object of research and, accordingly, to approach the solution of a particular doctrinal problem, including taking into account the latest doctrinal approaches. However, do we realize how correctly this method is or is not used by scientists and researchers in reality? Do we see the grounds for a conclusion presented in any foreign publication made based on its conclusions that can claim the status of an objective experience, not subjective or descriptive knowledge?

The article presents an objective and scientific review of the interpretation and criticism of the construction of comparative legal studies from well-known and respected scientists and various directors of the Institute of International Law and International Criminal Law Max Planck (Freiburg, Germany).

This goal is achieved by solving tasks such as analyzing the functions, methods, and theoretical concepts of comparative criminal law and comparing them to one another. It also identifies negative aspects of a superficial attitude to this method of conducting scientific research, which aspects have consistently been paid close attention by eminent German scientists.

Research methods: method of comparative and historical analysis, method of system analysis, formal-logical method.

The results of the study: the fundamentals of the German legal doctrine of the construction of comparative legal studies on the example of the branch of criminal law are summarized, the actual problems of the comparative method of analysis are outlined, and specific criteria are presented based on which it is possible confidently to assert the scientific nature of the obtained comparative legal knowledge.