Confronting the conjecture of cultural incommensurability in comparative law

This article presents a case against the thesis of cultural incommensurability in contemporary comparative law, in particular the one advocated by comparative law theorist Pierre Legrand, by looking to the argument of language philosopher Donald Davidson against the notion of 'conceptual schemes'. The article differentiates incommensurability from incomparability, demonstrating that while a lack of identity between legal cultures may lead to incomparability, it can never result in incommensurability. The primary argument entails that proving incomparability is a testament to, rather than a negation of commensurability, for the reason that even the most radical differences between legal cultures are unimaginable without a common measure, as Davidson elucidated.