The American Journal of Comparative Law is the world's leading journal dedicated to the comparative study of law, as well as the critical analysis of foreign law and legal systems, and private international law. A peer-reviewed quarterly founded in 1952, the board of journal editors includes scholars with interests in the world's major legal systems and traditions. Authors from many disciplinary traditions including anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, political science, psychology, and sociology contribute to the journal.
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. OUP is the world's largest university press with the widest global presence. It currently publishes more than 6,000 new publications a year, has offices in around fifty countries, and employs more than 5,500 people worldwide. It has become familiar to millions through a diverse publishing program that includes scholarly works in all academic disciplines, bibles, music, school and college textbooks, business books, dictionaries and reference books, and academic journals.
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our
The American Journal of Comparative Law
© 1994 Oxford University Press