Legal transplants have consolidated as a core issue of contemporary comparative law, although their study remains marked by significant theoretical and methodological tensions. This article presents a PRISMA-informed structured systematic review of 25 studies published between 2008 and 2025 and retrieved through SciSpace,
[...] Read more.
Legal transplants have consolidated as a core issue of contemporary comparative law, although their study remains marked by significant theoretical and methodological tensions. This article presents a PRISMA-informed structured systematic review of 25 studies published between 2008 and 2025 and retrieved through SciSpace, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science-supported searching, with the aim of identifying conceptual frameworks, recurrent conditions of validity, and practical limitations in recent legal-transplant scholarship. The search yielded 960 exported records; after deduplication and screening, 30 articles were assessed in full text, of which 25 were available and included. The revised article identifies the 25 studies individually and links the descriptive claims to a study-by-study coding table. The findings show five recurrent theoretical lenses: positivist transfer models, culturalist critiques, diffusion mechanisms and multicausal models, communicative metaphors, and mixed transplant concepts. The corpus covers studies in Europe, China, Asia-Pacific, Vietnam, Japan, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Hungary, Brazil, Africa, Latin America, and transnational settings. The evidence does not support universal causal claims, but it consistently suggests that contextual compatibility, institutional capacity, local legitimacy, and interpretive adaptation shape the effectiveness of legal transplants, while linguistic barriers, interpretive mismatches, coercive imposition, and weak implementation capacity constrain them. The corpus remains concentrated in corporate law, intellectual property, constitutional law, criminal law, and drug policy, with a predominance of comparative, doctrinal, case-study, and conceptual methodologies.
Full article