Thailand Law Journal 2012 Fall Issue 1 Volume 15

IV. Conclusion
This paper has tried to track adat law discourse down to its motherland origin. The author found that adat law was indeed part of the Romantic legal movement that took place in the late eighteenth century's Europe. It was a counter movement to the
prevailing idea of the Enlightenment. In the context of Indonesia, this Romantic view met with pragmatic and political interests of the colonial government. Supporting and promoting adat could help the colonial government to win its competition against
Islamic law. Taming Islam in the colony was the best bay to extract and exploit the land for the benefit of the colonial government.

This tracking process has led me not only to the epicenter of classical debate in Europe in relation to the codification issues, but more than that it has illuminated my understanding to the very recent intellectual debate of comparative law, mainly in Europe, in relation to the issue of legal unification of the European Union. By way of conclusion, let me recall very briefly the relevance of our discussion on adat law to comprehend the contemporary debate on whether or not Europe should merge into single legal system.

This recent debate is triggered by the merging of the European market into a single economic block. Following this economic integration, the idea of European legal integration immediately rose into the stage of the European intellectual arena. Some
scholars are in favor of the merger, while others are against it. History repeats itself. The arguments that have been utilized by these two contrasting positions, to some extent, are the continuation of the classical debate on legal unification in the late eighteen century of Germany (or probably everywhere). The proponents of European legal unification hold a positivistic stance and become the vanguard of the Enlightenmenf s dream. On the contrary, as can be predicted, the opponents receive their armors to defend the argument of legal plurality from, partly, the tradition of European legal Romanticism.¹¹⁶

In relation to the anti-unification position of the EU legal system, James Q. Whitman, in one of his recent essay, The Neo-Romantic Turn, argues that within the last several years, the argument of Romanticism has returned to the philosophy of comparative law.¹¹⁷ In this case, Pierre Legrand has echoed the voice of Romanticism in his strong opposition to the idea of legal unification.¹¹⁸ Influenced so much by Derrida, and also Heidegger, he employs Romantic sentiment using hermeneutic tools to defend differences and plurality against the aggression of the desire of sameness and uniformity.¹¹⁹ His main argument in defending legal pluralism is based on his idea of "law as culture." Legrand understands the term as "the framework of intangibles within which an ascertainable 'legal' community operates and which organizes the identity of such legal community as legal community."¹²⁰ [Italic added] Thus for him, law always exists within and become a part of specific and unique experience of a particular culture. Because of that, Legrand rejected the possibility of 'legal transplantation' in which a legal system could be easily moved from one place to another. Finally, for him, "European legal system are not converging' at all.¹²¹

For the author, what Legrand and other culturalist legal scholars have proposed are intellectually stimulating and morally encouraging. It has brought about a new aroma where comparative law studies now become richer by the flavor of sensitivity to the diverse human values. However, learning from Savigny's case, and also Van Vollenhoven, the author is concerned that their perspective are politically unconvincing for policy makers. When Europe has been economically integrated, new structures and systems are needed to support this integration. One of the most fundamental and practical elements in restructuring the European system is 'legal unification.' We have to wait whether Legrand and other culturalist legal scholars will be successful to 'kill' the proposal and repeat the two historical precedents, as we have discussed.

116 Pierre Legrand declares his position as defender of Counter-Enlightenment. See supra note 7, at 265.
117 James Q. Whitman, The Neo-Romantic Turn, in Legrand & Munday, supra note 6, at 312.
118 Id.
119 Pierre Legrand, Paradoxically, Derrida, 27 CARDozo L. REV. 631 (2005-2006).
120 Pierre Legrand, Comparative Legal Studies and the Matter of Authenticity, 1 J. CoMP. L. 374 (2006).
121 Pierre Legrand, European Legal Systems are not Converging, 45 INT'L & COMP. L. Q. 52-81 (1996).