Abstract

This article critically examines the transferability of legal norms, institutions, and practices through the lens of comparative legal research, with a particular focus on Sri Lanka’s experience as a post-colonial, legally pluralistic jurisdiction. Drawing on theoretical debates between functionalist and culturalist schools most notably the Watson–Legrand exchange, it argues that successful legal transplantation requires more than technical compatibility; it demands congruence with the recipient state’s constitutional values, cultural norms, institutional capacity, and socio-political realities. Through detailed case studies in constitutional borrowing, commercial law reform, and criminal justice innovation, the analysis exposes both the potential and the pitfalls of adopting foreign legal models, showing how direct transplants often falter without adaptation to local conditions. The study advances a critical methodological framework for Sri Lanka’s law reform process grounded in three pillars: rigorous cultural impact assessment, realistic institutional capacity analysis, and systematic strategies for adaptation and indigenization. It contends that legal borrowing must be selective, context-sensitive, and participatory, leveraging global best practices while preserving and integrating domestic legal traditions. Ultimately, the article calls for a cautious yet open engagement with foreign legal experience, rejecting both uncritical adoption and wholesale rejection, and advocating instead for a nuanced, evidence-based approach that seeks to craft hybrid legal solutions capable of delivering justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness within Sri Lanka’s distinctive legal and social landscape.

Keywords