The rise of the comparative approach in Russian legal scholarship as a factor in the modernisation of civil legislation, from the Svod Zakonov of 1833 to the Draft Civil Code of 1905

D. Poldnikov
{"title":"The rise of the comparative approach in Russian legal scholarship as a factor in the modernisation of civil legislation, from the Svod Zakonov of 1833 to the Draft Civil Code of 1905","authors":"D. Poldnikov","doi":"10.1163/15718190-00870A01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The place of Russian law in European legal history is debated both in the national and international literature. The advocates of the European character of Russian law have to face the particularity of its legal culture, the sources of law, and the tradition of sui generis national identity. Yet, national identities and legal traditions are not innate but man-made and changeable. In this paper the focus on the period of the 19th century when Russian law was essentially modernized to match the best coeval European standards. It began in the early 1860s with the judicial and university reforms of Alexander II which introduced modern principles of judicial dispute resolution and professional legal education and lasted until the October revolution of 1917. The rapid and profound transformation of Russian law is best illustrated by the legislation in the domain of civil law, the leading branch of codified law in 19th century Europe. The pre-reformed Svod Zakonov (Digest of Laws) of 1833 (its 10th volume) was notably casuistic, inconsistent, and voluminous to the extent that it may not qualify as a modern code. The Draft Civil Code of 1905 could stand comparison with any European codification to date in terms of the systematic and coherent arrangement of general provisions on material civil law. Another important change was the progressive use of the best European legal experience: from the masked, fragmentary and unskilled borrowings in Svod Zakonov to a fully-fledged comparative legislation in the Draft Civil Code. A comprehensive comparison of all major European codes allowed the draft of a better piece of legislation but this has not been yet been researched by legal historians. The main question – how did this comparative approach came about – remains largely unanswered. In this paper attention is drawn to the decisive role of Russian legal scholarship in developing a comparative approach using an original synthesis of several streams of European legal thought (Savigny's historical school, German Pandectistics, French ecole de l'exegese, and Jhering's sociological approach) which it managed to develop in the second half of the 19th century. It is argued that such legal scholars as Meyer, Pobedonostsev, Pakhman, Shershenevich, Annenkov succeeded in overcoming the limits of the pre-reformed, literal knowledge of Svod Zakonov and began to study Russian civil law as part of a larger phenomenon (the law of the 'civilized nations') through dogmatic comparison which resembled the comparative legislation in western Europe. The evidence for this claim is taken from the main doctrinal works between 1840 and 1910 which represent both streams of comparison and it is analysed in the framework of comparative legal history. Special attention is paid to the contribution of dogmatic comparison in developing the general part of contract law as a recognizable hallmark of civil law in continental Europe which came to be adopted in the doctrinal writings and the draft legislation of the late Russian empire","PeriodicalId":43053,"journal":{"name":"Tijdschrift Voor Rechtsgeschiedenis-Revue D Histoire Du Droit-The Legal History Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tijdschrift Voor Rechtsgeschiedenis-Revue D Histoire Du Droit-The Legal History Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718190-00870A01","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The place of Russian law in European legal history is debated both in the national and international literature. The advocates of the European character of Russian law have to face the particularity of its legal culture, the sources of law, and the tradition of sui generis national identity. Yet, national identities and legal traditions are not innate but man-made and changeable. In this paper the focus on the period of the 19th century when Russian law was essentially modernized to match the best coeval European standards. It began in the early 1860s with the judicial and university reforms of Alexander II which introduced modern principles of judicial dispute resolution and professional legal education and lasted until the October revolution of 1917. The rapid and profound transformation of Russian law is best illustrated by the legislation in the domain of civil law, the leading branch of codified law in 19th century Europe. The pre-reformed Svod Zakonov (Digest of Laws) of 1833 (its 10th volume) was notably casuistic, inconsistent, and voluminous to the extent that it may not qualify as a modern code. The Draft Civil Code of 1905 could stand comparison with any European codification to date in terms of the systematic and coherent arrangement of general provisions on material civil law. Another important change was the progressive use of the best European legal experience: from the masked, fragmentary and unskilled borrowings in Svod Zakonov to a fully-fledged comparative legislation in the Draft Civil Code. A comprehensive comparison of all major European codes allowed the draft of a better piece of legislation but this has not been yet been researched by legal historians. The main question – how did this comparative approach came about – remains largely unanswered. In this paper attention is drawn to the decisive role of Russian legal scholarship in developing a comparative approach using an original synthesis of several streams of European legal thought (Savigny's historical school, German Pandectistics, French ecole de l'exegese, and Jhering's sociological approach) which it managed to develop in the second half of the 19th century. It is argued that such legal scholars as Meyer, Pobedonostsev, Pakhman, Shershenevich, Annenkov succeeded in overcoming the limits of the pre-reformed, literal knowledge of Svod Zakonov and began to study Russian civil law as part of a larger phenomenon (the law of the 'civilized nations') through dogmatic comparison which resembled the comparative legislation in western Europe. The evidence for this claim is taken from the main doctrinal works between 1840 and 1910 which represent both streams of comparison and it is analysed in the framework of comparative legal history. Special attention is paid to the contribution of dogmatic comparison in developing the general part of contract law as a recognizable hallmark of civil law in continental Europe which came to be adopted in the doctrinal writings and the draft legislation of the late Russian empire
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从1833年的Svod Zakonov法案到1905年的民法典草案,比较方法在俄罗斯法律学界的兴起是民事立法现代化的一个因素
俄罗斯法律在欧洲法律史上的地位在国内和国际文献中都有争论。主张俄罗斯法律欧洲特征的人必须面对其法律文化的特殊性、法律渊源的特殊性和独特的民族认同传统。然而,国家身份和法律传统不是天生的,而是人为的和可改变的。在本文中,重点关注的是19世纪期间,俄罗斯法律基本上现代化,以达到最好的同时代的欧洲标准。它始于19世纪60年代初,亚历山大二世的司法和大学改革引入了现代司法纠纷解决原则和专业法律教育,一直持续到1917年十月革命。俄罗斯法律的迅速而深刻的转变最好地体现在民法领域的立法上,民法是19世纪欧洲法典化法的主要分支。1833年改革前的《法律摘要》(Svod Zakonov)(其第10卷)以诡辩著称,前后矛盾,而且篇幅庞大,可能不符合现代法典的标准。1905年的《民法典草案》在对实物民法一般条款的系统和连贯安排方面,可以与迄今为止的任何一部欧洲法典相媲美。另一个重要的变化是逐步使用欧洲最好的法律经验:从Svod Zakonov案中蒙面的、零碎的和不熟练的借用到民法典草案中完全成熟的比较立法。对所有主要的欧洲法典进行全面比较,可以制定出更好的立法草案,但法律历史学家尚未对此进行研究。主要问题——这种比较方法是如何产生的——在很大程度上仍未得到解答。在本文中,我们关注的是俄罗斯法律学术在发展一种比较方法方面所起的决定性作用,这种比较方法使用了几个欧洲法律思想流派(萨维尼的历史学派、德国的泛论学派、法国的政经学派和耶林的社会学方法)的原始综合,这些流派在19世纪下半叶得以发展。有人认为,Meyer、Pobedonostsev、Pakhman、Shershenevich、Annenkov等法律学者成功地克服了Svod Zakonov改革前的文字知识的局限性,并开始通过类似于西欧比较立法的教条式比较,将俄罗斯民法作为更大现象(“文明国家”的法律)的一部分来研究。这种说法的证据来自1840年至1910年间的主要理论著作,这些著作代表了两种比较流派,并在比较法律史的框架内进行了分析。特别关注的是教条式比较在发展合同法的一般部分方面的贡献,作为欧洲大陆民法的一个可识别的标志,它被后期俄罗斯帝国的理论著作和立法草案所采用
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Legal History Review, inspired by E.M. Meijers, is a peer-reviewed journal and was founded in 1918 by a number of Dutch jurists, who set out to stimulate scholarly interest in legal history in their own country and also to provide a centre for international cooperation in the subject. This has gradually through the years been achieved. The Review had already become one of the leading internationally known periodicals in the field before 1940. Since 1950 when it emerged under Belgo-Dutch editorship its position strengthened. Much attention is paid not only to the common foundations of the western legal tradition but also to the special, frequently divergent development of national law in the various countries belonging to, or influenced by it.
期刊最新文献
Front matter Lauro Chiazzese, lo studio delle interpolazioni e i confronti ‘ritrovati’ The Oxford handbook of European legal history, edited by H. Pihlajamäkki, M.D. Dubber and M. Godfrey, 2018 Des clercs qui se mesleront de faire lettres et obligations Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte HRG, 2., edited by A. Cordes, H. Lück, D. Werkmüller und C. Bertelsmeier-Kierst, 2016
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1