坏习俗

IF 0.3 3区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY HISTORICAL REFLECTIONS-REFLEXIONS HISTORIQUES Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.3167/hrrh.2021.470301
A. Perron
{"title":"坏习俗","authors":"A. Perron","doi":"10.3167/hrrh.2021.470301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The place and function of custom as a species of law—distinguished from custom as simply polite manners or cherished cultural traditions—has long been a source of research and debate among legal theorists and historians. One school of thought, reflecting the authority of written statute in modern jurisprudence, has relegated custom in a juridical sense to “primitive” societies, whereas proper law belongs to a world of state sovereignty. Other scholars have revisited the continuing validity of custom, including a trenchant body of work on the use (and manipulation) of custom in modern colonial regimes. At the same time, some have seen benefits in the acknowledgment of custom as a source of norms. A 2006 collection of articles, for instance, explored ways in which customary law might serve as a better foundation for the sustainable development of natural resources. As David Bederman has written, “Custom can be a signal strength for any legal system—preliterate or literate, primitive or modern.”","PeriodicalId":43992,"journal":{"name":"HISTORICAL REFLECTIONS-REFLEXIONS HISTORIQUES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bad Custom\",\"authors\":\"A. Perron\",\"doi\":\"10.3167/hrrh.2021.470301\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The place and function of custom as a species of law—distinguished from custom as simply polite manners or cherished cultural traditions—has long been a source of research and debate among legal theorists and historians. One school of thought, reflecting the authority of written statute in modern jurisprudence, has relegated custom in a juridical sense to “primitive” societies, whereas proper law belongs to a world of state sovereignty. Other scholars have revisited the continuing validity of custom, including a trenchant body of work on the use (and manipulation) of custom in modern colonial regimes. At the same time, some have seen benefits in the acknowledgment of custom as a source of norms. A 2006 collection of articles, for instance, explored ways in which customary law might serve as a better foundation for the sustainable development of natural resources. As David Bederman has written, “Custom can be a signal strength for any legal system—preliterate or literate, primitive or modern.”\",\"PeriodicalId\":43992,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"HISTORICAL REFLECTIONS-REFLEXIONS HISTORIQUES\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"HISTORICAL REFLECTIONS-REFLEXIONS HISTORIQUES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3167/hrrh.2021.470301\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HISTORICAL REFLECTIONS-REFLEXIONS HISTORIQUES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/hrrh.2021.470301","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

风俗作为一种法律的地位和功能——区别于风俗作为简单的礼貌或珍贵的文化传统——长期以来一直是法律理论家和历史学家研究和争论的源泉。一种思想流派反映了现代法理学中成文法的权威,将法律意义上的习俗归为“原始”社会,而适当的法律属于国家主权的世界。其他学者重新审视了习俗的持续有效性,包括在现代殖民政权中使用(和操纵)习俗的尖锐工作。与此同时,一些人看到了承认习俗是规范来源的好处。例如,2006年的一篇文集探讨了习惯法如何更好地为自然资源的可持续发展奠定基础。正如大卫·贝德曼(David Bederman)所写的那样,“习俗可以成为任何法律体系的一种信号力量——史前的或文明的,原始的或现代的。”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Bad Custom
The place and function of custom as a species of law—distinguished from custom as simply polite manners or cherished cultural traditions—has long been a source of research and debate among legal theorists and historians. One school of thought, reflecting the authority of written statute in modern jurisprudence, has relegated custom in a juridical sense to “primitive” societies, whereas proper law belongs to a world of state sovereignty. Other scholars have revisited the continuing validity of custom, including a trenchant body of work on the use (and manipulation) of custom in modern colonial regimes. At the same time, some have seen benefits in the acknowledgment of custom as a source of norms. A 2006 collection of articles, for instance, explored ways in which customary law might serve as a better foundation for the sustainable development of natural resources. As David Bederman has written, “Custom can be a signal strength for any legal system—preliterate or literate, primitive or modern.”
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
50.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Founded over thirty years ago, HISTORICAL REFLECTIONS/REFLECTIONS HISTORIQUES has established a well-deserved reputation for publishing high-quality articles of wide-ranging interest. Interdisciplinary and innovative in character, the journal publishes works that explore the terrain of discourse and representation, and the history of religion, art, literature and the social sciences.
期刊最新文献
Book Review Catholicism and Social Policy L'influence des organisations internationales sur les politiques publiques de l'enseignement supérieur au Mexique et la configuration des programmes d’études du diplôme de Droit Transatlantic Legal Networks Reflections on the Circulation of Normative Models and Legal Works in the 1936 Argentine Civil Code Draft on Possession
×
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