Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:09:18.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Socialist Legal Systems: Reflections on Their Emergence and Demise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2019

Thomas H. Reynolds
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For a significant part of the twentieth century, the countries and nations of Eastern Europe were considered as belonging to the “socialist family of laws”. There is no great need to study this particular phase or concept in any detail for the simple reason that in recent years it has become clear that Marx and Trotsky were wrong. It is not capitalism that will be consigned to the dust-bin of history, it is Communism that is being consigned to the trash heap in 1991.

It should now be evident that a lot of wool has been pulled over a lot of eyes on the subject of “socialist law”. For years, scholars and practitioners—believed in the existence of an efficient or at least a workable and functioning collection of legal systems in Eastern Europe. These were all assumed to be based, in some respectable fashion or other, on the precepts of Marx and Engels, applying the Hegelian dialectic to arrive at the desired legal norms of the new society and implementing legislation to achieve this goal. Everyone then understood the Communists view of law as a political instrument which would shift societies to a final workers’ paradise.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Legal Information , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , Winter 1992 , pp. 215 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 by The Institute for International Legal Information 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 John N. Hazard. Communists and Their Law. (1969). Pp. 520–521.Google Scholar

2 Imre Szabo describing views held by Stuchka and Pashukanis in “The Socialist Conception of Law.” International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law. Vol. II: “The Legal Systems of the World.” Chapter 1: “The Differenct Conception of the Law.” Tübinger: Mohr, 1975, p. 5.Google Scholar

3 Jon Henry Merryman. “How Others Do It: the French and German Judiciaries,” 61 Southern California Law Review 1, 850 (1988).Google Scholar

4 Leontin-Jean Constantinesco. Rechtsvergleichung. 1970–1972; John Dawson. Oracles of the Law. 1968; F.H. Lawson. A Common Layer Looks at the Civil Law. 1955; Max Rheinstein. Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung. 1974; Rudolph Schlesinger. Comparative Law: Cases, Text, Materials. 5 ed. 1988; Franz Wieacker Privatrechtsgeschicte der Neuzeit. 2 Aufl. 1967.Google Scholar

5 Pierre Arminjon. Traité de droit comparé par P. Arminjon, B. Nolde and M. Wolff. 1950: J.A. Jolowicz, Fact-based Classification of the Law. 1971; Äke Malmstrom. “The System of Legal Systems; Notes on Problems of Classification in Comparable Law,” 13 Scandinavian Studies in Law 127 (1969).Google Scholar

6 René David Les grand systèms de droit contemporains 9.ed. with Camille Jauffret-Spinosi. 1990; Major Legal Systems in the World Today. 3ed. with John E.C. Brierley. 1985. In our mind's eye we can see the people at the Dalloz publishing firm frantically working on a 10th edition to explain the disappearance of socialist law.Google Scholar

7 Konrad Zweigert Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung 2. Aufl. with Hein Kötz, 1984; Introduction to Comparative Law. 2. rev. ed., translated by Tony Weir. 1987.Google Scholar

8 John Henry Merryman. The Civil Law Tradition. 2 ed. 1985.Google Scholar

9 Helmut Coing. Hrsg. Hanbuch der Quellen und Literatur der neuren europäischen Privatrechtsgeschichte. 3Bd. 19. Jahrhundert, Teilbd. 1–5. 1982–1988.Google Scholar

10 Of course, David was not the first. He is just the most convincing. At the turn of the Century Adhemar Esmein produced his own original and persuasive categorization, followed by Henry Levy-Ullman in 1922 and Pierre Arminjon in 1950, the same time as David.Google Scholar

11 Note 7, supra. Introduction p. 67–68.Google Scholar

12 D.S. Clark, “The Idea of the Civil Law Tradition.” Comparative and Private International Law: Essays in Honor of John Henry Merryman. 1990, p. 11 at p. 18.Google Scholar

13 J.H. Merryman and D.S. Clark. Comparative Law: Western European and Latin American Legal Systems. 1978. p. 27.Google Scholar

14 Noted 8, supra p. 2–3.Google Scholar

15 Justinian's legislation, casually termed the Corpus Juris Civilis, is a complex and admittedly poorly arranged collection consisting of the Digest, promulgated in 533 A.D., based on the writings of classical jurists of the second and third centuries but greatly altered by the sixth century recompilers, (and probably debased); the Institutes, also of 533 A.D. and closely adhering in style and context to Gaius’ Institutes of ca. 160 A.D.; the Codex a collection of imperial legislation, primarily western, some eastern of the fourth-sixth centuries, promulgate 534 A.D. and finally the Novellae, Constitutiones or Novels, issued in 535 A.D. but revised up to 556 A.D., containing Justinian's own enactment.Google Scholar

16 Justinian's legislation, written in Latin, was translated and adapted in the Ecloga of Leo III and of Constatine V in 726 A.D. and 740 A.D‥ This was systematic and organized digest of the Corpus Juris Civilis mixed with vulgar customary law and supplemented by other Nomoi of the seventh and eighth centuries. In the 870's Basil I produced the Procheiros Nomos or Prochiron, another systematic version of the Corpus Juris Civilis. The last, most sophisticated and influencial revision of Justinanian's work was the Basilica of Leo the Wise, ca. 890 A.D.Google Scholar

17 Russians have done well with codification and organization. Two major efforts at civil law codification and reform failed in the nineteenth century—after Catherine's natural law-based version failed of final promulagation in the eighteenth century. Instead the enormous complication of 30,000 laws issued in 1830, the Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiskoi Imperii, a chronological collection, 1649–1825, was so difficult to use that it was followed two years later by the Svod Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii, a fifteen volume digest, that cut away much of the obsolete material in the Polnoe Sobranie.Google Scholar

18 Sacco. “The Romanist Sustratum in the Civil Law of the Socialist Countries,” 14 Review of Socialist Law 65 (1988).Google Scholar

19 G. Glos. “The Czechoslovak Civil Code of 1964 and Its 1982 Amendment within the Framework of Czechoslovak Civil Law,” 6 New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law 215 (1985).Google Scholar

20 Capatina “l'évolution du droit commercial roumain,” 31 Jahrbuch für Ostrecht 315, 319 (1990).Google Scholar