Sup /his/, something different for a change: any fans of legal history here?
For the past week I've been working on an essay on the czech legal history and I have to say, it's a fascinating new perspective on history.
Unfortunately there is this gigantic circlejerk of every author here on the continent of
>muh roman law
The fucking french made an awesome civil code, so the germans of course made theirs way too technical. Meanwhile, you got the british hanging on to their 'fuck any systematic law' attitute.
>>305570
Czech legal system is based on Austrian law
>>305570
>the czech legal history and I have to say, it's a fascinating new perspective on history.
elaborate
![1322719709_1291182904_3674037563_94ca69e802_b[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/FnfotIJ.jpg "1322719709_1291182904_3674037563_94ca69e802_b[1].jpg")
>>305581
Can we discuss Krtek history instead? He's way more based that some law garbage.
>>305581
Well, I come from the Netherlands and we basically have a rather simple history of law
>french introduce code civil
>too lazy to change it
>keep a french system forever
>dutch constitution is highly pragmatic though
Meanwhile, in the czech lands
>become independent again after fall of Austrian empire
>2 years later, try to create a new constitution that tries to prevent the dualism in the austrian empire
>skip forward to 1938, be taken over by the germans again
>after ww2, adopt a new constitution again with new rules that try to prevent the wrongs of ww2 to happen again
>1960, new constitution again
>ideological in nature
>1990, after communism, again a new constitution
>this time based on rights to prevent communism all over again
It's like they continuously tried to adapt to changing circumstances by creating new rules, whilst the dutch just have a few basic rules and just interpret them differently. Of course, this also has to do with formalism of judicial culture etc.
>>305570
>muh roman law
This is not a meme Roman law is best law.
>The fucking french made an awesome civil code, so the germans of course made theirs way too technical.
Originating from Roman law desu
>>305613
>tfw no Roman-Dutch law
>>305613
I find it somehow hard to believe that the Dutch Republic functioned without a constitution or basic law during the 16th and early 17th century.
An eye for an eye was objectively the best justice system ever
>>305570
Fuck you OP, common law is great.
Gives you a chance to adjudicate based on circumstances unforeseen by the original legislatures.
It preserves the integrity and political independence of the courts.
In fact, it's really the ultimate foundation for any separation/balance of powers within the government, which is a great bulwark against tyranny.
And of course, there's the fact that most legislators are idiot.s.....
>>307091
It implies less predictability and uniformity in adjudication, though. It's a give and take.
>>307064
Here it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Utrecht
http://www.constitution.org/cons/dutch/Union_Utrecht_1579.html
>>305570
>hating on based common law
Disgusting t.bh
>>307111
That's why you have binding precedent for all but the final Appellate Court. Encourages a uniform application of the case law but still allows the law to change with the time, while keeping the retards in the Legislature out of highly technical parts of law that they'd almost invariably fuck up [spoiler]rule by judges when[/spoiler]
>>307905
>That's why you have binding precedent for all but the final Appellate Court. Encourages a uniform application of the case law but still allows the law to change with the time, while keeping the retards in the Legislature out of highly technical parts of law that they'd almost invariably fuck up [spoiler]rule by judges when[/spoiler]
It's not really about the technical shit. Legislative have lawyers and legal counselors to deal with this. It's about giving the individual a certain sense of predictability so they could calculate their actions. In common law there is by definition less predictability since laws are applied independently and with considerably more discretion on the part of the judiciary. The downside is that the law is less flexible and requires more epistemic attention on the part of the legislator (since it is written in the most general way possible), which itself is of course not trivial matter.
>>305570
>muh roman law
The irony is Roman law was completely fucking retarded, and the emperors had to constantly beg their subjects to actually follow them. The jurists had to unpack a lot of stupid bullshit and pray that the corrupt courts system would do things properly.
>s-stop hogging all the grain guys
>s-s-seriously, muh coinage
>why won't you all just stop sacrificing, UGH
