Öfters spricht man vom 13. Pub. als der Zeit der "Rechtsbücher", zu denen vor allem die Werke von Bracton, Beaumanoir and nicht zuletzt von Eike gerechnet werden. Auch der "Liber Augustalis" entstand noch im Jahr 1231. Es ist aber kein "Rechtsbuch" mehr. sondern schon eine echte Kodifikation. Diesel "Liber Constitutionum Regni Siciliae" vom staufischen Kaiser Friedrich II. stand unter dem starken Einfluß vom römischen Rechtsdenken: man hat die Verordnungen der Könige hier in 204 Kapiteln in 3 Teilen kompiliert nach dem justinianischen "Codex". Wie das Corpus Juris die Novellae hat, so ist das sizilienische Gesetzbuch auch mit den späteren Verordnungen ergänzt. So hat die Edition urn 1250 253 bzw. 291 Kapitel. Durch die Ergänzung and Kommentierung erhielt das Gesetzbuch immer noch im 19 Pub. die Gesetzeskraft. Es rind die gebildeten Juristen wie Capuaner Erzbischoff Jacobus u. Petrus de Vinea, wer vom Kaiser mit der Bearbeitung beauftragt wurden. Es ist auch zu erinnern daran, daß Friedrich II. die Universität in Neapel gegründet hat (1224).
Dies würde alles auf die neue geistig-wissenschaftliche Strömung der Zeit u. den gesamteuropäischen Zusammenhang hinweisen, in dem der Kodex erst richtig verstanden werden könnte. Man sollte ihn mit der Gesetzgebung von Friedrich in Deutschland (Confederatio cum principibus ecclesiasticis von 1220, Statutum in favorem principum von 1231, Mainzer Landfrieden von 1235) zusammen in Betracht nehmen. Es war gerade die Zeit, in der sick die adelige od. kommunale Landesherrschaft sowohl im deutschen auch im italienischen Boden entwickelt hat. Das Papsttum u. das französische Königtum haben mit dem Kaisertum urn die Weltherrschaft gerungen. Die legislatorische Tätigkeit Friedrichs II. ist eine "innenpolitische" Maßnahme unter solchen Umständen, nämlich die Landfriedensbewegung. Sowohl das Verfassungs-u. öffentliches Recht im ersten Teil, auch das Zivil- u. Strafprozeßrecht im zweiten, auch das
Lehns-, materielle Zivil- u. Strafrecht im letzten des Buchs stellen alle zusammen die ernstliche Bestrebung des Kaisers um den Landfrieden nicht nur in Sizilien, sondern auch im Reich dar. Sollte doch das Landfriedensgesetz als das Vorbild für alle nachfolgende Fiirsten der Welt gelten. Hier im "Liber" tritt die Idee des "pax et iustitia". Und die Erhaltung der geläufigen u. gleichmäßigen Justiz-administration würde den Frieden and die Gerechtigkeit des Lands fördern. In diesem Sinn sind alle Bestimmungen des Buchs geregelt. Der "Liber Augustalis" ist also von der Idee her das Landfriedens-, vom Inhalt her das prozessuale Gesetz, dessen Ausbildung ohne Kanonistik unvorstellbar ist. Man dürfte die enge Beziehung der englischen mit der kontinentalen Rechtsentwicklung auch nicht zuletzt übersehen. Friedrich II. hat denn gerade die ähnliche Rolle in Sizilien gespielt wie Heinrich II. in England, zu schweigen von einer normannischen Rechtstradition. Wir müßten endlich vom nationalen zu einer gesamteuropäischen Rechtsgeschichtsforschung übergehen.

View full abstract

Japanese writers generally point out that the murder fine was introduced by William the Conqueror as a means of inflicting reprisals upon, and thus protecting his Norman followers against the attacks of native Saxons. For example, Professor Ikuo SATO emphasizes this aspect of the murder fine in order to support his view that England was subjugated by the duchy of Normandy after the Conquest. However, it seems to me that this approach, which attributes the existence of the murder fine only to the racial confrontation in the period immediately following the Conquest, is insufficient. Even though the original reason for the murder fine was undoubtedly to suppress the opposition of a subjugated people, one must also examine the legal foundations which enabled the Conqueror to adopt such a measure in the first place, and why it continued to exist until the middle of the fourteenth century, although racial antagonisms had already ended. In explaining this, one must take into account that fundamental changes had occurred in English criminal law in the century following the Conquest. Among these changes were the spread of the king's peace and the emergence of the public prosecution of crime. Also established was the idea that homicide in general was no longer emendable through payment to a slain man's relatives, but constituted a plea of the crown. The historical significance of the murder fine should be considered in light of these changes.
In this essay, I utilize the works of F. Liebermann, F.W. Maitland, H.E. Yntema, F.C. Hamil, N.D. Hurnard, C.A.F. Meekings and others to clarify these points. I first analyze the legal foundations of the murder fine as revealed in the Norman period law-books, in particular the Leges Henrici Primi. I also argue that transformations in the administration of the murder fine occurred for fiscal reasons.

View full abstract

It has long escaped the notice of historians that "Petitions" had much importance in the early history of English Parliament. W. Stubbs and his followers, looking from their traditional point of view of "the political assembly: of the Three Estates", treated "taxation" as the most important driving force of parliamentary history and counted petitions as naught. It owes the laborious work of Mr. H. G. Richardson and Professor.G. O. Sayles that petitions have gained a certain attention among the historians.
Richardson and Sayles produced an entirely new picture of the early parliaments, questioning, or even denying, the traditional picture of the political "representative" parliament of England. But they went too far to give a modest and. acceptable picture, by disavowing all the parts of the traditional theory both in function and in construction of parliament. The shortcomings of their theory now need to be re-considered and be corrected.
The author of this short article wants to make some arguments on this subject by considering such excellent but each isolated works on early petitions together, as the works of Richardson and Sayles, J: G. Edwards, H. L. Gray, A. F. Pollard, A. D. Mayers and D. Rayner. Thus arranging the ideas about early petitions and then re-considering them in the light of the printed rolls and documents, the author anticipates to show one more aspect of the changing phase of parliamentary function and construction than that she has already produced in another article.
The main points of this article are twofold. 1) The FUNCTION of early petitions: The earliest petitions had both judicial and executive or administrative charactors. In time, as the judicial charactor became, lost from the records of petitions on the parliament rolls, the executive or administrative records of petitions broke into two kinds, one called the "private" petitions, and the other the "common" petitions. Then even the "private" petitions faded away from the parliament rolls, and the "common" petitions became the only kind of the petitions on the rolls, . growing more and more legislative in charactor. 2) The PROCEDURE of early petitions: Keeping pace with these changes and developments of functions the procedure of petitions differentiated. There developed beside the older process of "private" petitions a new one of the "com-mon" petitions. But this could not mean that, as Richardson and Sayles thought, the former lost its real function in favour of the latter. The development of parliamentary offices in and after the late 14th century seems to show that those functional changes of petitions were, at least from one aspect, rather surface, and were only the results of differentiation of the system of record-making. Of course these differentiation is very important because this in turn suggests the emergence of certain differentiation of ideas of justice, legislation and administration. But the functioning body of parliament as a whole seemes still accumurative and attractive, rather the center of the whole government than some entirely re-constructed two Houses of political charactor.
The change and development of the function of early parliamentary petitions coincides with the change and development of the function of early parliaments as a whole, that is, from judicial to legislative. But this change and development was a very slow process, and through this process parliaments still kept and even developed to be the center of the whole government.

View full abstract

Wir müssen es bei der Forschung vom deutschen mittelalterlichen Stadtrecht voraussetzen, dass es zwischen Stadt and Land einen wesentlichen Unterschied gibt. Aber das bedeutet nicht, dass wir die gegenseitige Beziehung zwischen Stadt and Land nicht berücksichtigen dürfen. Nachdem der Stadtrat seit der zweiten Hälfte des. 13. Jahrhunderts die Willkürungsgewalt errungen hatte, bildete "Lübisches Recht, " das Recht der Fernhandelsstadt Lübeck, allmählich einen besonderen Rechtskreis. Aber das lübische Recht lag zurn Teil dem Recht der ländlichen Umgebung zugrunde. Also spiegelt das lübische Recht sich die obenerwähnte Beziehung zwischen Stadt and Land wider. Um these Beziehung zu erklären wollen wir die Territorialpolitik, die die Stadt gegen die ländliche Umgebung durchfiihrte, verfolgen and untersuchen.
Lübeck begann es seit der Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts Gebietsherrschaften auf die benachbarten Territorien, vor allem das Herzogtum Sachsen-Lauenburg, zu bilden.
Der Anlass dafiir sind folgende;
1. Das innerstaatliche Ausbau and die wirtschaftliche Kosolidierung der Stadt Lubeck
2. Die wirtschaftliche Bedrängnis der Feudalsichten, and die andauernde politische Unsicherheit im lauenburgischen Raum.
Nach der Erwerbung der Stadt and Vogtei Bergedorf 1370 überging die Landesherrschaft über die von Lübeck erworbenen Gebieten tatsächlich endgültig zu Lübeck.

View full abstract

In "the System of House" (Iye-system) of Japan, when a female House-Head (Onna-Koshu) married, this marriage was called "Nyufu Kon-in" which the husband entered into the wife's "House" (Iye). The law about which of the husband and the wife became the new House-Head after marriage varied from the early days of Meiji to the enforcement of the Civil Code of 1898.
The Proclamation No. 263 of "Dajokan" (the Council of State) in 1873 ordered that the wife had to transfer her status of the House-Head to her husband immediately after marriage. But we can see from "Ukagai-Shirei" (inquiries from the prefectures and instructions by the government) that the law of this proclamation could not be carried out perfectly and it was modified gradually. There were some cases that the wives remained the House-Head after marriage.
In the process of the codification of the Old Civil Code, this problem developed as shown under. The first draft of 1888 regulated that the husband became the House-Head. But the modification after that made the wife the House-Head and the husband a existance of the representative of the House-Head. This was succeeded to the Old Civil Code promulgated in 1890.
But the Controversy on the Civil Code arose and the Old Civil Code became void. Then the New Civil Code was codified and came into force in 1898. We'll call it the Meiji Civil Code (Meiji Mimpo).
The Meiji Civil Code regulated that the husband became the House-Head as a rule, but it recognized exceptionally that the wife remained the House-Head by the representation of the intent of the parties. But the relation of the rule and the exception of the Meiji Civil Code was reversed by the Family Register Law (Koseki-ho) of 1916.
Why did the law about the status of the House-Head after the marriage of a female House-Head(Nyufu Kon-in) vary as mentioned above? In order to answer this question, we must take notice that the status of the House-Head and the property of the "House" were indivisible in "the System of House".
When a female House-Head married and she transferred her status of House-Head to her husband, the whole property of the "House" belonged to him. By the way, the property of the "House" of those days was the economical foundation of the family's living. If the husband who became the House-Head wasted the property, the family's living would be endangered. In order to prevent this danger, it could not but be recognized that the wife remained the House-Head in spite of the contradiction to the ideology of "the System of House" in which men predominated over women.

View full abstract

Just before noon on September 1, 1923, a catastorophic earthquake of a magnitude of 7.9 widely struck Tokyo, capital of Japan, and surrounding areas. Consequently, to add to so much destruction, fires broke out, and several cities including Tokyo, Yokohama and Yokosuka were largely burnt to ashes. The damage was so much that the killed persons in total amounted to about 130, 000, and the home-lost to 2, 800, 000. This disaster has been called "The Great Earthquake of 1923".
The situation demanded some urgent countermeasures to maintain the public peace and order, and to give relief to a great deal of victims.
Then the Japanese Government practically executed a number of emergency orders provided in the Constitution to cope with the situation as promptly and strongly as possible.
Half the number of the emergency orders then issued were in substance related to the private rights of the sufferers or citizen in large.
Those contained the measures as follows; the national indemnity for requisition orders, the recovery of the lost private properties, the transaction of a great amount of suspended obligations, the recovery of the burnt official registration records of private rights, the financial measures for the reconstruction of the devastated, the national subrogation of benefits of fire assurances, the preservation of bank bills against a financial crisis, etc.
This is a study of the law-making respecting the emergency measures taken by the Japanese Government at the time of the 1923 great earthquake as mentioned above.

View full abstract