Author: admin

S a l e   a n d   C o m m u n i t y

Budapest, October 5-8. 2012

The next meeting of „Legal Documents in Ancient Societies“ (LDAS) will focus on the subject “Sale and Community”. In every society, the exchange of goods is strongly connected with an institutional environment: there are conventional forms of sale that are especially relevant for encouraging state control. State control would involve establishing the rights and obligations of the parties to a contract, as well as defining how certain commodities might be traded. Legal institutions affect transaction costs, including those involving search and enforcement, bargaining and decision, and enforcing property rights. Douglass North (1990) defines these institutions as “the rules of the game in a society or, more formally … the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction.”
The principal question with regard to “sale and community” concerns whether the institutional arrangements surrounding sale encouraged the efficient exchange of goods (e.g. through a lowering of transaction costs). What was the nature of the institutions and organizations that affected how sales were conducted? Were such institutions mainly the product of the state and its dependencies, or were they mediated through the market? Did the parties to a sale rely on the state or private means to enforce their contracts?
To give one example, the early Roman state intervened on behalf of Roman traders in international treaties. Polybius records the terms of the first treaty between Rome and Carthage (probably 508/7 BC) fixing the institutions for Roman traders selling goods on Carthagian territory (Polyb. 3,22,8): only sales through a keryx or grammateus were guaranteed by the state. Such regulations, or community controls, prescribe the place, the method and the main terms of sale contracts.
In the following I try to draft the main features of a possible treatment of the topic:
1. A short description of the period, language or culture to be discussed. We expect contributions to the main periods Ancient Near East cultures, Demotic papyri, Greek world, Egypt in Hellenistic period, Roman Egypt, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire and Arabic Egypt. Of course every speaker can choose a more specific focus and restrict his or her research to a shorter time these main cultural periods.
2. If several papers are devoted to the main periods, we will be able to have a deeper discussion with a cross-cultural comparison. The aim of a cross-cultural overview is to show the range of institutions that different ancient societies used to regulate sales.
3. The formal aspects of sale documents. What do we learn about the nature of sale from documents recording them? In this connection, it is important to consider what types of sales were typically contracted for in written documents, and which ones were not. Did the typical terms in such documents (contracting parties, object, price, payment, warranty for defects, witnesses, guarants) vary depending on the commodity being sold? What about the scribe? Did the parties prefer drafting by a scribe or did they set up the document by themselves?
4. To consider the institutional environment of sale, one common method of exercising community control over selling goods was sale by auction. What are the typical objects of auction sales (e.g. slaves, land, mining etc.)? How was an auction organized and financed (for example, was the price paid in advance by a banker)? To what extent was the state involved in auctions?
5. Finally, it is important to consider how sale contracts were enforced. Did the use of a written contract lead to enforcement through state courts or private means? How did parties to a sale adapt the form of their contract, for example, whether the contract was written or oral before witnesses, to the means of enforcement that they might call upon?
Abstracts for each period are welcome until 31. January 2012. A first selection will be carried out by the steering committee (S. Démare-Lafont, M. Depauw, M. Faraguna, E. Jakab, D. Kehoe, U. Yiftach-Firanko) in a few days after the deadline.
Proposals are asked to send to the following e-mail address: jakabeva@juris.u-szeged.hu

On 28 October, Paul Finkelman, President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy and Senior Fellow, Government Law Center, Albany Law School, Albany New York, delivered a paper entitled “Constitutional Slavery”. Deriving from his current research programme on slavery and the constitution, Professor Finkelman's topic attracted a wide audience from across the College. The reception was followed by dinner at a local Italian Restaurant

Professor Emeritus Archie Duncan of the University of Glasgow has produced a substantial and invaluable volume of Scottish formularies for the Stair Society. As well as formularies reflecting the Scottish ius proprium, there are also examples from the ius commune. In all, this volume is destined to throw considerable light on the history of Scots law.

Professor MacQueen, Literary Director of the Stair Society presented a copy to Professor Duncan at a a small reception in the University of Glasgow

The focus of the 98th Dies Natalis of the Erasmus University of Rotterdam is the work of the School of Law. While it has an impressive record with its blending of law, sociology and economics in its work, for this blog it is best known for its work in legal history. To mark the dies natalis, the Faculty of Law decided to award the degree of doctorate honoris causa to the late Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. Lord Rodger had accepted with pleasure. The degree will now be awarded posthumously, with the diploma accepted by his family. As well as the award of the degree, with a  laudatio by Professor Laurens Winkel, two lectures will be given on the theme of empirical legal studies.

From the  European Society for Comparative Legal History

CALL FOR PAPERS: Entanglements in Legal History: Conceptual Approaches to Global Legal History

Entanglements in Legal History:

Conceptual Approaches to Global Legal History

Conference of Legal Historian, Lucerne – 2-6 September 2012

Conference MPI, Frankfurt –

Global History, World History, Imperial History, Atlantic or Pacific History: the variety of transnational historiography is growing ever larger. Hitherto, legal historians have rarely participated in these discourses. On a favourable interpretation, one could argue that legal historians have always thought, researched and worked transnationally – yet this might have different reasons.

It is certain that, in legal history, the exchange and overlapping of different normative spheres beyond territorially-constrained statehood has been the norm: the tiered territorial and legal spheres of influence of antique empires, stratified societies with their regulations tied to civil status, the coexistence of secular normativity and clerical normativity intersecting the secular realm, and finally the complex processes of the period of the ‘Reception’ belong to the classic objects of legal historical research. It has also become clear that the encounter of two hitherto co-existing normative orders, through the intensified exchange and communication since the 16th and particularly during the 19th century in two waves of globalisation, has attracted the interest of legal history.

Legal historians can resort to an ample body of older and more recent research on entanglement processes. However, the growing amount of research also gives rise to the disparity between the terminology used in the description and analysis of these processes. There is a broad range of material on offer, often absorbed without major reflection. Frequently, there is a discourse on ‘reception’ without ever reaching the historiographical complexity of this concept, often reverting to terms such as ‘legal transplant’, ‘transfer’, ‘mixed legal systems’ or ‘legal pluralism’. In recent years, there have been augmented allusions to ‘mestizaje’, ‘pluralisation’ or ‘hybridisation’. In addition, there are manifold interpretations from the field of cultural sciences, such as the concept of ‘cultural translation’.

In light of this, there seems to be an urgent need for a reflection on the analytical and heuristic value of such terms. It could lead to an understanding, or at the very least to a raised awareness of the images and models associated with these concepts but also of the epistemic risks inherent in the multitude of images and metaphors for the description and analysis of entanglement processes. The discussion of these questions appears all the more important given that the work of legal history does not only depend on the accuracy of its analytical instruments but that it could offer concepts developed from historic-empirical research to the discourse with other disciplines, especially vis-à-vis the legal sciences.

The Max Planck Institute for European Legal History will discuss these questions within the framework of a conference in Frankfurt and a panel discussion at the 39th Rechtshistorikertag (Conference of Legal Historians) in Lucerne. Both events will take place in September 2012.

We ask all interested colleagues to submit proposals for approximately 20-minute contributions to these events which deal with the analysis of the above-described questions on the basis of case studies of (legal) history.

Please submit your proposals by 1 December 2011 in the form of an abstract of approximately 6,000 characters (including spaces = 2 A4 pages) in English or German. Please submit the proposals electronically (sekduve@rg.mpg.de).

We will select a small number of contributions for the 39th Rechtshistorikertag (Conference of Legal Historians) in Lucerne (2-6 September 2012) and, if applicable, a larger number for a conference at the Max Planck Institute for European Legal History in Frankfurt am Main, (planned in the week of 20 August 2012) by 15 January 2012.

The elaborated version of the contributions for both events should be on hand on 1 July 2012 so they can be made available to the participants of the events. A comprehensive English abstract is to be added to any German language publication. It is foreseen that selected contributions will be published after peer review.

The Max-Planck Institute will provide accommodation expenses for both conferences. It may be possible to obtain financial aid or even full coverage for travel expenditures.

For questions and any further correspondence, please contact Ms. Nicole Pasakarnis, Email: sekduve@rg.mpg.de.

The Peter Chiene Lecture 2011 was given by Professor Boudewijn Sirks of the University of Oxford, on 14 October, 2011 on the title“The Parallel Universes of Baker, Joblin and Julian: Causation and Law”. Professor Sirks elegantly explored parallels and comparisons.

The Lecture was established in memory of Peter Chiene, an Edinburgh law graduate, who had a particular interest in legal history, particularly of Scotland, and the relationship of Scots law with that of Europe. He died tragically young in a hill-walking accident.