« 法律渊源 » : différence entre les versions
Aucun résumé des modifications |
|||
Ligne 70 : | Ligne 70 : | ||
将习俗转化为成文法有几个好处。它使法律规则更加标准化,使其更易于理解和适用。此外,通过将这些习俗正式化,成文法可以确保规则的统一适用,从而提供更清晰、更公平的法律保护。然而,这种编纂过程并不意味着习俗失去了所有相关性。在某些情况下,成文法可能会为习俗的解释和适用留有余地,尤其是在立法未作规定或不够详细的领域。此外,即使在编纂之后,习俗也可能继续影响法律的解释和适用,尤其是在承认当地传统和习俗价值的法律体系中。习俗与法律之间的关系是动态和相互依存的。习俗往往可以为成文法的制定铺平道路,但它也继续在法律的制定和适用中发挥作用,即使在成文法占主导地位的现代社会也是如此。 | 将习俗转化为成文法有几个好处。它使法律规则更加标准化,使其更易于理解和适用。此外,通过将这些习俗正式化,成文法可以确保规则的统一适用,从而提供更清晰、更公平的法律保护。然而,这种编纂过程并不意味着习俗失去了所有相关性。在某些情况下,成文法可能会为习俗的解释和适用留有余地,尤其是在立法未作规定或不够详细的领域。此外,即使在编纂之后,习俗也可能继续影响法律的解释和适用,尤其是在承认当地传统和习俗价值的法律体系中。习俗与法律之间的关系是动态和相互依存的。习俗往往可以为成文法的制定铺平道路,但它也继续在法律的制定和适用中发挥作用,即使在成文法占主导地位的现代社会也是如此。 | ||
== | == 法律 == | ||
法律是现代法律体系的核心要素,发挥着多项重要功能。法律的特点是普遍性和抽象性,这意味着法律旨在适用于各种情况和人群,而不局限于个别或具体案件。这种概括性使规则可以统一适用于类似情况,从而确保法律体系的公平性和可预见性。作为法律渊源,法律规定了规则、义务和禁令。它规定了个人和组织必须遵守的行为标准,并规定了不遵守的法律后果。例如,法律可以规范商业、道路交通、财产权或合同关系等不同领域,也可以规定纳税或遵守环境标准等义务。 | |||
法律通常由议会或立法大会等立法机构制定和通过,代表着国家的权威。法律一旦通过,就必须得到所有社会成员的尊重,其实施通常由司法系统和国家执法机构来确保。因此,法律在构建社会、建立明确的权利和义务框架、提供解决冲突和维护社会秩序的机制方面发挥着根本性的作用。法律的普遍性和抽象性使其能够成为有效的治理工具,适应社会的变化和需求。 | |||
区分实质意义上的法律和形式意义上的法律,是理解现代法律体系中法律的性质和应用的基础。 | |||
实质意义上的法律是指任何规定法律规则或一套法律规则的行为。这一概念侧重于立法行为的内容,即它所规定的规则的性质。一个明显的例子是《联合国宪章》,它规定了国际关系的规则和原则。这类法律可以由各种机构颁布,只要它们有能力并按照正当程序行事。 | |||
另一方面,正式意义上的法律侧重于起草立法法案的程序。重点不在于法律的内容,而在于按照规定的形式和条件制定法律的方式。这一概念起源于十八世纪的革命时期,其思想基础是法律必须是主权人民或其代表的作品。它反映了这样一种观念,即自由人服从他自己制定的法律,而奴隶则服从专制者强加的法律。在这种情况下,正式意义上的法律是指由立法机构制定的法律,如国家或联邦一级的议会、州一级的大议会或地方一级的市镇议会。这些法律由选举产生的代表机构制定,表达了人民的意愿。 | |||
实质意义上的法律和形式意义上的法律之间的这种区别对于法律的解释和适用至关重要,因为它既强调了法律内容的重要性,也强调了法律制定过程的合法性。它确保法律不仅仅是任意制定的规则,而是反映集体意志并按照民主和透明的程序通过的规范。 | |||
瑞士法律制度的一个有趣特点是,制定法律规则并非议会的专属职责。在瑞士,行政部门虽然不是正式意义上的立法机构,但在制定法律规则方面发挥着重要作用。在许多情况下,瑞士行政部门有权颁布具有实质意义上的法律性质的规则。这意味着,即使这些规则没有通过正式的立法程序,但它们规定的义务、权利或行为标准与正式法律中的义务、权利或行为标准相似。这种行政权力通常以法规、命令或指令的形式行使。这种做法反映了一种务实的治理方法,即行政部门可以更灵活、更迅速地应对不一定需要议会正式立法的需求和情况。在需要详细专业知识的技术或特定领域,或在需要快速反应的紧急情况下,这一点可能尤为重要。 | |||
还应指出的是,瑞士的大多数法律规则都是由行政部门颁布的。这凸显了行政部门在日常监管和执行公共政策方面发挥的重要作用。不过,尽管行政部门在制定法律规范方面发挥着重要作用,瑞士的制度仍保持着国家不同权力之间的平衡。议会通过的正式法律为行政部门的运作提供了总体框架,而诉诸法律的可能性则确保了这一权力的行使始终符合法治原则。[[Fichier:Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999 - article 182.png|vignette|center|700px|[http://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/19995395/index.html Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999] - [http://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/19995395/index.html#a182 article 182]]]瑞士联邦联邦宪法》第182条为联邦委员会在立法过程和法律实施中的作用提供了一个明确的框架。这一宪法条款授权联邦委员会以法令的形式制定法律规范,但这一能力受到严格限制:必须得到宪法或法律的明确许可。这种做法确保了瑞士行政机构虽然积极参与法律规则的制定,但也是在上级法律文书规定的范围内进行的。例如,如果一项联邦法律明确授权联邦委员会通过法令规定某些技术或行政方面的问题,那么联邦委员会就可以合法地行使这一职能。 | |||
除了授权的立法职能外,联邦委员会还负责确保法律、联邦议会的决定和联邦司法当局的判决得到有效执行。这就需要积极致力于执行法律,并确保在实践中在全国范围内统一适用。这一责任对于确保法律和司法决定不会成为一纸空文,而是得到执行至关重要,而这对于法治的有效运作至关重要。 | |||
因此,第 182 条的规定说明了瑞士法律体系平衡立法和行政职能的方式。它反映了瑞士的联邦和民主结构,在这种结构中,权力得到共享和规范,以避免滥用权力,并确保政府各部门在其合法权限范围内行事。这一制度不仅确保制定适当和具体的法律规则,还确保其有效实施,而这两者都是瑞士社会稳定和公正的根本。[[Fichier:Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999 - article 163.png|vignette|center|700px|[http://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/19995395/index.html Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999] - [http://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/19995395/index.html#a163 article 163]]] | |||
瑞士联邦联邦宪法》第163条规定了联邦议会颁布的法令必须采取的形式,并对联邦法律、法令和联邦政令进行了区分。 | |||
根据该条款,当瑞士最高立法机构联邦议会制定法律规则时,必须以联邦法律或法令的形式制定。选择哪种形式取决于相关法规的性质和重要性。联邦法律一般用于范围广泛或原则性的问题,而法令则可用于更为具体或技术性的规定。本条第二段涉及联邦法令,这是立法行为的另一种形式。这些法令可以分为两类:需要全民公决的联邦法令和不需要全民公决的简单联邦法令。须经全民公决的联邦法令通常是特别重要的法令,可以付诸全民投票。而简单的联邦法令一般用于不需要直接征求民众意见的决定或措施。这种立法形式的结构安排反映了瑞士的民主和联邦制度,即根据其重要性和范围采用不同的立法形式。这使得立法过程具有极大的灵活性和适应性,同时确保瑞士人民按照直接民主的原则参与重大政治决策。 | |||
瑞士议会颁布的法令的性质凸显了不同类型立法行为在等级和功能上的重要区别。与法律或法令不同,法令一般不具有一般性和抽象性,这使其有别于传统的法律规则。瑞士联邦议会颁布的法令通常用于具体的决定或行动。它们可能涉及各种主题,如批准一项国际条约、决定一项具体的预算或开支,或与特定情况有关的措施。与旨在统一适用于各种情况和个人的联邦法律或法令不同,命令往往是详细和有针对性的。 | |||
尽管如此,命令并非笼统和抽象,这并不会降低其重要性。议会发布的命令是重要的法律行为,可以对治理或政策的具体方面产生相当大的影响。例如,批准一项国际条约的联邦法令使瑞士在国际舞台上做出承诺,尽管它并没有制定适用于全体瑞士人的一般规则。法律(一般和抽象)与法令(更具体和详细)之间的这种区别是瑞士立法体系的一个基本特征,反映了其复杂性及其满足各种立法和政治需求的能力。 | |||
就瑞士议会颁布的法令而言,实质意义上的法律和形式意义上的法律之间的区别对于理解这些立法行为的性质至关重要。尽管法令不是实质意义上的法律(因为它没有规定一般的、抽象的法律规则),但由于其起源,它可以被视为形式意义上的法律。由于法令是由议会这一官方立法机构颁布的,因此法令具有形式上的合法性。这种正式性指的是通过法令的程序和机构,而不是法令的内容或适用。 | |||
这一区别在瑞士法律体系中非常重要。它表明,即使一项法令没有制定适用于所有人的一般法律规则,但由于其来源,它仍然是一项重要的法律行为: 议会。这凸显了瑞士议会可利用的立法工具的多样性,以满足不同的治理要求,无论是通过一般规则(实质意义上的法律),还是就具体问题做出决定(法令)。这种方法使立法过程具有灵活性,可以根据需要和情况采用不同类型的法案,同时确保所有法案都经过民主和合法的程序。 | |||
大多数正式意义上的法律,即议会或正式立法机构通过的法案,也是实质性意义上的法律,因为它们确立了适用于各种情况的一般性抽象法律规则。除了某些由议会正式通过但不一定确立一般法律规则的联邦法令外,大多数正式法律也是实体法。然而,情况并非总是相反。并非所有实质意义上的法律(即规定法律规则的规范)都一定是形式意义上的法律。换句话说,法律规则可以通过议会正式立法以外的方式确立。例如,这些规则可能来自行政部门(如联邦委员会)发布的法令或指令,作为其授权的一部分。虽然它们确立了法律规则(因此是实质性的),但它们并不是通过正式立法程序通过的(因此不是正式的)。正式法律和实质性法律之间的这种区别非常重要,因为它反映了制定法律规则过程的多样性和复杂性。它显示了政府的不同部门如何为法律框架的发展做出贡献,允许立法机构和行政机构之间进行分工,并确保在适应和应对不同的法律要求和挑战时具有灵活性。 | |||
= | = 法律的物质来源 = | ||
== The case law == | == The case law == |
Version du 12 décembre 2023 à 10:39
从社会学和哲学角度对法律渊源的研究超越了简单的法律条文和司法判决的识别。这种方法认为,法律源于社会生活的深处,反映了一个社区的习俗、价值观、信仰和惯例。根据这种观点,法律规范被视为现有社会规则的形式化,说明了法律是如何从社会中自然产生的,而不是简单地从外部强加的。
因此,法律被视为一种动态现象,随着社会观念、经济结构和权力关系的变化而不断演变。例如,对少数人权利的认识或对环境的态度的变化导致了新的立法和公共政策。这些变化表明,法律可以根据社会的新现实和新要求进行调整和重新制定。
这种方法还凸显了法律与社会之间复杂的互动关系。法律既是社会规范的一面镜子,也是社会变革的工具。例如,性别平等法不仅反映了人们对妇女态度的变化,还在促进性别平等方面发挥着积极作用。最后,法律体系中不同参与者的作用至关重要。立法者、法官、律师和公民本身都对法律的解释和实施做出了贡献,他们往往受到自身观点和利益的影响。这些参与者通过自己的行动和决定来塑造法律,使法律程序不仅是规则的应用,也是社 会中不同观点和利益之间的持续互动。
正式法律渊源与实质性法律渊源的区别
区分正式法律渊源和实质性法律渊源对于理解法律规则是如何产生的以及形成这些规则的影响因素至关重要。
正式或直接的法律渊源是制定和表达法律规则的正式手段。它们包括立法等,议会和其他立法机构通过法律来界定具体的权利和义务。判例法是另一种重要的正式渊源,涉及在具体案件中解释和适用法律的法院判决。这些正式渊源具有约束力和直接的法律权威,这意味着法院、政府和公民必须遵守和应用它们。
另一方面,法律的物质来源或间接来源代表了促进法律内容产生和演变的影响和因素。这些来源包括广泛的社会、文化、经济和政治现象。例如,社会运动、公众态度的变化、经济发展和政治意识形态都会影响新法律的制定或现有法律的修改。物质渊源本身并不是法律规则,但它们在形成法律的实质和内容方面起着至关重要的作用。
正式渊源是法律确立和表达的官方授权方式,而物质渊源则是影响法律内容和演变的各种因素和影响。这种区分突出了正式法律结构与影响法律发展的更广泛的社会和文化动态之间的相互作用。
法律的正式渊源
法律发展史表明,正式法律渊源的性质和主导地位会随着社会和政治组织的变化而变化。
在组织程度较低或较古老的社会中,习惯作为正式的法律渊源往往发挥着核心作用。习俗是一个社会长期接受的惯例和传统,是法律规则的主要基础。这些规则没有文字记载,而是通过传统和社会共识传承和应用。然而,随着社会的发展和组织化程度的提高,特别是民族国家和更加复杂的政治制度的出现,成文法的作用变得越来越重要。现代法律体系的特点是由官方立法机构制定和通过的成文法律规则。这些成文法有许多优点,包括更加清晰、适用统一以及更容易适应社会和技术变革。
在当代社会,成文法已成为最主要的正式法律渊源。这并不意味着习惯等其他来源已完全消失,但它们在大多数现代法律体系中的作用已不再那么重要。这是因为在复杂和快速变化的社会中,成文法能够更精确、更系统地调节社会、经济和政治关系。
习惯
习惯是一种不成文的法律渊源,产生于一个社区内反复出现的既定惯例。当社区认为这些惯例具有法律约束力时,它就成为法律规则。这种约束力是集体接受的结果,而不是书面正式化的结果。历史上,在许多社会中,习俗在规范行为方面发挥着核心作用。例如,在许多农村社区,习俗对农业用地的使用、水的分享或社区内冲突的解决都有规定。这些规则没有成文,但却像现代社会的成文法一样受到尊重和严格遵守。
在当代社会,虽然成文法在法律体系中占主导地位,但习俗仍在发挥作用,尤其是在法律没有规定或规定不明确的领域。在某些情况下,法院会参考习惯做法来解释立法或填补立法空白。例如,在国际贸易法中,长期以来形成的某些商业标准和惯例,即使没有编入条约或法规,也经常得到法院的认可和适用。此外,在国际法中,习惯也发挥着重要作用。在编入条约之前,国家主权和外交等原则在很大程度上受国际习惯的制约。作为法律的渊源,习惯说明了法律规范是如何从社会的实践和信仰中有机产生的。它表明,法律不仅仅是一套从上而下强加的规则,也可以从社会内部建立的社会互动和惯例中产生。
习惯是公认的最古老的法律形式,长期以来一直是许多社会的主要法律渊源。正如吉利森(Gilissen)所指出的,在历史上,尤其是十世纪到十二世纪之间,习惯代表了西方社会法律的大部分渊源。这种主导地位是由于缺乏正式的法律制度和成文法,使得当地的传统和习俗成为规范社会行为和解决争端的关键。然而,随着现代民族国家的出现和正式法律制度的发展,习俗的重要性已大大降低。在过去的两百多年里,成文法已成为法律的主要渊源,反映了快速变化的社会需求以及对更精确、更详细的法律规范的需求。例如,许多欧洲国家在十九世纪通过的民法典和刑法典标志着一个分水岭,即从以习惯为基础的法律体系转变为以成文法为主导的法律体系。
然而,习俗并没有被完全摒弃。在某些领域和法律体系中,习惯仍然发挥着重要作用。例如,在混合法律体系中,习惯与成文法一起得到承认和使用。同样,在国际法中,习惯规范继续制约着国家间关系的某些方面。此外,在某些地方社区或土著民族中,习惯仍是社会和法律规范的重要基础。习惯在现代法律体系中的作用越来越小,这说明法律随着时间的推移在不断演变,其标志是从基于传统习俗的体系过渡到基于正式确立的成文法的体系。这种演变反映了法律对当代社会复杂多变的需求的适应,同时也强调了习惯在对法律的整体理解中的历史重要性和持续重要性。
习惯产生于特定群体的反复实践,并被该群体成员视为具有法律约束力。在成文法缺失、模棱两可或不足的情况下,习惯往往发挥着至关重要的作用。习俗的动态性质是一个重要方面。它们随着相关群体的习俗和信仰的变化而演变。如果一个群体的习俗随着时间的推移而改变,那么与这些习俗相关的风俗也会随之改变。这一过程使习俗保持相关性,并适应社区当前的社会现实。
习俗也可能因明确废除或过时而消失。当新的成文法与某一习俗发生冲突并正式废除该习俗时,习俗就会废除。当某一习俗的基本做法不再得到社区的遵守或认可,从而使该习俗过时时,该习俗就会失效。例如,在许多农村社会,习俗规定了对土地和自然资源的共同管理。随着城市化和有关土地所有权和使用权的正式法律的出台,这些习俗往往被取代或修改,以适应新的法律和社会现实。习俗的这种适应、演变或消失的能力凸显了其有机性质及其与社区习俗和需求的密切联系。尽管在现代法律体系中,成文法占主导地位,但习惯仍发挥着重要作用,尤其是在立法不太详细的地区或传统影响较大的社区。
习惯在法律中的构成要素对于理解其发展及其作为法律渊源的认可至关重要。一个关键的方面是长期使用,这就要求一种惯例被长期、反复地遵循,通常需要相当长的时间,如四十年。这种持久性确保了该惯例不仅仅是一种一时的潮流,而是社区行为规范中不可或缺的、公认的一部分。例如,在一些农村社区,经过几代人的实践,传统的分水或土地管理方法已经获得了法律习俗的地位。同时,"必要确信"(opinio necessitatis)或 "习俗的使用具有强制性 "的信念也至关重要。这种信念强化了一种观念,即习俗不仅是一种习惯,而且具有法律约束力。社区成员遵守习俗并非出于自愿,而是因为他们认为自己有法律义务这样做。这种观念将简单的社会习俗转化为具有法律效力的习惯规则。某些文化中的婚姻或继承习俗就是一个具体的例子,在这些文化中,人们遵循传统不仅是出于对习俗的尊重,还因为这些传统被视为法律义务。
这些因素,即长期使用和必要确念,相互作用,将习惯行为提升到法律地位。它们强调了在社区中经常遵守和根深蒂固的惯例如何演变成为法律体系中公认的组成部分。这种将社会习俗转化为法律规则的过程强调了习惯作为法律渊源的有机性和社区性。
作为一种法律渊源,习惯的特点在于它的起源及其对所产生社区习俗的适应。它反映了人民的意愿,并随着社会和文化习俗的演变而变化。这赋予了它动态和灵活的特点,使其能够与社会当前的价值观和需求紧密结合。然而,习俗的口头性质和正式文件的缺乏会给法律的确定性带来挑战。成文法的措辞和适用在官方文本中都有明确规定,而习俗则不同,它往往依赖于口头传播和集体解释。这使得它们的存在和精确参数有时难以确定。在法律诉讼中,通常由援引习惯的一方来证明其存在和适用。这种举证需求会使习惯的使用复杂化,尤其是在习惯做法未得到广泛认可或对其解释存在分歧的情况下。尽管存在这些挑战,但根据 "法院知法 "原则,法官应了解法律。这一原则意味着法官不仅应了解成文法,还应了解在其管辖范围内适用的习惯。因此,他们能够在没有具体成文立法的情况下解释和适用习惯,或澄清法律未解决的法律问题。
法律可被视为通过习俗获得的经验和惯例的结晶或书面正式化。在许多情况下,成文法的出现是为了编纂和规范已有的习惯做法,使其更加清晰和统一。在现代社会,习惯在法律体系中的作用已退居次要地位,这主要是因为成文法的主导地位和精确性。在成文法沉默、模糊或不完整的情况下,习惯往往会发挥作用。在这种情况下,习惯做法可作为解释或填补法律空白的指南。例如,在国际法的某些领域,在没有正式条约或协定的情况下,国际习惯做法可以发挥重要作用。然而,习惯并不局限于辅助作用。在某些司法管辖区,尤其是那些遵循混合法体系或承认土著人民权利的司法管辖区,习惯可能具有更重要的地位。此外,在国际贸易法等领域,即使没有正式立法,某些商业习惯做法也被广泛接受和适用。
1907 年 12 月 10 日颁布的《瑞士民法典》第 1 条为我们揭示了瑞士法律体系如何处理法律的适用和解释问题。首先,这部法律确立了法律的至高无上地位,规定所有事项都必须受法律规定的约束,无论是明文规定还是根据法律精神理解。这强调了成文法在瑞士法律秩序中的根本重要性,反映出瑞士人明显倾向于制定明确的指令。然而,第 1 条也承认成文法无法直接解答法律问题的情况。在这种情况下,第 1 条规定法官有责任求助于习惯法。如果没有可适用的习惯法,则请法官根据其作为立法者时会使用的原则做出裁决。这一规定赋予瑞士法官极大的自由和责任,使他们能够根据自己对公正和公平基本原则的理解来解释法律并填补任何空白。
该条还强调了理论和判例法的重要性。鼓励法官借鉴学术著作和以往的司法判决来指导其判决。这确保了判决不是在真空中做出的,而是以既定的法律知识和判例为基础。本文所反映的瑞士法律的方法说明了成文法的严谨性与处理法律沉默、模糊或不完整情况所需的灵活性之间的平衡。它展示了一个法律体系如何有效地将各种法律渊源结合起来,以确保司法的一致性和公正性。
1912 年《瑞士民法典》中的习惯法概念反映了瑞士联邦性质所特有的方法。在这种情况下,习惯法被理解为在瑞士联邦范围内的一套法律惯例和规范。这意味着,当法官使用习惯法判案时,他或她所适用的是在瑞士全境得到认可和遵守的习惯。鉴于瑞士的联邦制结构,不同的州拥有不同的法律制度和传统,因此这种方法尤为重要。因此,联邦一级的习惯法可作为一个共同的参考框架,供全国法官使用。不过,这些习惯不得与地区特性相冲突。换句话说,适用的习惯法不得与瑞士某一地区特有的习俗或法律相冲突。这种制度允许在一定程度上统一法律的适用,同时尊重当地的特殊性。它反映了国家统一和地区多样性之间的平衡,这是瑞士治理的一项基本原则。1912年的《瑞士民法典》在联邦一级承认习惯法,从而促进了法律适用的全国一致性和对各州特点的敏感性。
从历史上看,在许多法律体系中,习惯往往是正式法律的基础。当一个社区内出现并确立的惯例和规范最终以成文法的形式编纂时,就会出现这一过程。这种现象可以在各种法律和历史背景下观察到。例如,在古代或传统社会中,有关贸易、财产、婚姻或继承的规则最初是以当地习俗为基础的。随着时间的推移,这些习惯做法被正式化并纳入成文法体系,以确保更高的一致性、清晰度和可及性。
将习俗转化为成文法有几个好处。它使法律规则更加标准化,使其更易于理解和适用。此外,通过将这些习俗正式化,成文法可以确保规则的统一适用,从而提供更清晰、更公平的法律保护。然而,这种编纂过程并不意味着习俗失去了所有相关性。在某些情况下,成文法可能会为习俗的解释和适用留有余地,尤其是在立法未作规定或不够详细的领域。此外,即使在编纂之后,习俗也可能继续影响法律的解释和适用,尤其是在承认当地传统和习俗价值的法律体系中。习俗与法律之间的关系是动态和相互依存的。习俗往往可以为成文法的制定铺平道路,但它也继续在法律的制定和适用中发挥作用,即使在成文法占主导地位的现代社会也是如此。
法律
法律是现代法律体系的核心要素,发挥着多项重要功能。法律的特点是普遍性和抽象性,这意味着法律旨在适用于各种情况和人群,而不局限于个别或具体案件。这种概括性使规则可以统一适用于类似情况,从而确保法律体系的公平性和可预见性。作为法律渊源,法律规定了规则、义务和禁令。它规定了个人和组织必须遵守的行为标准,并规定了不遵守的法律后果。例如,法律可以规范商业、道路交通、财产权或合同关系等不同领域,也可以规定纳税或遵守环境标准等义务。
法律通常由议会或立法大会等立法机构制定和通过,代表着国家的权威。法律一旦通过,就必须得到所有社会成员的尊重,其实施通常由司法系统和国家执法机构来确保。因此,法律在构建社会、建立明确的权利和义务框架、提供解决冲突和维护社会秩序的机制方面发挥着根本性的作用。法律的普遍性和抽象性使其能够成为有效的治理工具,适应社会的变化和需求。
区分实质意义上的法律和形式意义上的法律,是理解现代法律体系中法律的性质和应用的基础。
实质意义上的法律是指任何规定法律规则或一套法律规则的行为。这一概念侧重于立法行为的内容,即它所规定的规则的性质。一个明显的例子是《联合国宪章》,它规定了国际关系的规则和原则。这类法律可以由各种机构颁布,只要它们有能力并按照正当程序行事。
另一方面,正式意义上的法律侧重于起草立法法案的程序。重点不在于法律的内容,而在于按照规定的形式和条件制定法律的方式。这一概念起源于十八世纪的革命时期,其思想基础是法律必须是主权人民或其代表的作品。它反映了这样一种观念,即自由人服从他自己制定的法律,而奴隶则服从专制者强加的法律。在这种情况下,正式意义上的法律是指由立法机构制定的法律,如国家或联邦一级的议会、州一级的大议会或地方一级的市镇议会。这些法律由选举产生的代表机构制定,表达了人民的意愿。
实质意义上的法律和形式意义上的法律之间的这种区别对于法律的解释和适用至关重要,因为它既强调了法律内容的重要性,也强调了法律制定过程的合法性。它确保法律不仅仅是任意制定的规则,而是反映集体意志并按照民主和透明的程序通过的规范。
瑞士法律制度的一个有趣特点是,制定法律规则并非议会的专属职责。在瑞士,行政部门虽然不是正式意义上的立法机构,但在制定法律规则方面发挥着重要作用。在许多情况下,瑞士行政部门有权颁布具有实质意义上的法律性质的规则。这意味着,即使这些规则没有通过正式的立法程序,但它们规定的义务、权利或行为标准与正式法律中的义务、权利或行为标准相似。这种行政权力通常以法规、命令或指令的形式行使。这种做法反映了一种务实的治理方法,即行政部门可以更灵活、更迅速地应对不一定需要议会正式立法的需求和情况。在需要详细专业知识的技术或特定领域,或在需要快速反应的紧急情况下,这一点可能尤为重要。
还应指出的是,瑞士的大多数法律规则都是由行政部门颁布的。这凸显了行政部门在日常监管和执行公共政策方面发挥的重要作用。不过,尽管行政部门在制定法律规范方面发挥着重要作用,瑞士的制度仍保持着国家不同权力之间的平衡。议会通过的正式法律为行政部门的运作提供了总体框架,而诉诸法律的可能性则确保了这一权力的行使始终符合法治原则。
瑞士联邦联邦宪法》第182条为联邦委员会在立法过程和法律实施中的作用提供了一个明确的框架。这一宪法条款授权联邦委员会以法令的形式制定法律规范,但这一能力受到严格限制:必须得到宪法或法律的明确许可。这种做法确保了瑞士行政机构虽然积极参与法律规则的制定,但也是在上级法律文书规定的范围内进行的。例如,如果一项联邦法律明确授权联邦委员会通过法令规定某些技术或行政方面的问题,那么联邦委员会就可以合法地行使这一职能。
除了授权的立法职能外,联邦委员会还负责确保法律、联邦议会的决定和联邦司法当局的判决得到有效执行。这就需要积极致力于执行法律,并确保在实践中在全国范围内统一适用。这一责任对于确保法律和司法决定不会成为一纸空文,而是得到执行至关重要,而这对于法治的有效运作至关重要。
因此,第 182 条的规定说明了瑞士法律体系平衡立法和行政职能的方式。它反映了瑞士的联邦和民主结构,在这种结构中,权力得到共享和规范,以避免滥用权力,并确保政府各部门在其合法权限范围内行事。这一制度不仅确保制定适当和具体的法律规则,还确保其有效实施,而这两者都是瑞士社会稳定和公正的根本。
瑞士联邦联邦宪法》第163条规定了联邦议会颁布的法令必须采取的形式,并对联邦法律、法令和联邦政令进行了区分。
根据该条款,当瑞士最高立法机构联邦议会制定法律规则时,必须以联邦法律或法令的形式制定。选择哪种形式取决于相关法规的性质和重要性。联邦法律一般用于范围广泛或原则性的问题,而法令则可用于更为具体或技术性的规定。本条第二段涉及联邦法令,这是立法行为的另一种形式。这些法令可以分为两类:需要全民公决的联邦法令和不需要全民公决的简单联邦法令。须经全民公决的联邦法令通常是特别重要的法令,可以付诸全民投票。而简单的联邦法令一般用于不需要直接征求民众意见的决定或措施。这种立法形式的结构安排反映了瑞士的民主和联邦制度,即根据其重要性和范围采用不同的立法形式。这使得立法过程具有极大的灵活性和适应性,同时确保瑞士人民按照直接民主的原则参与重大政治决策。
瑞士议会颁布的法令的性质凸显了不同类型立法行为在等级和功能上的重要区别。与法律或法令不同,法令一般不具有一般性和抽象性,这使其有别于传统的法律规则。瑞士联邦议会颁布的法令通常用于具体的决定或行动。它们可能涉及各种主题,如批准一项国际条约、决定一项具体的预算或开支,或与特定情况有关的措施。与旨在统一适用于各种情况和个人的联邦法律或法令不同,命令往往是详细和有针对性的。
尽管如此,命令并非笼统和抽象,这并不会降低其重要性。议会发布的命令是重要的法律行为,可以对治理或政策的具体方面产生相当大的影响。例如,批准一项国际条约的联邦法令使瑞士在国际舞台上做出承诺,尽管它并没有制定适用于全体瑞士人的一般规则。法律(一般和抽象)与法令(更具体和详细)之间的这种区别是瑞士立法体系的一个基本特征,反映了其复杂性及其满足各种立法和政治需求的能力。
就瑞士议会颁布的法令而言,实质意义上的法律和形式意义上的法律之间的区别对于理解这些立法行为的性质至关重要。尽管法令不是实质意义上的法律(因为它没有规定一般的、抽象的法律规则),但由于其起源,它可以被视为形式意义上的法律。由于法令是由议会这一官方立法机构颁布的,因此法令具有形式上的合法性。这种正式性指的是通过法令的程序和机构,而不是法令的内容或适用。
这一区别在瑞士法律体系中非常重要。它表明,即使一项法令没有制定适用于所有人的一般法律规则,但由于其来源,它仍然是一项重要的法律行为: 议会。这凸显了瑞士议会可利用的立法工具的多样性,以满足不同的治理要求,无论是通过一般规则(实质意义上的法律),还是就具体问题做出决定(法令)。这种方法使立法过程具有灵活性,可以根据需要和情况采用不同类型的法案,同时确保所有法案都经过民主和合法的程序。
大多数正式意义上的法律,即议会或正式立法机构通过的法案,也是实质性意义上的法律,因为它们确立了适用于各种情况的一般性抽象法律规则。除了某些由议会正式通过但不一定确立一般法律规则的联邦法令外,大多数正式法律也是实体法。然而,情况并非总是相反。并非所有实质意义上的法律(即规定法律规则的规范)都一定是形式意义上的法律。换句话说,法律规则可以通过议会正式立法以外的方式确立。例如,这些规则可能来自行政部门(如联邦委员会)发布的法令或指令,作为其授权的一部分。虽然它们确立了法律规则(因此是实质性的),但它们并不是通过正式立法程序通过的(因此不是正式的)。正式法律和实质性法律之间的这种区别非常重要,因为它反映了制定法律规则过程的多样性和复杂性。它显示了政府的不同部门如何为法律框架的发展做出贡献,允许立法机构和行政机构之间进行分工,并确保在适应和应对不同的法律要求和挑战时具有灵活性。
法律的物质来源
The case law
Case law, which encompasses all the decisions handed down by the courts and other authorities applying the law, is a fundamental element of the legal system. It includes not only the verdicts and rulings issued by these bodies, but also the principles, reasoning and solutions adopted in these decisions.
A crucial aspect of case law is its role in interpreting the law. Through their decisions, the courts clarify and give meaning to legislative texts, sometimes interpreting them in such a way as to respond to complex or novel cases. For example, a supreme court may interpret a constitutional provision in such a way as to resolve a conflict of rights, thereby influencing the way in which the provision will be applied in the future. In addition, case law is used to create precedents, particularly in common law systems, where the decisions of the higher courts form a basis on which the lower courts base their own judgments. This system of precedents ensures the consistency and stability of the law, by ensuring that similar cases are treated in a similar way.
Case law also plays an essential role in filling legislative gaps. In situations where the law is silent or ambiguous, the courts can develop appropriate legal solutions. For example, when faced with emerging issues relating to technology or privacy, the courts can interpret the law in such a way as to protect the rights of individuals in an evolving context. Finally, judicial decisions can reflect and influence social values and norms. Courts, in interpreting and applying the law, often adapt the law to changing social attitudes. Historical decisions on civil rights and individual freedoms illustrate how case law can both reflect and guide social change. Case law, as a body of judicial decisions, is a dynamic and living source of law. It represents an accumulation of legal knowledge and plays a vital role in the ongoing development and adaptation of the legal system in the face of new and complex challenges.
Case law, which is made up of the sentences and judgments handed down by the courts, is a living and evolving source of law. It is particularly crucial in situations where there are no written rules of law specifically applicable to a given case. When a judge is faced with a case where written law is absent or insufficient, he or she often turns to case law for guidance. This involves looking for previous decisions made by other judges in similar cases. These precedents provide a frame of reference and help to ensure consistency in the application of the law. For example, a judge dealing with a civil liability case might look to previous decisions to determine how to assess negligence or damage.
However, case law is not rigid. A key aspect of its use is the judge's ability to depart from previous decisions if the circumstances of the current case warrant it. If a judge considers that the conditions or circumstances of a current case differ significantly from those of previous cases, or if new legal, social or technological developments make it necessary, he or she may choose to rule differently. This flexibility is essential to enable the law to adapt and evolve with the times and changes in society. Case law, as such, is a balance between continuity and adaptation, providing a stable legal framework while allowing for necessary adjustments to respond to emerging challenges and changing circumstances. This demonstrates the dynamic nature of the law and the crucial role of judges in its interpretation and development.
The term "precedent-setting" is used when a court decision is considered to set an important precedent that may influence future decisions in similar cases. This concept is fundamental to the operation of the legal system, particularly in countries where case law plays a predominant role. In Switzerland, although the legal system is not based on common law (where case law plays a central role), court decisions, particularly those of the high courts, are of significant importance. These rulings, often referred to as "jurisprudential solutions", serve as a guide to the interpretation and application of laws. They can shed light on grey areas in legislation or provide guidance on how to deal with complex legal cases.
Praetorian solutions, a term that originated in the Roman legal system, refer to decisions made by judges (praetors in ancient Rome) who, in the absence of specific laws, created rules to resolve disputes. In the modern context, the term is sometimes used to describe judicial decisions that establish new principles or interpret the law in innovative ways. In Switzerland, as in other legal systems, case law and praetorian solutions play a crucial role in the development and adaptation of the law. Not only do they make it possible to fill legislative gaps, they also help to adapt the legal system to social and technological developments, thereby ensuring that the law remains relevant and effective.
The doctrine
Doctrine refers to all opinions, analyses, interpretations and commentaries on the law expressed by jurists, academics, researchers and legal practitioners. These individuals devote themselves primarily to the study, teaching or practice of law, and their work contributes significantly to the understanding and development of the law. Doctrinal contributions take many forms, including articles in law journals, books, commentaries on legislation or case law, and reviews of judicial decisions. These writings are often used to explore complex legal issues, propose interpretations of the law, criticise or support judicial decisions, and suggest improvements or reforms to the legal system. Although legal doctrine is not a binding source of law like statute law or case law, it plays an important role in the development of the law. Doctrinal works often influence legislation, case law and the formation of public policy. They also serve as a valuable resource for lawyers, judges and law students, providing in-depth analysis and informed perspectives on various aspects of the law.
The increased production of legislative texts is accompanied by an increase in the volume of doctrinal works. Doctrinal writers are increasingly seeking to keep pace with rapid legal developments and to respond to the immediate questions posed by these changes. This focus on immediacy has significant implications. On the one hand, it ensures that legal doctrine remains relevant and directly applicable to contemporary issues. Lawyers, practitioners and decision-makers have access to analyses and commentaries that reflect the current state of the law and emerging legal challenges. On the other hand, this focus on current issues can reduce the ability of legal doctrine to offer a long-term perspective. When work focuses primarily on immediate issues or rapid responses to new legislation, there may be a lack of global vision and deep reflection on underlying trends and principles. This lack of perspective can limit the ability of legal scholarship to provide a holistic and balanced understanding of the law, which is crucial to its thoughtful development and long-term coherence. It is therefore important for legal doctrine to strike a balance between responsiveness and long-term vision. While it is essential to respond to current challenges, it is also important to maintain a global perspective that enables the law to be understood in its wider context and to make a significant contribution to its evolution and understanding.
Legal doctrine, an essential pillar of the study and application of the law, is made up of various types of works, each playing a unique role in the dissemination of legal knowledge. At the heart of the legal literature are treatises, comprehensive works that provide a systematic examination of a specific branch of law or field. A treatise on constitutional law, for example, would cover in detail the fundamental principles, case law and relevant theories. These works are often regarded as essential references in their field. Textbooks or manuals, on the other hand, are sub-categories of treatises, but with a more synthetic and pedagogical orientation. Intended primarily for teaching purposes, they provide a clear, structured introduction to an area of law, making the subjects accessible, particularly to students. A civil law textbook, for example, would present the basic concepts and rules of this branch of law in a concise manner. The commentary, another type of doctrinal work, focuses on the analysis of a specific court decision, law or doctrinal text. For example, a commentary on a Supreme Court decision might explore the implications of the decision, discuss its context and analyse its impact on future case law. Monographs deal with specific legal issues in depth. These studies, often doctoral dissertations or post-doctoral research, may explore specialised or emerging legal topics. For example, a monograph might look at the legal implications of artificial intelligence. Articles, which are generally shorter, can be found in specialist journals or collective works. They often deal with contemporary or specific legal issues, offering targeted analyses of aspects of the law. An article in a commercial law journal might, for example, discuss recent developments in contract law. Finally, official editions of legal texts, such as law reports, are often accompanied by commentaries and analyses. These publications are crucial to understanding the text of the law in its context, providing clarifications and explanations.
The diversity of doctrinal publications plays a crucial role in enriching the legal landscape. Each type of publication brings its own perspective and depth of analysis, making a significant contribution to the understanding and development of the law. Treatises, with their exhaustive coverage of an area of law, provide a solid foundation of knowledge, offering an in-depth understanding of principles and theories. Textbooks and manuals, on the other hand, make the law accessible to a wider audience, particularly students, by presenting concepts in a structured and pedagogical way. Commentaries, by focusing on specific judicial decisions or legislative texts, help practitioners and academics to understand and interpret the implications of these decisions in practical contexts. Monographs address targeted legal issues, often exploring new frontiers or offering innovative perspectives on complex subjects. Law review articles provide an ongoing dialogue on current legal issues, stimulating debate and reflection. Official editions of legal texts, supplemented by expert commentary, are invaluable resources for understanding current law and its application. Together, these different forms of doctrinal publication form a rich and dynamic ecosystem that fuels the development of the law. They provide an essential basis for legal decision-making, legal education, research and legislative reform, playing an indispensable role in the perpetuation and evolution of the legal system.
Today, legal doctrine is widely recognised as an authority on the law, providing analyses, interpretations and commentaries that influence the understanding and application of the law. Although it is not a binding source of law in the same way as legislation or case law, its influence is undeniable in shaping judicial decisions, legislative policy and legal practice. Historically, doctrine has played an even more direct role in the creation of law. In certain periods and jurisdictions, the writings of jurists and legal theorists were considered to be formal sources of law. For example, during the Renaissance in Europe, jurists' commentaries and interpretations of Roman law were often treated as legitimate sources of law, directly influencing judicial decisions and legal practice. These doctrinal works were sometimes so respected that they were cited by judges as almost authoritative authorities. Today, although doctrine is not formally recognised as a source of law, its role remains essential. It helps to clarify and guide the interpretation of the law, offers critical perspectives on case law and contributes to the discussion and evolution of legal concepts. Doctrinal work continues to play a key role in the education and training of lawyers, and in the way the law is understood, taught and practised.
In ancient Rome, legal doctrine played a dominant role in the formation and application of the law. Roman jurists, highly respected for their expertise and knowledge, wrote opinions, treatises and commentaries on Roman law. These writings were regarded as authoritative and direct sources of the law. The Digest, compiled by order of the emperor Justinian in the sixth century, is a prime example of this practice. It formed part of the Corpus Juris Civilis, a massive collection designed to consolidate and systematise Roman law. The Digest in particular was a compilation of extracts from the writings of the most eminent Roman jurists. These extracts were carefully selected and organised to form a coherent body of legal principles. The opinions and analyses of Roman jurists included in the Digest were treated with great authority and were often regarded as equivalent to laws. Indeed, in the Roman legal system, the distinction between 'law' (official statutes) and 'doctrine' (the writings of jurists) was much less rigid than it is in most modern legal systems. Thus, in Roman antiquity, legal doctrine did not merely influence the law indirectly; it was an integral and formal component of the law, playing a crucial role in defining and interpreting legal norms. This shows how, historically, the boundary between 'law' and 'doctrine' could be fluid, and highlights the essential role played by jurists in shaping the law.
Over the centuries, numerous jurisconsults and eminent legal figures have left an indelible mark on the legal world through their writings and analyses. These influential figures have produced a body of literature that has helped to shape, develop and illuminate the law throughout different eras and societies. In ancient Rome, jurists such as Gaius, Ulpian and Papinian wrote treatises and commentaries that formed the basis of Roman law. Their work was so influential that it was widely cited in the Corpus Juris Civilis, particularly in the Digest, and continued to influence European civil law for centuries. In the Middle Ages, the rediscovery of Roman legal texts led to a revival of legal scholarship. Scholars such as Gratian, with his "Decretum", played a crucial role in the development of canon law, while others contributed to the revival of civil law in Europe. In the Renaissance and beyond, jurists such as Hugo Grotius in the Netherlands pioneered the development of international law, while figures such as Sir William Blackstone in England influenced the common law with works such as Commentaries on the Laws of England. More recently, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, jurists such as John Austin, Hans Kelsen, and H.L.A. Hart have made important contributions to legal theory, influencing the way law is understood and taught in universities around the world. Each of these figures helped shape the legal landscape of their time, bringing fresh perspectives, developing influential theories, or interpreting the law in ways that have had a lasting impact. Their work not only enriched the legal understanding of their time, but continues to influence contemporary legal thought and practice.
The contributions of jurists such as Jean Domat and Robert Joseph Pothier during the Ancien Régime in France are outstanding examples of the influence of legal doctrine on the unification and systematisation of the law. Before France adopted a system of codification of civil law with the Civil Code of 1804 (also known as the Napoleonic Code), the legal landscape was fragmented and complex, marked by a multitude of local customs and legal rules. Jean Domat, a seventeenth-century jurist, is best known for his work "Les Lois Civiles dans leur ordre naturel" and "Le Droit Public". These works sought to organise and explain civil law on the basis of the principles of Roman law. Domat attempted to rationalise the law by presenting it in a systematic and logical way, which was of great help in understanding and applying civil law at the time. Robert Joseph Pothier, an eighteenth-century jurist, is famous for his many treatises on different branches of civil law, such as contract law, property law and obligations. His writings were deeply influenced by Roman law and were widely recognised for their clarity and rigour. Pothier was one of the most influential jurists of his time, and his work had a considerable impact on the subsequent development of civil law, not only in France but also in other countries. The work of these jurists greatly influenced the codification of French civil law. Their efforts to systematise and clarify the law paved the way for the adoption of the French Civil Code, which revolutionised civil law by establishing a coherent and unified body of law. The Civil Code has had a major influence not only in France, but also in many other countries, and is considered to be one of the most important legal achievements of the modern era.
Before the Revolution, France was characterised by a great diversity of local legal systems. This diversity stemmed from the existence of different regional customs and the application of Roman law to varying degrees across the country. This situation made the law complex and often difficult to navigate, especially for those who were not experts in the field. With the French Revolution at the end of the eighteenth century, there was a move towards the unification and rationalisation of the law. The Revolution aimed to establish a more coherent and accessible legal system, reflecting the ideals of equality and rationality that were at the heart of revolutionary aspirations. One of the most significant results of this movement was the creation of the French Civil Code, later known as the Napoleonic Code, in 1804. This code unified private law in France, replacing the various local customs with a single coherent body of law. Jean Domat and Robert Joseph Pothier played a crucial role in this process of unifying private law. Their work, strongly influenced by the principles of Roman law, sought to systematise and rationalise civil law. Although their works preceded the French Revolution, they provided an intellectual and theoretical basis for the law reformers of the Revolution and the Napoleonic era. In particular, Pothier's influence is often acknowledged in the formulation of the Civil Code, his treatises having served as major references in the development of this historic codification. Thus, the unification of law in France at the turn of the nineteenth century, influenced by figures such as Domat and Pothier and catalysed by the French Revolution, marked a decisive turning point in legal history, laying the foundations of the modern French legal system.
Eugen Huber's work in the Swiss legal context is remarkable and played a central role in the unification and codification of Swiss private law. Prior to Huber's intervention, Switzerland, with its federal system made up of numerous cantons, had a mosaic of local legal systems. This diversity reflected the historical tradition of cantonal autonomy, but presented challenges in terms of legal coherence and uniformity. Eugen Huber, an eminent jurist, undertook an exhaustive systematic study of the different legal systems and texts in force in the Swiss cantons. His major work, "Histoire et système du droit privé suisse", was a significant contribution to the unification of private law in Switzerland. In it, he analysed and synthesised the common legal principles and accepted practices across the cantons, seeking to create a unified legal system that could be widely accepted. The culmination of his work was the Swiss Civil Code (Zivilgesetzbuch), promulgated in 1912. This code unified private law across Switzerland, replacing the various cantonal laws with a single coherent set of rules. Huber's codification was a major milestone in Swiss legal history, providing much-needed stability and predictability, while respecting Switzerland's particularities and cultural diversity. Recognition of the importance of Huber's work was underlined by his tenure as a Federal Councillor in Berne between 1911 and 1912. During this period, he was able to defend and promote the adoption of the Civil Code, playing a key role in modernising the Swiss legal system and establishing a unified legal framework for private law in the country.
Historically, doctrine has often played a role as a direct source of law, as in the case of Eugen Huber in Switzerland, whose doctrinal work directly influenced the drafting and promulgation of the Swiss Civil Code. Such contributions illustrate how, at certain times and in certain contexts, the writings and analyses of legal scholars have been significantly integrated into the very structure of the law. Today, although legal doctrine is not a binding source of law in the same way as legislation or case law, its influence as an authority in the legal field remains substantial. Doctrinal works provide interpretations, criticisms and perspectives that inform and guide the application and development of the law. They are an essential resource for legislators, judges and legal practitioners, providing in-depth analyses and critical assessments of legislation and judicial decisions. The influence of legal scholarship can be seen in the development of new legislation, the interpretation of existing legislation, the formation of case law and the evolution of legal principles. By reflecting on the law and questioning and analysing its principles and application, legal scholars make an ongoing contribution to the development of a dynamic, adaptive and thoughtful legal system.
The general principles of law
The general principles of law constitute a set of guiding principles that play a crucial role in the orientation and interpretation of the legal system, although they lack the precision and detail of the rules of positive law. The general principles of law serve as a guide in the application and development of the law. They provide a conceptual and ethical framework that underpins and informs positive law, i.e. formally adopted laws and regulations. These principles include, for example, concepts such as fairness, justice, good faith, equality before the law, respect for human rights, and proportionality. These principles are particularly important in situations where existing laws are vague, incomplete or absent. In such cases, judges and lawyers can refer to the general principles to interpret legislation or to fill legal gaps. These principles are also used to assess the validity and application of existing laws, ensuring that they are consistent with the fundamental values of the legal system. For example, in the field of international law, general principles of law play a fundamental role, as they help to fill gaps where international treaties or customary law are silent. Similarly, in constitutional law, general principles are often invoked to interpret constitutional provisions and to guide the application of fundamental rights and freedoms. General principles of law are essential to ensure that the application and development of the law are guided not only by technical rules, but also by ethical considerations and universally recognised values. They contribute to the coherence, legitimacy and fairness of the legal system as a whole.
Adages or brocades are legal proverbs, or maxims expressed in a concise sentence. These expressions, often formulated in a concise and memorable way, summarise fundamental legal principles or rules of law. They are used to synthesise complex legal concepts into succinct, easily understood sentences, and play a significant role in the teaching, practice and interpretation of law. Legal adages are often derived from Roman law and the European legal tradition, although many legal cultures have developed their own maxims. They have been used historically to transmit key legal principles from one generation to the next, particularly in times when the majority of legal practitioners and citizens did not have access to voluminous or complex legal texts.
Adages are brief formulas, often in Latin, that summarise fundamental legal principles. These maxims offer a concise and memorable way of communicating complex legal concepts, and have played an important role in the transmission and teaching of law throughout history. Legal adages, with their roots in the Roman legal tradition, have become an integral part of the teaching and practice of law in many legal cultures. They serve not only to educate law students and professionals about essential principles, but also to guide the interpretation and application of the law in judicial practice. Because of their concise nature and historical origin, these maxims are often quoted in court decisions, legal debates and academic writings, continuing to influence the understanding and application of contemporary law.
The following adages are classic examples of legal maxims that play an essential role in the understanding and application of the law. Each of these Latin adages expresses a fundamental legal principle in a concise and memorable way:
- Audiatur et altera pars: This principle means that both parties must be heard. It underlines the importance of fair justice and the right to a fair trial, where each party has the opportunity to present its case.
- Iura novit curia: The court knows the law. This maxim indicates that the courts are expected to know the law and apply it correctly, even if the disputing parties do not know or fully understand it.
- In dubio pro reo: In case of doubt, the benefit goes to the accused. This principle is at the heart of criminal law and means that where there is doubt about guilt, the decision should favour the accused.
- Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas jus suum cuique tribuendi: Justice is the constant and perpetual will to give everyone his due. This principle highlights the fundamental aim of justice, which is to ensure that everyone receives what is justly due to them.
- Nonbis in idem: This principle means that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offence. It is a key component of criminal law, preventing double prosecution or double punishment.
- Nullum crimen sine lege: No crime without law. This principle states that an action can only be considered criminal if it was defined as such by the law before it was committed.
- Lex posterior derogat priori: The most recent law prevails over previous laws. This principle is used to resolve conflicts between successive laws, giving priority to the most recent provisions.
- Lex specialis derogat generali: The special rule prevails over the general rule. This principle is applied when there is a conflict between a general rule and a specific rule, in which case the specific rule takes precedence.
- Pacta sunt servanda : Agreements must be respected. This principle, which is fundamental to contract law, emphasises that the parties are obliged to respect the agreements they have made.
These adages summarise complex legal concepts in an accessible way and are a testament to the wisdom and insight of the jurists and legislators who have shaped the law over the centuries. They continue to be relevant in contemporary legal practice, guiding the interpretation and application of the law.
Brocades are a form of adage, but they tend to be presented in a more accessible and popular form. Whereas legal adages are often formulated in Latin and can sometimes be obscure to non-specialists, brocades are generally designed to be more easily understood by a wider audience. Brocades retain the concise and memorable character of adages, but their presentation and language tend to be less formal and closer to popular expression. They aim to make legal principles more accessible to the general public, without the use of complex legal terminology or Latin formulations. These expressions play an important role in democratising knowledge of the law, by making legal concepts more accessible and understandable to those who are not legal experts. Thus, while sharing the function of traditional adages of summarising legal principles, brocades do so in a way that is often more rooted in everyday language and culture.
The following brocades are examples that illustrate legal principles in a concise and memorable way:
- This brocade highlights an important principle of contract law. It means that if performance of a contract becomes impossible for reasons beyond the control of the parties, the contract may be annulled or considered null and void. This principle is fundamental to ensuring fairness in contractual obligations, recognising that parties cannot be held liable for unforeseeable or uncontrollable events that make performance of the contract impossible.
- The dead seize the living: This brocade applies in the context of inheritance law. It expresses the idea that when a person dies, his heirs or legal successors are immediately vested with his estate. This means that the property, rights and obligations of the deceased are transferred to his or her heirs without interruption.
- Le Roy est mort, vive le Roy: This brocade, which comes from the monarchical tradition, illustrates the principle of the continuity of the crown. It indicates that on the death of the king, his successor immediately becomes king. This principle ensures a smooth transition without a power vacuum, underlining the continuity and stability of the monarchical system.
These adages and brocades summarise legal concepts in an accessible way and are used to communicate fundamental legal principles to a wider audience, making the law easier to understand.
General principles of law play an essential role in organising and understanding the law, particularly in systems where positive rules (i.e. specific laws and regulations) can be numerous, complex and sometimes even contradictory. The general principles of law serve as a basis for interpreting and applying positive rules. They provide a conceptual framework for understanding how different rules interact and apply. These principles include, for example, concepts such as justice, fairness, good faith and respect for fundamental rights. By relying on these principles, judges and lawyers can navigate the potential 'mess' of positive rules to find legal solutions that are not only legally valid, but also ethically and morally justified. In addition, general principles of law help to fill gaps where specific laws are silent or ambiguous. In such situations, general principles provide a basis on which judicial decisions can be made, ensuring that these decisions are consistent with the fundamental values of the legal system. General principles of law are essential to maintaining the integrity, coherence and justice of the legal system. They ensure that the law remains rooted in fundamental values and is able to adapt and respond to the complex and constantly changing situations facing modern society.
These principles embody fundamental philosophical and ethical values that form the basis of these legal systems. They act as a guide to the interpretation of the law and play a crucial role in filling legislative gaps. The general principles of law, such as justice, equity, good faith and respect for human rights, serve to interpret and give meaning to written laws, ensuring that their application is consistent with the fundamental values of the legal system. They also help judges and lawyers to make informed decisions in cases where the written law is vague, incomplete or non-existent. However, these principles, in themselves, do not constitute direct forms of binding law, except in cases where they are explicitly enshrined in formal legal documents such as the Constitution. When they are enshrined in the Constitution, these principles acquire a legal force and authority that place them at the top of the hierarchy of legal norms. In such cases, they not only serve as a guide for the interpretation of laws, but also become sources of legally binding rights and obligations. General principles of law are essential elements that contribute to the justice, coherence and fairness of Western legal systems. Although they are not always directly binding, their influence on the interpretation and development of the law is profound and essential to ensure that legislation and legal practice remain rooted in universal fundamental values.
International law is based on fundamental principles that define relations between states and provide a framework for peaceful and orderly coexistence. Among these principles, equality between states, the independence of states and the principle of non-intervention are particularly crucial. The principle of equality between states is a key concept in international law. It states that all states, regardless of their size or power, have equal rights in international relations. This means that every state has the same right to participate in international negotiations and international organisations, as well as in the formation of international law. At UN assemblies, for example, every member country, large or small, has an equal vote in the deliberations. The independence of states, another pillar of international law, emphasises that each state has complete sovereignty over its territory. This means that a state has complete control over its internal and external affairs, unless it has agreed to specific restrictions through treaties or agreements. A concrete example of this voluntarily limited independence can be seen in cross-border cooperation agreements, such as the one between France and Switzerland, which allows police collaboration in specific border areas. The principle of non-intervention stems from the principles of equality and independence. It prohibits states from intervening in the internal affairs of other states, including political, economic or military interference. This principle is essential for preserving the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. For example, UN resolutions condemning intervention in the internal affairs of a state are based on this principle. These principles play a vital role in maintaining order and stability in international relations. They facilitate peaceful coexistence between states, enable the non-violent resolution of conflicts and support international cooperation, thus forming the bedrock of the contemporary international legal system.
Nation-states generally have well-structured legal and political systems with a clear separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. These systems enable the effective application and enforcement of the law within the state, as well as the resolution of disputes by established judicial institutions. In a nation-state context, if a dispute arises over the interpretation or application of a law, it is the judiciary that is responsible for adjudicating. National courts have the authority to interpret laws, resolve disputes and ensure that justice is applied fairly. In addition, the existence of an executive force enables judicial decisions and laws to be enforced effectively, thereby strengthening public security and peace. The international legal order, on the other hand, operates differently. The organisation of the international order often lacks the hierarchical structure and centralised enforcement mechanisms that characterise nation states. Although international institutions, such as the International Court of Justice, exist to resolve disputes between states, their ability to enforce their decisions is limited. In the absence of a global executive, the enforcement of international decisions depends largely on the will and cooperation of individual states. This structural difference poses unique challenges for the application and enforcement of international law. States are largely responsible for implementing international law at the national level, and the effectiveness of this system relies on their commitment to respect and implement international obligations. This contrasts with the more direct and coercive system available within nation states to enforce their domestic law.
Annexes
- Université de Genève. “Introduction Aux Droits De L'Homme.” Coursera, https://www.coursera.org/learn/droits-de-lhomme.