Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T15:19:33.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law, Culture and Civil Codification in a Mixed Legal System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Nir Kedar
Nir Kedar
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, 52900,Israel, email: kedarn@mail.biu.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Comparatists usually describe mixed legal systems as being built upon dual foundations of Romano-Germanic civil law and Anglo-American common law. This widely accepted description examines mixed systems from a formal internally legal perspective. My paper offers a new yardstick for investigating mixed systems by posing an external perspective for examining the complex interplay between law and culture in a mixed jurisdiction. The case study is the codification of private law in the mixed system of Israel. A civil code does not reflect the inner logic or history of the Israeli legal system, as this system has been mostly shaped along Anglo-Saxon lines which generally discourage the enactment of codes. But seen from a cultural perspective, a civil code is not alien to Israeli society because its perception as a symbol of legal independence and modernization is inherent in the European political culture that most Israelis are familiar with. The story of civil codification in Israel demonstrates that beyond the common-law-civil-law “mixedness” in Israeli law, the Israeli legal system is also mixed in a more profound sense: while the country's law is primarily (though not exclusively) influenced by the Anglo-Saxon tradition, its political culture is mainly inspired by ideas embedded in continental Europe which were imported to Israel by Jewish immigrants.

Résumé

Les comparativistes décrivent généralement les juridictions mixtes comme ayant été construites sur la double fondation du droit civil romano-germanique et de la common law anglo-américaine. Cette description largement acceptée examine les juridictions mixtes à partir d'une perspective juridique formelle interne. Mon étude propose un nouveau prisme analytique pour examiner les juridictions mixtes: une perspective qui prend en considération l'interaction complexe entre le droit et la culture dans une juridiction mixte. L'étude de cas est la codification du droit privé dans la juridiction mixte qu'est Israël. Un code civil ne reflète pas la logique interne ou l'histoire du système juridique israélien, étant donné que celui-ci a été façonné principalement sur des idées anglo-saxonnes qui découragent généralement les codifications. Du point de vue culturel, par contre, le principe de la codification n'est pas entièrement étranger à la société israélienne, vu qu'un code civil est perçu comme un symbole d'indépendance juridique et de modernisation ancré dans la culture politique européenne qui est si bien connue par la plupart des Israéliens. L'histoire de la codification en Israël illustre qu'au-delà du mélange du droit civil et de la common law en droit israélien, le système juridique israélien est également mixte dans le sens, qu'il contient un mélange entre le droit qui est principalement (bien que non exclusivement) influencé par la tradition anglo-saxonne, et la culture politique et juridique qui est surtout inspirée des idées propres à l'Europe continental et qui ont été importées en Israël par les immigrants juifs.

Type
Dossier: The Law Commission of Canada/La Commission du Droit du Canada
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , August 2007 , pp. 177 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 2007

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 Walton, F. P., The Scope and Interpretation of the Civil Code (Toronto: Butterworths 1980) at 1Google Scholar, cited in Tetley, W., “Mixed Jurisdictions: Common Law vs. Civil Law (Codified and Uncodified)” (1999) 4 Uniform L. Rev. 591CrossRefGoogle Scholar (part 1) [Tetley, “Mixed Jurisdictions”], (part 2 was published in (1999) 4 Uniform L. Rev. 877 [Tetley, “Mixed Jurisdictions, II”]). See also Walton, F.P., “The Civil Law and the Common Law in Canada” (1899) 11 Jurid. Rev. 282, 291Google Scholar; Evans-Jones, R., “Receptions of Law, Mixed Legal Systems and the Myth of the Genius of Scots Private Law” (1998) 114 L.Q.R. 228Google Scholar; Palmer, V.V., Mixed Jurisdictions Worldwide: The Third Legal Family (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001) at 7–10, 17 ffGoogle Scholar.

2 Given the fact that many jurisdictions around the globe are hybrids that combine two or more distinct legal traditions, there is an ongoing debate among comparatists regarding the scope of the term “mixed jurisdiction.” See Örücü, E. et al. , eds, Studies in Legal Systems: Mixed and Mixing (The Hague: Kluwer 1996)Google Scholar; Palmer, supra note 1. This paper will limit itself to the “classical” (civil-law-common-law) definition.

3 Palmer, supra note 1 at 7.

4 See for example, Zweigart, K. & Kötz, H., An Introduction to Comparative Law, 3d ed., trans. by Weir, T. (Oxford: Clarendon 1998) at 63–73Google Scholar.

5 See Örücü et al., supra note 2; Palmer, supra note 1; Tetley, “Mixed Jurisdictions”, supra note 1. And see also volume 78 of the Tulane Law Review from 2003 that was dedicated to the First Worldwide Congress on Mixed Jurisdictions held in New Orleans that year.

6 See Barak, A., “The Tradition and Culture of the Israeli Legal System” in Rabello, A.M., ed., European Legal Traditions and Israel (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press 1994) 473 at 475–479Google Scholar [Barak, “Tradition”].

7 Reid, K., “The Idea of Mixed Legal Systems” (2003) 78 Tul. L. Rev. 5, 21–22Google Scholar; Palmer, supra note 1 at 8-9. For a different view see Visser, D., “Cultural Forces in the Making of Mixed Legal Systems” (2003) 78 Tul. L. Rev. 41 at 48–50Google Scholar.

8 Reid, ibid.; Goldstein, S., “The Odd Couple: Common Law Procedure and Civilian Substantive Law” (2003) 78 Tul. L. Rev. 291Google Scholar; Ramos, E.R., “The Impact of Public Anglo-American Institutions and Values on the Substantive Civil Law” (2003) 78 Tul. L. Rev. 353Google Scholar; Palmer, supra note 1 at 62-68;

9 See Palmer, ibid. at 17-18, 31-35, 41-44.

10 Visser, supra note 7 at 50-70.

11 See S. Goldstein, “Israel” in Palmer, supra note 1 at 448-468 [Goldstein, “Israel”]; Wasserstein-Fassberg, C., “Language and Style in a Mixed System” (2003) 78 Tul. L. Rev. 151 at 155–157Google Scholar; Palmer, supra note 1 at 30-31.

12 Cf. Wasserstein-Fassberg, ibid. at 158.

13 ibid.; Palmer, supra note 1 at 43-44; Goldstein, “Israel”, supra note 11 at 467-468; Tetley, W., “Nationalism in a Mixed Jurisdiction and the Importance of Language (South Africa, Israel, and Quebec/Canada)” (2003) 178 Tul. L. Rev. 175 at 217Google Scholar; Tetley, “Mixed Jurisdictions, II”, supra note 1 at 895-905.

14 See supra notes 9, 10 and accompanying text.

15 Örücü, E., “The Impact of European Law in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey” in Mommsen, W.J. and de Moor, J.A., eds., European Expansion and Law: The Encounter of European and Indigenous Law in 19th-and 20th- Century Africa and Asia (Oxford: Berg, 1992) 39Google Scholar.

16 On law and identity in Ottoman Palestine see Agmon, I., Family & Court: Legal Culture and Modernity in Late Ottoman Palestine (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Likhovski, A., Law and Identity in Mandate Palestine (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2006) at 173–191Google Scholar.

17 On the relation between state law and local Jewish courts in Palestine see Shamir, R., The Colonies Of Law: Colonialism, Zionism, and Law in Early Mandate Palestine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2000)Google Scholar.

18 See Kedar, N., “New Perspectives on the Establishment of the Israeli Legal System” (2007) 11 Israeli (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

19 Kedar, N., “Democracy and Judicial Autonomy in Early Israel” Israel Studies [forthcoming in 2008]Google Scholar.

20 See Goldstein, “Israel”, supra note 11 at 448-468; Barak, “Tradition”, supra note 6 at 479; Wasserstein-Fassberg, supra note 11 at 155-158.

21 The term “de-codification” was apparently coined by the Italian jurist Natalino Irti in 1978. See Irti, N., “L'età della decodificazione” (1978) Dirrito e società 613Google Scholar. On decodification see also Merryman, J.H. et al. , The Civil Law Tradition: Europe, Latin America and East Asia (Charlottesville, VA: Michie 1994) 1241Google Scholar; Glenn, H.P., “The Grounding of Codification” (1997–1998) 31 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 765 at 768Google Scholar; Tallon, D., “Codification and Consolidation of the Law at the Present Time” (1979) 14 Isr. L. Rev. 1Google Scholar; Murillo, M.L., “The Evolution of Codification in Civil Law Systems: Towards Decodification and Recodification” (2001) 11 J. Transnat'l L. & Pol'y 163Google Scholar; Oppetit, B., Essai sur la codification (Paris: PUF 1998)Google Scholar; idem, “La décodification du droit commercial français” in: Ettudes offertes à René Rodiere (Paris: Dalloz 1981).

22 See among many other, Merryman, ibid. at 26-33; van Caenegem, R.C., An Historical Introduction to Private Law, trans. by Johnston, D.E.L. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1992) at 122–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wieacker, F., A History of Private Law in Europe, trans. by Weir, T. (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1995) at 257–275Google Scholar.

23 For the process of positivism and centralization of modern law, see Unger, R. M., Law in Modern Society: Toward a Criticism of Social Science (New York: Free Press 1976)Google Scholar. For these processes in France, see Zweigart & Kötz, supra note 4 at 76-80.

24 See Glenn, supra note 21, at 768.

25 For the influence of the French code on legislation and legal thinking throughout the world, see Zweigart & Kötz, supra note 4 at 118-198. For the influence of the German civil code, see ibid. at 154-156, and for that of the Swiss civil code, see ibid. at 178-179.

26 Zweigart & Kötz, supra note 4 at 113-115; For codification in Latin America, see also Murillo, supra note 21 at 170-172; Matus-Valencia, J.G., “The Centenary of the Chilean Civil Code” (1958) 7 Am. J. Comp. L. 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Harty, S., “Lawyers, Codification, and the Origins of Catalan Nationalism, 1881-1901” (2002) 20 L. & Hist. Rev. 349CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 See Brierley, E.C., “The Renewal of Québec's Distinct Legal Culture: The New Civil Code of Québec” (1992) 42 U. Toronto L.J. 484CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Legrand, P., “Codification and the Politics of Exclusion: A Challenge for Comparativists” (1997–1998) 31 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 799 at 801–803Google Scholar (discusses the fact that Quebec's civil code has no official English version).

29 The civil code of Vietnam was enacted in 1996; those of Uzbekistan, Byelorussia, Georgia and Latvia in 1997; the Armenian civil code in 1998; the Lithuanian and Estonian codes in 2001 (the Estonian code was enacted in separate chapters like the Russian version); the Moldavian, Czech and Mongolian civil codes in 2002; the Slovakian in 2003; and that of Ukraine in 2004.

30 Compare Tallon, D., “La codification dans le système de Common Law” (1998) 27 Droits 39Google Scholar; Weiss, G.A., “The Enchantment of Codification in the Common-Law World” (2000) 25 Yale J. Intl. L. 435 at 446–447 at 493Google Scholar; Steiner, E., “Codification in England: The Need to Move from an Ideological to a Functional Approach—A Bridge too far?” (2004) 25:3Statute L. Rev. 209CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beatson, J., “Has the Common Law a Future?” (1997) 56 Cambridge L.J. 291 at 299–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 See Weiss, ibid.; Zweigart & Kötz, supra note 4 at 242-243.

32 See Weiss, ibid. at 513.

33 On civil codification in other mixed jurisdiction see Cholors, A.G., Codification in a Mixed Jurisdiction: The Civil and Commercial Law of Seychelles (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977)Google Scholar; Palmer, V. V., The Louisiana Civilian Experience: Critiques of Codification in a Mixed Jurisdiction (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2005)Google Scholar (Evaluating civil codification in Louisiana and Quebec); Tetley, “Mixed Jurisdictions”, supra note 1.

34 See Goldstein, “Israel”, supra note 11 at 450; idem, “Israel: Creating a New Legal System from Different Sources by Jurists from Different Backgrounds” in E. Örücü et al., supra note 2 at 147, 149-150; Palmer, supra note 1 at 30-31.

35 Two prominent examples are Nobushige Hozumi the author of the 1898 Japanese civil code, and Abdel-Razek Al-Sanhuri, the drafter of the Egyptian civil code (that was later adopted by many other Arab countries). See Aoki, H., “Nobushige Hozumi: A Skillful Transplanter of Western Legal Thought into Japanese Soil” in Riles, A., ed., Rethinking the Masters of Comparative Law (Oxford: Hart, 2001) 129Google Scholar; A. Shalakany, “Sanhuri, and the Historical Origins of Comparative Law in the Arab World” in ibid, at 152; Hill, E., al-Sanhuri and Islamic Law (Cairo: American University of Cairo Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

36 See for example Oz-Salzberger, F. & Salzberger, E., “The Secret German Source of the Israeli Supreme Court” (1998) 3:2Israel Studies 159 at 184–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 See Avineri, S., The Making of Modern Zionism: The Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State (New York: Basic Books, 1981)Google Scholar.

38 See Herzl, T., Altneuland, trans. by Kimchi, D. (2007) (Hebrew)Google Scholar. For Herzl's position regarding law in the Jewish state, see for example, Herzl, T., The Jewish State: An Attempt of a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question, trans. by Brash, A. (1896) at 48–50, 75–79 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

39 Gurion, D. Ben, “The Imperatives of the Jewish Revolution” (Address at a Conference of the Labour's youth organization, Haifa, 9 September 1944) in Ba-ma'aracha, Vol. 3 (Tel Aviv: Mapai 1948) 202 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

40 For these debates, see Radzyner, A., “Between National and Religious Jewish Law—The Dilemma of the National Religious Movement” in Brand, I., ed., Religion and Law [in preparation] (Hebrew) [Radzyner, “Dilemma”]Google Scholar; Radzyner, A. & Friedman, S., “The Israeli Legislature and Jewish Law: Haim Cohn—Between Tomorrow and Yesterday” (2005) 29 Tel-Aviv University Studies in Law 167 at 174–181 (Hebrew)Google Scholar; Likhovski, A., “The Invention of ‘Hebrew Law’ In Mandatory Palestine” (1998) 46 Am. J. Comp. L. 339CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shamir, supra note 17 at 30-48.

41 Gulak, A., “Work Plan for the Society of Hebrew Law, Authored by Asher Gulak, at the Invitation of the Committee of the Society of Hebrew Law in Jerusalem” (1927) 2 Jewish Law 195 at 203–204 (Hebrew)Google Scholar. And see also P. Daykan (Dikstein), History of the Hebrew Law of Arbitration (1924) at 73, cited by Radzyner, “Dilemma” ibid. at 1 (Hebrew); Nehorai, S. (Samuel Eisenstadt) “After the Committee” (1928) 3 Hamishpat 87 at 90 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

42 See, for example, Gurion, D. Ben “Mores of the Jewish State” (Address by Ben Gurion on 29 October 1937 and again on 7 June 1938) in Ba-ma'aracha, Vol. A (Tel Aviv: Mapai 1948)Google Scholar two parts: Part A at 278, and Part B at 293 (Hebrew).

43 M. Silberg, “The Law in the Hebrew State” series of articles published in the Ha'aretz newspaper between 17th February 1938 and 13th April 1938. Also published in work, Silberg's, In Inner Harmony, in Tarlo, Z. & Hovav, M., eds. (Jerusalem: Magnes 1981) at 180–201Google Scholar (Hebrew) [Silberg, Harmony]. See also Silberg, M., “On the Question of the Preparation of a Hebrew Code” (1947) 4 Hapraklit 262 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

44 Silberg, Harmony, ibid. at 199.

45 Radzyner, A., “‘A Scholar Who Was Not Properly Eulogized’—J.S. Zuri and his Jewish Law Studies on the Background of Jewish Law Research History” (2005) 23 Jewish Law Annual 253 at 315Google Scholar, n.196 (Hebrew).

46 Karp, Y., “The Judicial Council—The Onset of the Legislative Narrative” in Barak, A. & Spanic, T., eds., In Memoriam Uri Yadin Book, vol. B (Tel Aviv: Bursi 1990) at 209 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

47 “Records of the Meeting of the Sub-Committees on the Civil Law and on the Commercial Law, on 28th January, 1948” Israel State Archives, Jerusalem, File 110/38c. The following quotation is from this record.

48 For the history of the Israeli civil code, see The Civil Code—Khok Diney Mamonot (Israeli Ministry of Justice, Jerusalem, 2004) (Hebrew)Google Scholar. The Bill and Explanatory Notes (in Hebrew) also appear on the website of the Ministry of Justice, online: <http://www.justice.gov.il/MOJHeb/Codex2>. See also the preamble to the law, ibid. at 1-3. See also Barak, A., “Interpretation of the Civil Statute Book (The Code) ‘Israel Version’” in Englard, I. et al. ., eds., Tribute to Gad Tadeschi (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1995) 115 at 160–161 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

49 The controversy surrounding the “new legislation” was considerable. From among the many works published by supporters of the idea of codification, see Tadeschi, G., “Law of Laws—Prolegomena to the Civil Code” (1979) 14 Isr. L. Rev. 145Google Scholar; Yadin, U., “Is Codification an Outmoded From of Legislation?” (1982) Israeli Reports to the 11th Int'l Congress of Comparative Law 1Google Scholar; Barak, A., “Towards Codification of the Civil Law” (1975) 1 Tel-Aviv University Studies in Law 9Google Scholar. For the opponents' arguments, see Friedman, D., “Problems of Codification of Civil Law in Israel” (1979) 2 Jewish Law Annual 88 [Friedman, “Codification”]Google Scholar. For the debate the independence of the “new legislation” see Friedman, D., “Independence Development of Israeli Law” (1975) 10 Isr. L. Rev. 515Google Scholar; Barak, A., “The Independence of the New Civil Codification: Risks and Possibilities” (1976) 7 Mishpatim 15 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

50 See Friedman, D., “More Regarding the Interpretation of the New Israeli Legislation” (1977) 5 Yiuney Mishpat 463, 486–487Google Scholar (Hebrew) [Friedman, “Interpretation”]; Friedman, “Codification”, ibid. at 100, 104-105 (Hebrew).

51 See Barak, “Tradition” supra note 6; Friedman, “Interpretation”, ibid.