Codified law is more scientific than Common Law? The Anglo-American debates of the years 1820-1835
In the years 1820-1835, the Anglo-American legal world was ablaze with the central question of whether the common law should be abolished and replaced by a codified system of law. During this “Codification Controversy”, the opponents debated for the first time the scientificity of the two systems. T...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales y Políticas, Universidad Nacional del Nordeste
2024
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.unne.edu.ar/index.php/rcd/article/view/6150 |
| Aporte de: |
| id |
I48-R154-article-6150 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
ojs |
| institution |
Universidad Nacional del Nordeste |
| institution_str |
I-48 |
| repository_str |
R-154 |
| container_title_str |
Revistas UNNE - Universidad Nacional del Noroeste (UNNE) |
| language |
Español |
| format |
Artículo revista |
| topic |
Case Law Inter-discursivity Bentham Savigny Napoleonic Code Case Law Interdiscursivité Bentham Savigny Code Napoléon Derecho anglosajón Interdiscursividad Bentham Savigny Código Napoleónico |
| spellingShingle |
Case Law Inter-discursivity Bentham Savigny Napoleonic Code Case Law Interdiscursivité Bentham Savigny Code Napoléon Derecho anglosajón Interdiscursividad Bentham Savigny Código Napoleónico Soleil, Sylvain Codified law is more scientific than Common Law? The Anglo-American debates of the years 1820-1835 |
| topic_facet |
Case Law Inter-discursivity Bentham Savigny Napoleonic Code Case Law Interdiscursivité Bentham Savigny Code Napoléon Derecho anglosajón Interdiscursividad Bentham Savigny Código Napoleónico |
| author |
Soleil, Sylvain |
| author_facet |
Soleil, Sylvain |
| author_sort |
Soleil, Sylvain |
| title |
Codified law is more scientific than Common Law? The Anglo-American debates of the years 1820-1835 |
| title_short |
Codified law is more scientific than Common Law? The Anglo-American debates of the years 1820-1835 |
| title_full |
Codified law is more scientific than Common Law? The Anglo-American debates of the years 1820-1835 |
| title_fullStr |
Codified law is more scientific than Common Law? The Anglo-American debates of the years 1820-1835 |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Codified law is more scientific than Common Law? The Anglo-American debates of the years 1820-1835 |
| title_sort |
codified law is more scientific than common law? the anglo-american debates of the years 1820-1835 |
| description |
In the years 1820-1835, the Anglo-American legal world was ablaze with the central question of whether the common law should be abolished and replaced by a codified system of law. During this “Codification Controversy”, the opponents debated for the first time the scientificity of the two systems. The codifiers claimed that codes were more scientific because they reduced the complexity of law to simple and clear principles and rules that could then be applied to human behavior. The common lawyers claimed that the common law was more scientific because it allowed judges, based on reason and human realities, to construct an unwritten system of principles and rules recognised and applied as binding. But one must beware of an overly simplistic reading and take this double argument as a double doctrinal opinion. In reality, the authors debate the scientificity of systems as much out of discursive strategy as argumentative objectivity. In a context of interdiscursivity and a fight to the death against their opponents, they must, at all costs, reply and convince public opinion. |
| publisher |
Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales y Políticas, Universidad Nacional del Nordeste |
| publishDate |
2024 |
| url |
https://revistas.unne.edu.ar/index.php/rcd/article/view/6150 |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT soleilsylvain codifiedlawismorescientificthancommonlawtheangloamericandebatesoftheyears18201835 AT soleilsylvain elderechocodificadoesmascientificoqueelcommonlawlosdebatesangloamericanosdelosanos18201835 AT soleilsylvain ledroitcodifieestilplusscientifiquequelecommonlawlesdebatsangloamericainsdesannees18201835 |
| first_indexed |
2022-11-03T11:17:47Z |
| last_indexed |
2024-08-21T22:38:25Z |
| _version_ |
1808038526295474176 |
| spelling |
I48-R154-article-61502024-03-20T21:55:17Z Codified law is more scientific than Common Law? The Anglo-American debates of the years 1820-1835 ¿El derecho codificado es más científico que el Common Law? Los debates angloamericanos de los años 1820-1835 Le droit codifié est-il plus scientifique que le Common Law? Les débats anglo-americains des années 1820-1835 Soleil, Sylvain Case Law Inter-discursivity Bentham Savigny Napoleonic Code Case Law Interdiscursivité Bentham Savigny Code Napoléon Derecho anglosajón Interdiscursividad Bentham Savigny Código Napoleónico In the years 1820-1835, the Anglo-American legal world was ablaze with the central question of whether the common law should be abolished and replaced by a codified system of law. During this “Codification Controversy”, the opponents debated for the first time the scientificity of the two systems. The codifiers claimed that codes were more scientific because they reduced the complexity of law to simple and clear principles and rules that could then be applied to human behavior. The common lawyers claimed that the common law was more scientific because it allowed judges, based on reason and human realities, to construct an unwritten system of principles and rules recognised and applied as binding. But one must beware of an overly simplistic reading and take this double argument as a double doctrinal opinion. In reality, the authors debate the scientificity of systems as much out of discursive strategy as argumentative objectivity. In a context of interdiscursivity and a fight to the death against their opponents, they must, at all costs, reply and convince public opinion. En el período 1820-1835 el mundo legal Anglo-Americano estaba sumido en la discusión referida a si el common law debía ser abolido y reemplazado por el sistema de codificación de leyes del derecho continental. Durante este tiempo denominado «Controversia de la Codificación» se debatió por primera vez acerca de la cientificidad de ambos sistemas legales. Los que estaban a favor de la codificación, afirmaban que ésta era más científica porque reducía la complejidad de la ley y simplificaba, a la par que dividía, a los principios de las normas jurídicas, permitiendo así su fácil aplicación al comportamiento humano. Los defensores del common law, en cambio, sostenían que este último sistema era el más científico porque permitía a los jueces basarse en la realidad y la razón humana para construir un sistema reconocido no escrito compuesto de principios y normas jurídicas aplicados como vinculantes. Pero debe evitarse toda mirada simplista sobre esta discusión y no tomar tales argumentos como una doble postura doctrinal. En realidad, estos autores debatieron exclusivamente sobre la cientificidad de ambos sistemas jurídicos tanto desde la estrategia discursiva como desde la objetividad argumentativa. En un contexto de Inter discursividad y lucha contra sus oponentes, deben, a toda costa, replicar y convencer a la opinión pública. Durant les années 1820-1835, le monde des juristes anglo-américains s’est embrasé autour de cette question centrale : faut-il abolir le common law et lui substituer un système de droit codifié. A l’occasion de cette Codification Controversy, les contradicteurs ont, pour la première fois, débattu de la scientificité respective des deux systèmes. Les codifiers ont prétendu que les codes étaient plus scientifiques parce qu’ils réduisaient la complexité du droit à des principes et des règles simples et clairs qu’il suffisait ensuite d’appliquer aux comportements humains. Les common lawyers ont prétendu que le common law était plus scientifique parce qu’il permettait aux juges, à partir de la raison et des réalités humaines, de construire un système non écrit de principes et de règles reconnus et appliqués comme obligatoires. Mais il faut se méfier d’une lecture trop simpliste et prendre ce double argumentaire pour une double opinion doctrinale assumée. En réalité, les auteurs débattent de la scientificité autant par stratégie discursive que par objectivité argumentative. Dans un contexte d’interdiscursivité et de combat à mort contre leurs adversaires, ils doivent, coûte que coûte, répliquer et convaincre l’opinion publique. Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales y Políticas, Universidad Nacional del Nordeste 2024-03-20 info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion application/pdf https://revistas.unne.edu.ar/index.php/rcd/article/view/6150 10.30972/rcd.116150 Research Journal of the Faculty of Law and Social and Political Sciences – UNNE; Vol. 1 No. 1 (2022); 1-24 Revista Científica de la Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales y Políticas; Vol. 1 Núm. 1 (2022); 1-24 2953-4232 spa https://revistas.unne.edu.ar/index.php/rcd/article/view/6150/6825 Derechos de autor 2022 Revista Científica https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 |