Bichos
Páginas: 3 (532 palabras)
Publicado: 4 de diciembre de 2012
1814, The Thibaut-Savigny Controversy: German Codification v Common Law
In 1814, Napoleon’s French forces had beaten a hasty retreat from occupied parts of Germany. But they had exposed those onor near the Rhine valley to their new Civil Code.
If nothing else, Germans like order. At that time, the law nationwide was in shambles. Each of the 41 kingdoms and territories comprising thethen-German state as of 1815 (the Congress of Vienna), seemed to have its own body of law and as soon as you crossed a border, that changed. This was obviously not conducive to commerce. At the same time, anational civil code might just then be achievable given the swell of nationalism which the retreat of the French occupiers gave Germans.
Anton Friedrich Thibaut taught Roman law at the Universityof Heidelberg. He quickly rafted a pamphlet urging Germans to codify a national code of law, as the French had done in 1804. His arguments were set out in a German-language booklet, the translatedtitle of which was On The Necessity of a General Civil Law for Germany.1
According to Ebke and Finkin:
“In the wave of patriotism that swept the German states after they had finally shaken offthe Napoleonic yoke, (Thibaut) published a pamphlet in which he urged the introduction of a general German civil code, modeled on the French civil code, which would pave the way towards politicalunity.”
Thibaut v SavignyThibaut lamented the piecemeal law throughout Germany and especially the costs and delays associated with references to ancient Roman law. He noted that Austria had, in 1811,adopted a national civil code. He suggested a made-in-Germany civil code.
His booklet landed on the desk of Carl von Savigny who was shocked. Savigny wrote a reply in which he argued thatcodification was premature; that the German law lacked any foundation for codification. His rebuttal of Thibaut was called On the Vocation of our Age for Legislation and Jurisprudence.2 Savigny opined that...
In 1814, Napoleon’s French forces had beaten a hasty retreat from occupied parts of Germany. But they had exposed those onor near the Rhine valley to their new Civil Code.
If nothing else, Germans like order. At that time, the law nationwide was in shambles. Each of the 41 kingdoms and territories comprising thethen-German state as of 1815 (the Congress of Vienna), seemed to have its own body of law and as soon as you crossed a border, that changed. This was obviously not conducive to commerce. At the same time, anational civil code might just then be achievable given the swell of nationalism which the retreat of the French occupiers gave Germans.
Anton Friedrich Thibaut taught Roman law at the Universityof Heidelberg. He quickly rafted a pamphlet urging Germans to codify a national code of law, as the French had done in 1804. His arguments were set out in a German-language booklet, the translatedtitle of which was On The Necessity of a General Civil Law for Germany.1
According to Ebke and Finkin:
“In the wave of patriotism that swept the German states after they had finally shaken offthe Napoleonic yoke, (Thibaut) published a pamphlet in which he urged the introduction of a general German civil code, modeled on the French civil code, which would pave the way towards politicalunity.”
Thibaut v SavignyThibaut lamented the piecemeal law throughout Germany and especially the costs and delays associated with references to ancient Roman law. He noted that Austria had, in 1811,adopted a national civil code. He suggested a made-in-Germany civil code.
His booklet landed on the desk of Carl von Savigny who was shocked. Savigny wrote a reply in which he argued thatcodification was premature; that the German law lacked any foundation for codification. His rebuttal of Thibaut was called On the Vocation of our Age for Legislation and Jurisprudence.2 Savigny opined that...
Leer documento completo
Regístrate para leer el documento completo.