| Legal Hitory Review vol.35 (1985) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Summaries of Articles | ||
Drakon's Law on Homicide and the Athenian Citizen-body
by MAEZAWA Nobuyuki
In this paper, the author considered the significance of the Drakon's legislation in 624 B. C. for the formation of Athenian democracy. There is little information about the content of his legislation, but fortunately we have fragments of his law on homicide which the inscription of 409/8 B. C. and the orations of Demosthenes have handed down to us. On the examination of these fragments, the author reached the following conclusions.
(1) Before the legislation of Drakon, there existed two kinds of court of homicide according to the status of a murderer. If he belonged to an aristocratic family, the council of the Areiospagos tried the case, but if he was a commoner, the basileus tried the case by himself in the court of Prytaneion.
(2) Drakon divided the concept of homicide into intentional, unintentional and lawful according to the intent of a murderer. In the case of unintentional and lawful homicide, he abolished old legal procedures and established new court of ephetai which tried the case.
(3) The meaning of Drakon's legislation for the history of Athenian democracy were the clarification of the frame of citizen-body in the sphere of law and the first promotion of equality within it by establishing new court of ephetai.
Heeresverfassung in den absolutistischen deutschen Territorien
von Hideo SHINPO
Es ist die Aufgabe dieser Abhandlung, die Heeresverfassung in den absolutistischen neueren Territorien unter dem Gesichtspunkt von Staatsverfassung zu betrachten und, damit die Verfassung der neueren Territorien dadurch aufzuhellen. O. Hintze, der ‘einen nun schon klassisch gewordenen welthistorischen Aufriß der Frage' gab, insbesondere, sein Schüler Fr. Hartung und E. R. Huber betonten, aufgrund ihrer Forschungen des preußischen Heeres, das außerhalb der Staatsverfassung gebildete stehende Heer als das geschichtliche Moment, das den absolutistischen Staat von dem Standestaat scheidete.
Aber die Heeresverfassung dieser Zeit hatte m. E. den dualistischen System von berunichem stehendem Heer für den öffentlichen Krieg und Ausschußtruppen für die Landesdefension. Daher ist sie die neuere Heeresverfassung zwischen der vom Mittelalter bis die Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts und der des stehenden Volksheeres aufgrund allgemeiner Wehrpflicht im 19. Jahrhundert.
[I] Berufliches stehendes Heer: (i) Landesherr überwältigte damit die materielle Zwangsgewalt der Landsässigen, doch seine Erhaltung war sehr schwierig wegen unsicherer finanzieller Grundlage. (ii) In ‘territorio clauso' (Kurbayern) waren die höheren Offiziere zum größten Teile mit adeligen Ausländern besetzt, und das Heer war hier von zivilen Zentralbehörden gekommandiert. In ‘territorio non clauso' (Kurmainz) war die Erhaltung des Heeres stark abhängig von Personalunion und Reichsverfassung.
[II] Ausschußtruppen:(i) Verfassungsgeschichtlich wichtiger waren Ausschußtruppen mit Friedensübungen, womit Landesherr seine Untertanen unmittelbar ergreifen konnte. Diese Truppen als ein System brachte die ‘Heeresreform' des späten 16. Jahrhunderts, deren Stutzen in „Motiven“ des Grafen Johanns VII. von Nassau 1594/95 verkörpert wurden. Sie hat geschichtliche Bedeutung darin, daß das Ethos, die Interessen des Landes und schließlich Landesherrn den anderen vorzuziehen, in ganze Heimat der Ausgewählten durchdrang und die zivilen Zentral- und besonders Amtsbehörden die Ausschußtruppen kommandierten. (ii) Beide Territorien zeigen aber die verfassungsgeschichtlichen unterschieden deutlicher. In ‘territorio clauso' bestand der landsthdische Dualismus unter Monarchie aufgrund der sogenannten Hofmarksrechte. In ‘territorionon clauso' lag der Kompromißdualismus von Landesherrn und ‘fremde' reichsunmittelbarem Adel klar, aufgrund des inkonsequent Aufstiegs zur Reichsunmittelbarkeit der landsässigen Adel. Als Amtmann stützte hier der letztere das Fürstentum, der dennoch starken Widerstand gegen die Wehrpflicht seiner Untertanen leistete.
A Study of the Litigation System under the Kamakura-Bakufu Government
by OKA Kuninobu
Under the litigation system of the Kamakura-Bakufu, “HIKITSUKE (引付),” founded in 1249 (建長元年), was an organ of great significance. It continued to exist until the fall of the Bakufu Government. During this period, however, it was twice provisionally abolished.
The purpose of this article is to explain how the litigation system during the latter half of the Kamakura-Bakufu period operated; to examine the implications of direct judgments by the “SHIKKEN-REN-SHO (執権・巡署)” on important cases; and to examine the political background concerning the two occasions in which “HIKITSUKE” was abolished (the first abolishment in 1266 to 1269 (文永三年〜六年) and the second in 1293 to 1294 (永仁元〜二年). After the re-establishment of “HIKITSUKE” in 1294, important cases were again subject to direct judgments of “SHIKKEN-RENSHO”. This condition may be brought to light through analyzing “EININ-SANNENKI (永仁三年記), “a valuable document which provides information on the situation of that period.
From our analysis, we may conclude that the two abolishments that occurred did not lead to any simplification of the litigation system. Speedy trials were disposed of by way of direct judgments handed down by TOKUSO (得宗) through his direct command of the “MONCHŪJO (問注所)” (which had expanded its jurisdictional authority) in 1266, and by his intervention in trial proceedings in 1293. After the re-establishment of “HIKITSUKE” in 1294, TOKUSŌ – with the support of some of the members of “HIKITSUKE” – was presumably influential on important cases.
Lastly, as to the management of the situation after the re-establishment of the “HIKITSUKE”, an analysis of those members present at the “HIKITSUKE” and evaluation proceedings suggests that the Oaragi Family played an important role.
On the Lu System in the Sui and Tang Dynasties
by Azuma KIYOKOBA
In the Kai-huang 開皇 period of the Sui dynasty (581-618), the lu-zhi 禄制 had two major divisions: the lu-zhi for the jing-guan 京官 and the lu-zhi for the wai-guan 外官. There were three principles for determining the amount of lu 禄高 that the wai-guan received.
Whereas the jing-guan was paid his lu according to his zhi-shipin 職事品, the wai-guan received his lu based on his position in the zhou-jun-xian jiu-deng-zhi 州郡縣九等制 (essentially a nine-rank system based on the administrative districts of zhou “province”, jun “prefecture” and xian “county”). This was the first principle.
As for the second principle, we come to find that the wai-guan had a higher lu than the jing-guan even though their zhi-shi-pin be equal. We can call this wai-guan you-yu 外官優遇, or the “principle of favoring the wai-guan”.
In order to prevent the wai-guan from receiving too much lu, however, a third principle was employed to limit the amount. Though the wai-guan received more lu than the jing-guan of the same rank (in the zhi-shi-pin “status” system), he could not receive more than the jing-guan who was two ranks higher. We can call this limitation you-yu xian-ding優遇限定, or the “principle of limiting the favored”.
Though we do not possess documents stating how much lu the chang-shi 長史 and si-ma 司馬 received, we can make close approximations by considering their rank in the zhi-shi-pin system and by applying the three principles we have analyzed above.
The Kai-huang period lu-zhi was later reformed and a new lu-zhi for the jing-guan was also established in the Daye 大業 period. This lu-zhi continued and was in effect throughout the former half of the Tang dynasty (618-907), though there were some changes. In addition, the lu-zhi for the wai-guan in the Tang dynasty showed great differences from that in the Sui dynasty.