Search

Rezensiertes Werk: Wilfrid R. Prest, William Blackstone. Law and Letters in the Eighteenth Century, Oxford [u. a.]: Oxford University Press 2008, XVII, 355 S., ISBN 978-0-19-955029-6

The transnational law merchant or lex mercatoria claims to have its roots in a medieval law merchant, whose growth is said to have been facilitated by the commercial revolution of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, when mercantile law in the West supposedly came to be viewed as an integrated, developing system – a body of law. This concept of a medieval lex mercatoria meshes well with the notion of the universal character of commercial law, which has gained considerable influence through the work of Levin Goldschmidt. His thesis continues to influence the current debate without ever having been tested thoroughly. However, the nature of the medieval law merchant can only be divined by having recourse to those sources which are constantly quoted but rarely consulted: the Little Red Book of Bristol, Fleta and Gerard Malynes’ Consuetudo vel Lex Mercatoria: Or, The Ancient Law-Merchant. It can be shown that the medieval law merchant was not so much a system of mercantile practice or commercial law as an expeditious procedure especially adapted for the needs of men who could not tarry for the common law.

Legal history and comparative law are said to be twin sisters; thus it has been suggested that legal historians ought to resume a dialogue with their comparatist brethren in order to re-establish European legal unity. However, whether any benefit can be gained from applying comparatist methods to legal history may be doubted, as comparative lawyers bent on a »Europeanization of Legal Sciences« seem to be only too willing to look for similarities while neglecting marked differences. Stefan Vogenauer, for instance, maintains that the view that English and continental methods of statutory interpretation differ fundamentally is nothing but a myth endangering the unification of European Law; accordingly, he endeavours to show the fallibility of this myth by any and every means. His willingness to prove that there is a common core of European principles of statutory interpretation with a long tradition reaching back to the ius commune nevertheless seems highly problematic. The question may be posed whether this avenue of research can be of any value to legal historians.

Rezensiertes Werk:Kenneth Reid und Reinhard Zimmermann (Hgg.), A History of Private Law in Scotland, Vol. I: Introduction and Property, Vol. II: Obligations, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000, Vol. I: lxi, 552 S.; Vol. II: lxxviii, 748 S., ISBN 0-19-829941-9

Rezensiertes Werk:William Cornish, Stuart Anderson, Raymond Cocks, Michael Lobban, Patrick Polden, Keith Smith (Hg.), The Oxford History of the Laws of England, Vol. XI–XIII: 1820– 1914, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010, 3840 S., ISBN 978-0-19-925883-3

Rezensiertes Werk:Andreas Görgen, Rechtssprache in der frühen Neuzeit. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Fremdwortverwendung in Gesetzen des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts (Rechtshistorische Reihe 253). Frankfurt a.M. u. a.: Lang 2002, mit CD-ROM, 228 S., ISBN 3-631-38629-x

The author of this commenting article presents his reactions to the notion of a linguistic monitoring of the communication between experts and non-experts in the area of law. This type of linguistic monitoring may contribute to the development of linguistics as well as of law. It will enable linguists to take a closer look at one of the most important institutional uses of language and may also help lawyers to see aspects outside their usual scope, especially as far as the traditional view of legal interpretation is concerned. However, linguistic monitoring will have to develop specific methods of description in order to cover the characteristics of legal communication. A thorough analysis of legal communication will have to precede studies of the communication between experts and non-experts in the area of law.