Jus Non Scriptum: On the Efficacy of Legal Customs and Their Application by Russian Courts

Occupation: Associate Professor of the Department of Theory and History of State and Law
Affiliation: St. Petersburg State University
Address: Russian Federation, St. Petersburg

Elena V. Timoshina

Occupation: Professor of the Department of Theory and History of State and Law
Affiliation: St. Petersburg State University
Address: Russian Federation, St. Petersburg

Journal name

Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya

Edition

Issue 12

Pages

87-97

Abstract

Authors investigate the phenomenon of customary law and the practice of applying customs by Russian courts. The theory of legal custom developed in continental legal doctrine from Roman law to the era of European codifications. This theory developed the main features of legal custom and ways of proving its existence, which later became the basis of modern private law in continental Europe. The legal doctrine formulates a number of requirements that legal customs must satisfy — requirements for the actions from which the custom is formed, requirements for subjective meaning given to these actions by the actors themselves and third parties, as well as requirements for the content of customs. Comparing the legal concept of custom to the socio-legal concept proposed by M. Weber, the authors note their similarities in essential features. Examining historical dynamics of the relationship between customary law and codified law, the authors have identified trends characteristic for both the Romano-Germanic (Сontinental) legal family as a whole and the Russian legal culture that is part of it. The paper offers an explanation of these trends. Having analyzed the customary-applying practice of Russian courts, the authors propose its sociological and legal interpretation, in particular, they note the confirmation of the hypothesis about the particularization of customary law and rudimentary existence of traditional customary law in modern culture.

Keywords

customary law, legal custom, validity and efficacy of customary law, socio-legal concept of custom

Acknowledgment

The reported study was funded by RFBR according to the project № 18-011-01195.

Received

24.07.2020

Publication date

24.12.2020

Number of characters

33721

Cite

GOST	Kraevsky A., Timoshina E. Jus Non Scriptum: On the Efficacy of Legal Customs and Their Application by Russian Courts // Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya – 2020. – Issue 12 C. 87-97 [Electronic resource]. URL: http://ras.jes.su/socis/s013216250010660-9-1-en (circulation date: 20.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S013216250010660-9
MLA	Kraevsky, Arseny, Timoshina, Elena V. "Jus Non Scriptum: On the Efficacy of Legal Customs and Their Application by Russian Courts." Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya 12 (2020):87-97. DOI: 10.31857/S013216250010660-9
APA	Kraevsky A., Timoshina E. (2020). Jus Non Scriptum: On the Efficacy of Legal Customs and Their Application by Russian Courts. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya (12), pp.87-97 DOI: 10.31857/S013216250010660-9

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1770

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Baron J. (2005) System of Roman Civil Law. St. Petersburg: Yurid. Centr Press. (In Russ.)
2. Bederman D.J. (2010) Custom as a Source of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511781971.
3. Belov S.A., Kropachev N.M. Revazov M.A. (2018) Saint Petersburg University Monitoring of the Application of Laws. Zakon [Law]. No. 3: 67–74. (In Russ.)
4. Bennett T.W. (2006) Comparative Law and African Customary Law. In: Mathias Reimann M., Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press: 640–674. DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199296064.013.0020
5. Brès A. (2018) Tradition in the French Legal System: Outward Signs and Usefulness. In: Mayali L., Mousseron P. (eds) Customary Law Today. Berlin: Springer: 15–30. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-73362-3_2.
6. Cabrillac R. (2007) Codifications. Moscow: Statut. (In Russ.)
7. Dernburg H. (1906) Pandects. Vol. 1. Moscow: Univ. tip. (In Russ.)
8. Dozhdev D.V. (1996) Roman Private Law. Textbook. Moscow: Infra-M, NORMA. (In Russ.)
9. Dudina V.I, Smirnova E.E., eds. (2014) Methodology and Methods of Sociological Research: Textbook. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Univ. Press. (In Russ.)
10. Gofman A.B., Levkovisch V.P. (1973) Custom as a Form of Social Regulaton. Sovetskaya etnografiya [Soviet Ethnography]. No. 1: 25–37. (In Russ.)
11. Frier B.W., ed. (2016) The Codex of Justinian. A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
12. Karamzin N.M. (1991) Memoir on Ancient and Modern Russia in Its Political and Civil Relations. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)
13. Kelsen H. (2015) Pure Theory of Law. St. Petersburg: Alef-Press. (In Russ.)
14. Kireyevsky I.V. (1911) On the Nature of European Enlightenment and its Attitude towards Russian Enlightenment. In: Kireyevsky I.V. Complete Set of Works. Vol. 1. Moscow: Tip. Imp. Mosc. Un-ta: 174–222. (In Russ.)
15. Kofanov L.L., ed. (2002) Digest of Justinian. Vol. 1. Moscow: Statut. (In Russ.)
16. Kofanov L.L., Tomsinov V.A., eds. (1998) Institutions of Justinian. Moscow: Zertsalo. (In Russ.)
17. Mannheim К. (1993) Conservative Thought. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 1: 126–138. (In Russ.)
18. Mironov B.N. (2015a) Russian Empire: from Tradition to Modernity. Vol. 2. St. Petersburg: Dm. Bulanin. (In Russ.)
19. Mironov B.N. (2015b) Russian Empire: from Tradition to Modernity. Vol. 3. St. Petersburg: Dm. Bulanin. (In Russ.)
20. Petrazhitsky L. (2000) Theory of Law and State in Connection with the Theory of Morality. St. Petersburg: Lan’. (In Russ.)
21. Petrażycki L. (2010) Customary Law. In: Petrażycki L. Theory and Policy of Law. Selected works. St. Petersburg: Yurid. kn: 187–244. (In Russ.)
22. Pokrovsky I.A. (2004) History of Roman Law. Moscow: Statut. (In Russ.)
23. Porter J. (2007) Custom, Ordinance and Natural Right in Gratian’s Decretum. In: Perreau-Saussine A., Murphy J.B. (eds) The Nature of Customary Law. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press: 79–100. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511493744.005.
24. Puchta G.F. (1874) Course of Roman Civil Law. Moscow: Sovr. izv. (In Russ.)
25. Savigny F.K. von. (2011) System of Modern Roman Law. Vol. 1. Moscow: Statut. (In Russ.)
26. Sorokin P.A. (2019) Elementary Textbook of Legal Theory in Connection with the Theory of State. In: Sorokin P.A. Popular Outlines of Legal Theory, Sociology and Social Pedagogy. Syktyvkar, Anbur: 23–192. (In Russ.)
27. Sorokin P.A. (2006) Social and Cultural Dynamics. Moscow: Astrel’. (In Russ.)
28. Sorokin P.A. (2005) Sociology of Revolution. Moscow: Territ. budushch., ROSSPEN. (In Russ.)
29. Ulpian (1998) Fragments of Domitius Ulpianus. In: Kofanov L.L. (ed.) Julius Paulus. Five Books of Sentences to Son. Fragments of Domitius Ulpianus. Moscow: Zertsalo: 155–237. (In Russ.)
30. Volkov V.V. (2017) The Empirical Sociology of Law in the Context of Interdisciplinary Synthesis. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No 3: 34-42. (In Russ.)
31. Weber M. (2018) Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. Vol. 3. Law. Moscow: VShE. DOI: 10.17323/978-5-7598-1515-0. (In Russ.)
32. Windescheid B. (1874) Textbook of the Law of Pandects. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg: A. Hieroglifov & I. Nikiforov. (In Russ.)
33. Youngs R. (2014) English, French & German Comparative Law. London: Routledge. DOI:10.4324/9781315816791