Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 12.pdf/639

 боо

sciousness in human kind. Generally speak ing, the connection of ideals is about as fol lows : Freedom and compulsion are the fundamen tal elements of law. The subjective right is freedom, the objective represents compulsion. Both are, in their conception, indissolubly con nected, one cannot be derived from the other. But in the historical development of law, one or the other may predominate in the national legal consciousness and give a one sided initial start ing point for the formation of law. Herewith the fundamental difference is given for the entire legal system. Asia and Europe are the coun tries in which the laws are thus differentiated. Asia is the land of compulsion and objective law, Europe that of freedom and subjective right. The other continents do not, individu ally, come into consideration. They have de rived their laws from the two others; or, where an indigenous system prevails, it is yet on the level of a first formation of law.

In Asia the law appears as objective power and necessity towards the individual. It is a higher order of life to which the individual must submit. It grants him a certain meas ure of freedom and subjective right, but it has its base and origin, not in the liberty and rights of the individual, but in the objective command from above. Subjection, not free dom, is the basis of the law. According to the source of the objective command the following differences may be noted : In the oriental countries it is the will or command of the ruler which forms the principle of the law, of whatever nature the power of the ruler may be; he may have a patriarchal family power, as in China, or be absolute despot, in which case the whole people appear as slaves, as in farther India, especially Siam. In central Asia, principally India, the law rests on the moral religious order which the priests, the Brahmans, have given to the people. In western Asia, it is the command of the founder of the religion, who at the same time with the creed ordains the law; as is the case among the ancient Persians, the Jews and the Mohammedans. It was

Christianity which produced a separation of religion and law and made possible a union of both with freedom. The European legal systems rest on the principle of individual liberty. Right and law are not given by rulers or priests but emanate from the people and are incorpora tions of its liberties. In the Greek laws, subjective and objective right were in an im mediate union; freedom consisted mostly in the general participation in public life; the private law was subordinate and had not yet arrived at any development. The equal de velopment of public and private law, or of objective and subjective right, appears for the first time in the Roman and Germanic laws. These two legal systems represent the advanced parts of legal development combined; they are its completion, and there fore are the basis for the whole modern law of the civilized world. Both rest on the liberty of the individual, but the difference between the two may be stated to be as fol lows : In the Roman law the individual liberty and its legal expression appear as an abstract objec tive conception shared by every individual. Right is thus conceived objectively and legally and equally determined for all, so that all are measured by the same standard and equally judged. To the Romans it appeared as the highest duty of legislation, fulfilled by the XII Tables, "omnil'iis, stnnmis infiiiisquc. iuraaquart? All law therefore emanates from the individuals, has their subjective rights for a basis, and their recognition and protection as an end; but it only becomes actual law when it is established in an objective, all-ruling form; in whatever manner this may be effected, whether by law or custom, or by the action of magistrates, jurists or power emperors. as a general A firmbearer and absolute of the governmental objectivity of . right, is essential to the Roman law. But this state itself rests on the subjects, and — during the republic and by themselves — was formed by means of the peculiar firm organization of the body of the citizens and their rule over sub jugated peoples. With the corruption of this body and the extension of the civil law, this