Monday, 13 October 2014

MAZAB-MAZAB ILMU PENGETAHUAN HUKUM (THEORY OF LAW)

MAZHAB-MAZHAB ILMU PENGETAHUAN HUKUM

THEORY OF LAW


              Mengapa orang mentaati hukum Tanpa memperhatikan adanya sanksi terhadap pelanggaran kaedah hukum, timbul pertanyaan-pertanyaan: “Dari manakah asal Hukum itu, mengapa Hukum ditaati orang dan mengapa kita harus tunduk pada Hukum itu ?” Persoalan ketaatan terhadap Hukum telah menimbulkan berbagai teori dan aliran pendapat atau mazhab-mazhab dalam Ilmu Pengetahuan Hukum.
                 1. Mazhab Hukum Alam
               Adapun teori tentang Hukum Alam telah ada sejak zaman dahulu yang antara lain diajarkan oleh Aristoteles, yang mengajarkan bahwa ada dua macam Hukum, yaitu
 a. Hukum yang berlaku karena penetapan penguasa Negara b. Hukum yang tidak tergantung dari pandangan manusia tentang baik-buruknya, hukum yang “asli”. Menurut Aristoteles, pendapat orang tentang “Keaslian” adalah tidak sama, sehingga seakan-akan tidak ada Hukum Alam yang “asli”. Namun haruslah diakui, bahwa keaslian sesuatu benda atau hal tidaklah tergantung pada waktu dan tempat; Kekecualian dalam sesuatu hal tentulah ada. Bukanlah syarat mutlak bahwa Hukum Alam itu berlaku di zaman apa saja dan dimana-mana, tetapi lazimnya yaitu dalam keadaan biasa, hukum alam itu memang didapati di mana saja dan di zaman apa saja, berhubungan dengan sifat keasliannya yang memang selaras dengan kodrat alam. Prof. Subekti, S.H. mengatakan, bahwa menurut kodrat alam misalnya tangan kanan adalah lebih kuat dari tangan kiri, tetapi ada juga orang yang tangan kirinya lebih kuat dari tangan kanannya. Berhubungan dengan itu menurut Aristoteles, Hukum Alam itu ialah “Hukum yang oleh orang-orang yang berfikiran sehat dirasakan sebagai selaras dengan kodrat alam”. Thomas van Aquino (1225-1274) berpendapat, bahwa segala kejadian di alam dunia ini diperintah dan dikemudikan oleh suatu “Undang-undang abadi” (“lex eterna”) yang menjadi dasar kekuasaan dari semua peraturan-peraturan lainnya. Lex Eterna ini ialah kehendak dan pikiran Tuhan yang menciptakan dunia ini. Manusia di karuniai Tuhan dengan kemampuan berfikir dan kecakapan untuk dapat membedakan baik dan buruk serta mengenal serta mengenal berbagai peraturan perundangan yang langsung berasal dari “Undang-undang abadi” itu, dan yang oleh Thomas van Aquino dinamakan “Hukum Alam” (“Lex naturalis”). Hukum Alam tersebut hanyalah memuat asas-asas umum seperti misalnya: a. Berbuat baik dan jauhilah kejahatan b. Bertindaklah menurut fikiran yang sehat c. Cintailah sesamamu seperti engkau mencintai dirimu sendiri. Menurut Thomas van Aquino, asas-asas pokok tersebut mempunyai kekuatan yang mutlak, tidak mengenal kekecualian, berlaku dimana-mana dan tetap tidak berubah sepanjang zaman. Hugo de Groot (abad ke-17), seorang penganjur Hukum Alam dalam bukunya “De jure belli ac pacis” (Tentang Hukum Perang dan Damai) berpendapat, bahwa sumber Hukum Alam ialah fikiran atau akal manusia. Hukum Alam, menurut Hugo de Groot, ialah pertimbangan fikiran yang menunjukkan mana yang benar dan mana yang tidak benar. Hukum Alam itu merupakan suatu pernyataan fikiran (akal) manusia yang sehat mengenai persoalan apakah suatu perbuatan sesuai dengan kodrat manusia, dan karena itu apakah perbuatan tersebut diperlukan atau harus ditolak.
 2. Mazhab Sejarah Sebagai reaksi terhadap para pemuja Hukum Alam
di Eropah timbul suatu aliran baru yang dipelopori oleh Friedrich Carl Von Savigny (1779-1861) yang terkenal dengan bukunya “Vom Beruf unserer Zeit fur Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft (1814). Von Savigny berpendapat, bahwa hukum itu harus dipandang sebagai suatu penjelmaan dari jiwa atau rohani sesuatu Bangsa; selalu ada suatu hubungan yang erat antara hukum dengan kepribadian suatu Bangsa. Hukum itu menurut von Savigny, bukanlah disusun atau diciptakan oleh orang, tetapi hukum itu tumbuh sendiri di tengah-tengah rakyat. Hukum itu adalah penjelmaan dari kehendak rakyat, yang pada suatu saat juga akan mati apabila suatu Bangsa kehilangan kepribadiannya. Menurut pendapat tersebut, jelaslah bahwa hukum itu merupakan suatu rangkaian kesatuan dan tak terpisahkan dari sejarah suatu Bangsa, dan karena itu hukum itu senantiasa berubah-ubah menurut tempat dan waktu Jelaslah pula, bahwa pendapat von Savigny ini bertentangan dengan mazhab Hukum Alam, yang berpendapat bahwa hukum alam itu berlaku abadi di mana-mana bagi seluruh manusia. Aliran yang menghubungkan Hukum dan Sejarah suatu Bangsa dinamakan “Mazhab Sejarah”. Mazhab Sejarah itu menimbulkan ilmu pengetahuan hukum positif. Hukum Positif atau Ius Constitutum (oleh Prof. Sudiman Kartohadiprodjo. S.H. disebut Tata Hukum) menurut Dr. W.L.G. Lemaire ialah “Het hier en nu geldend recht”, yaitu Hukum yang berlaku di daerah (Negara) tertentu pada suatu waktu tertentu.
 3. Teori Teokrasi Teori tentang Hukum Alam 
         yang telah dijelaskan di atas merupakan bagian dari Filsafat Hukum, yang bertujuan menemukan jawaban atas pertanyaan: “Dari manakah asalnya hukum dan mengapa kita harus tunduk pada hukum ?”. Pada masa lampau di Eropa para ahli fikir (Filosof) menganggap dan mengajarkan, bahwa Hukum itu berasal dari Tuhan Yang Maha Esa, dan oleh karena itulah maka manusia diperintahkan Tuhan harus tunduk pada Hukum. Perintah-perintah yang datang dari Tuhan itu dituliskan dalam Kitab Suci. Tinjauan mengenai Hukum dikaitkan dengan Kepercayaan dan Agama, dan ajaran tentang legitimasi kekuasaan hukum didasarkan atas Kepercayaan dan Agama. Adapun teori-teori yang mendasarkan berlakunya Hukum atas kehendak Tuhan Yang Maha Esa dinamakan Teori Ketuhanan (Teori Teokrasi). Berhubungan peraturan-peraturan itu ditetapkan Penguasa Negara, maka oleh penganjur Teori Teokrasi diajarkan, bahwa para penguasa Negara itu mendapat kuasa dari Tuhan; seolah-olah para Raja dan penguasa lainnya merupakan wakil Tuhan. Teori Teokrasi ini di Eropah Barat diterima umum hingga Zaman Renaissance. 
4. Teori Kedaulatan Rakyat Pada zaman Renaissance,
        timbul teori yang mengajarkan, bahwa dasar hukum itu ialah “akal” atau “rasio” manusia (aliran Rasionalisme). Menurut aliran Rasionalisme ini, bahwa Raja dan penguasa Negara lainnya memperoleh kekuasaannya itu bukanlah dari Tuhan, tetapi dari rakyatnya. Pada abad pertengahan diajarkan, bahwa kekuasaan Raja itu berasal dari suatu perjanjian antara Raja dengan rakyatnya yang menaklukkan dirinya kepada Raja itu dengan syarat-syarat yang disebutkan dalam perjanjian itu. Kemudian setelah itu dalam Abad ke-18 Jean Jacques Rousseau memperkenalkan teorinya, bahwa dasar terjadinya suatu Negara ialah “perjanjian masyarakat” (“Contrat Social”) yang diadakan oleh dan antara anggota masyarakat untuk mendirikan suatu Negara. Adapun teori Rousseau tersebut dikemukakannya dalam buku karangannya yang berjudul “Le contrat social” (1762). Teori Rousseau yang menjadi dasar faham “Kedaulatan Rakyat” mengajarkan, bahwa Negara bersandar atas kemauan rakyat, demikian pula halnya semua peraturan perundangan adalah penjelmaan kemauan rakyat tersebut. Demikian menurut aliran ini, bahwa Hukum itu adalah kemauan orang seluruhnya yang telah mereka serahkan kepada suatu organisasi (yaitu Negara) yang telah terlebih dahulu mereka bentuk dan diberi tugas membentuk Hukum yang berlaku dalam masyarakat. Orang mentaati Hukum, karena orang sudah berjanji mentaatinya. Teori ini dapat juga disebut Teori Perjanjian Masyarakat. 
5. Teori Kedaulatan Negara Pada abad ke-19
            Teori Perjanjian Masyarakat ini ditentang oleh Teori yang mengatakan, bahwa kekuasaan Hukum tidak dapat didasarkan atas kemauan bersama seluruh anggota masyarakat. Hukum itu ditaati ialah karena Negaralah yang menghendakinya; Hukum adalah kehendak Negara dan Negara itu mempunyai kekuatan (power) yang tidak terbatas. Teori ini dinamakan Teori Kedaulatan Negara, yang timbul pada abad memuncaknya ilmu-ilmu pengetahuan alam. Penganjur Teori Kedaulatan Negara, yaitu Hans Kelsen dalam buku “Reine Rechtslehre” mengatakan, bahwa Hukum itu ialah tidak lain daripada “kemauan Negara” (Wille des Staates). Namun demikian, Hans Kelsen mengatakan bahwa orang taat kepada hukum bukan karena Negara menghendakinya, tetapi orang taat pada hukum karena ia merasa wajib mentaatinya sebagai perintah Negara. 
6. Teori Kedaulatan Hukum Prof. Mr H. Krabbe 
           Prof krabbe dari Universitas Leiden menentang Teori Kedaulatan Negara ini. Dalam bukunya yang berjudul “Die lehre der Rechtssouveranitet” (1906), beliau mengajarkan, bahwa sumber Hukum ialah “rasa keadilan”. Menurut Krabbe, Hukum hanyalah apa yang memenuhi rasa keadilan dari orang terbanyak yang ditundukkan padanya. Suatu peraturan perundangan yang tidak sesuai dengan rasa keadilan dari jumlah terbanyak orang, tidak dapat mengikat. Peraturan perundangan yang demikian bukanlah “hukum”, walaupun ia masih ditaati ataupun dipaksakan. Hukum itu ada, karena anggota masyarakat mempunyai perasaan bagaimana seharusnya hukum itu. Hanyalah kaedah yang timbul dari perasaan hukum anggota sesuatu masyarakat, mempunyai kewibawaan/kekuasaan. Teori yang timbul pada abad ke-20 ini dinamakan Teori Kedaulatan Hukum. 
7. Asas Keseimbangan Prof. Mr R. Kranenburg
          murid dari dan pengganti Prof. Krabbe berusaha mencari dalil yang menjadi dasar berfungsinya kesadaran hukum orang. Kranenburg membela ajaran Krabbe, bahwa kesadaran hukum orang itu menjadi sumber hukum. Menurut Kranenburg, Hukum itu berfungsi menurut suatu dalil yang nyata (riil). Dalil yang nyata yang menjadi dasar berfungsinya kesadaran hukum orang dirumuskan oleh Kranenburg sebagai berikut: Tiap orang menerima keuntungan atau mendapat kerugian sebanyak dasar-dasar yang telah ditetapkan atau diletakkan terlebih dahulu. Pembagian keuntungan dan kerugian dalam hal tidak ditetapkan terlebih dahulu dasar-dasarnya, ialah bahwa tiap-tiap anggota masyarakat hukum sederajat dan sama. Hukum atau dalil ini oleh Kranenburg dinamakan Asas Keseimbangan, berlaku dimana-mana dan pada waktu apapun.

Friday, 3 October 2014

Modern Hindu Law

Modern Hindu law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Modern Hindu law refers to one of the personal law systems of India along with similar systems for Muslims, Sikhs, Parsis, and Christians. This Hindu Personal Law or modern Hindu law is an extension of the Anglo-Hindu Law developed during the British colonial period in India, which is in turn related to the less well-defined tradition of Classical Hindu Law. The time frame of this period of Hindu law begins with the formal independence of India from Great Britain on August 14, 1947, and extends up until the present. While modern Hindu law is heralded for its inherent respect for religious doctrines, many still complain that discrimination (especially with the historical tradition of the caste system) still pervades the legal system. Though efforts to modernize and increase the legal rights of the marginalized have been made (most notably with the passage of the Hindu Code Bills and the establishment of notable legal precedents), the modern legal situation is, like all legal systems across the world, far from perfect.

History and Context

With the formal independence of India from Great Britain on August 14, 1947, India acquired a new constitution as well as a complex legal system. While a Western influence is apparent in this system, it is not an exact replication. The Indian legal system has characteristics of common law, but is codified and thus is actually more similar to civil law in nature. The modern Hindu legal system is applied to strictly personal law, including issues of marriage, inheritance and adoption, whereas India's secular legal system is applied to issues of criminal law and civil law.
India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru and the then law minister Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar worked to unify the newly independent India by proposing the reformation and codification of Hindu personal law. Nehru's efforts led to contentious debates over the so-called Hindu Code Bill, which he offered in the Indian parliament, as a way to fix still unclear elements of the Anglo-Hindu law. The Hindu Code Bill was initially and continues to be very controversial within and outside of the Hindu community. Criticism of the document is based on the belief that the laws in the Hindu Code bill should apply to all citizens regardless of religious affiliation.[1] Though a small minority suggested some kind of return to classical Hindu law, the real debate was over how to appropriate the Anglo-Hindu law.
Nehru completed codification and partial reform, but overall the legal system only slightly changed. In the end, a series of four major pieces of personal law legislation were passed in 1955-56 and these laws form the first point of reference for modern Hindu law: Hindu Marriage Act (1955)Hindu Succession Act (1956), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956), and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956). Though these legislative moves purported to resolve still unclear parts of the Anglo-Hindu law, the case law and interpretive tradition of British judges and Indian judges in the British employ remained and remains crucial to the application of modern Hindu law.
The overall effect of the codification of these rules was negative.[2] It was codified for the Hindus yet left them with limited legal option, as well as tried to stamp out any diversity name of "Hindu unity".[2] To no surprise it also caused a deep rift between Hindus and Muslims.[2] Some other negative effects included:
  • It gave Hindu women the notion that they now had equal rights.
  • Compared to the religious Muslim law, Hindu law appeared to be secular in nature, and thus the only way Muslims could "secularize" laws in essence to "Hinduize" it.
  • Codification fossilized Hindu law and customs into a conservative mold.

Application of Modern Hindu Law

As stated by Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, India is a secular state that strives towards legal uniformity. Many argue that the commitment of the Indian government towards this gradual uniformity of the legal system threatens the minority religious groups that utilize the plurality of the law to maintain traditions and implement their religious laws. While modern Indian Law claims to make strides towards secularism, it is undeniable that its foundations rise from the Hindu legal tradition and continues to maintain religious legal acceptance by recognizing the personal and family laws of the IslamicChristianJewish, and Hindu religions.
Before discussing the modern application and sources of Hindu law it is important to outline whom thse laws govern. In the case of Hindu personal and family laws, as outlined by the Acts of Parliament discussed below, those that are followers the Hindu religion, as well as those who are not Christian, Jewish or Muslim, are held accountable to these laws.[3] Therefore, it is assumed that all Indians who are not Muslim, Jewish or Christian are Hindu, disregarding personal religious laws of followers of Buddhist, Jain, Sikh and other religions, creating controversy within these communities. The Indian legal system does recognize Muslim, Jewish and Christian family courts as well as secular family courts.

Sources of Modern Hindu Law

Sources of Classical Hindu law arose from the religious texts of the Dharmaśāstra, as well as sadachar or customs, and commentaries or digests that translated and interpreted the laws. Since British colonialism, India has codified several aspects of the Hindu tradition into the Indian legal system as well as adopted common and civil legal procedures.

Legislation

Legislation, as created and implemented by the Indian government, is the strongest source of law in all Indian courts. In the case of two conflicting sources, legislation holds the highest jurisdiction.[3] While it is not a traditional source of law for the Hindu legal system, it is the latest and most legitimate form.
During colonialism, the British codified several aspects of the Hindu legal tradition into the Indian legal system, with the assumption that all Indians were Hindus. Thus upon gaining independence, many of the same laws that governed the country during colonialism were maintained as such, making the Indian Constitution and legal system heavily laden with Hindu legal traditions at its foundation.

Case Law

India is based on the British common legal system, thus the courts rely heavily on stare decisis, or precedent, when deciding cases. Any case decision made by a higher court is a source of law to all of the lower courts, in the prospect that the laws will be applied in a similar manner. The Hindu family courts are expected to follow laws handed down from previous cases.
Modern Hindu law relies on the interpretation of judges and their ability to decipher mitigating factors within each legal situation.[4] This is reflective of the ancient Hindu legal tradition of working out problems on a case specific basis in finding justice in each specific instance.

Notable Legal Precedents and Legislation

As is the case with many global legal systems that rely on precedents as a source of law, certain cases stand out that have shaped the Indian legal system into what it is today. Not only do they provide the foundation for future legal cases but they also make a statement about the state of the country and what direction it wants to lead. One such case came about during the efforts of modernization reforms in India. Known as the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (1971), the law allowed Indian women to legally obtain abortions. Thus this law made not only a religious statement, as India was trying to become more secular, but also made a statement of equality as it expanded the rights women had.
Another Act that most came to be was Early in December 2008, the marriage between a Hindu and a Christian was deemed invalid under the Hindu Marriage Act (1955) as the Act provides for only Hindu couples to enter into a wedlock, the Supreme Court has ruled.[5] Allegedly, Raj had misinformed his wife about his social status and she filed for divorce. He claimed that the Hindu Marriage Act does not preclude a Hindu from marrying a person of another faith. Dismissing the Christian husband’s appeal, the apex court upheld the High Courts’s view that the marriage not valid under the Hindu Marriage Act, specifically pointing to the fact that Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that a marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus if the conditions in the said Section were fulfilled.

Hindu Code Bills

Following independence, the postcolonial government led by Jawaharlal Nehru completed the codification and reform of Hindu personal law, a process that had been begun by the British. According to the British policy of noninterference, reform of personal law should have arisen from a demand from the Hindu community. This was not the case, as there was significant opposition from various Hindu politicians, organizations, and devotees who saw themselves unjustly singled out as the sole religious community whose laws were to be reformed.[6] However, the administration saw such codification as necessary in order to unify the Hindu community, which ideally would be a first step towards unifying the nation.[7] They succeeded in passing four Hindu Code Bills, including Hindu Marriage Act (1955)Hindu Succession Act (1956), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956), and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956).
Nehru and his supporters insisted that the Hindu community, which comprised 80% of the Indian population, first needed to be united before any actions were taken to unify the rest of India. Therefore, the codification of Hindu personal law became a symbolic beginning on the road to establishing the Indian national identity. Nehru also felt that because he was Hindu, it was his prerogative to codify specifically Hindu law, as opposed to Muslim or Jewish law.
Those in Parliament who supported the Bills also saw them as a vital move towards the modernization of Hindu society, as they would clearly delineate secular laws from religious law. Many also heralded the Bill’s opportunity to implement greater rights for women, establishing that such rights were necessary for India’s development.
The Hindu Code Bills are still controversial among some communities, including women's, nationalist, and religious groups. At the time of their creation, many portrayed them as a serious deviation from Hindu legal precedent. However, now many, including Nivedita Menon, argue that it is "misleading...to claim that Hindu personal law was reformed [in the 1950s]. It was merely codified, and even that was in the face of stiff resistance from Congress leaders.

Administration and Practice

There are no religious courts in India, as it is a secular nation. Rather religious personal laws are adjudicated by the state on a case by case basis.
Supreme Court of India - Central Wing

Courts

The court system of India is essentially divided into three tiers, the Supreme Court of India at the apex of the hierarchy for the entire country, twenty-one High Courts at the top of the hierarchy in each State, and subsequent district courts that govern family, criminal and civil laws within the states. The High Courts have jurisdiction over a state, a union territory or a group of states and union territories. District courts are the courts of first resort. It is within the district courts that Hindu law and other religious laws are administered. State judges apply Hindu law on a case by case basis.
The judges that preside over the district courts in India are state bureaucrats, not religious priests or scholars. Thus it is possible for a Hindu judge to preside over a divorce case between a Muslim couple or for a Christian judge to preside over a case involving a Hindu family. With no formal education on the religious laws of the state, judges may not be well versed in the laws they are to adjudicate. They rely heavily on case precedent and scholarly works to guide them through the cases.[12]

Lawyer

Lawyers in India are trained in general law schools and receive no formal and specific training on Hindu law, Muslim law, or any other personal religious laws. All lawyers are however required to take courses regarding personal law. These larger courses touch on the variety of personal laws that exist in India, including Hindu Law.


    The Common Law and Civil Law Traditions

    The Common Law and Civil Law Traditions

    • CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY

    court scene (Souvigny, woodcut)
    Woodcut of a court scene from Praxis criminis persequendi, Jean Milles de Souvigny, 1541. The Robbins Collection.
           Most nations today follow one of two major legal traditions: common law or civil law. The common law tradition emerged in England during the Middle Ages and was applied within British colonies across continents. The civil law tradition developed in continental Europe at the same time and was applied in the colonies of European imperial powers such as Spain and Portugal. Civil law was also adopted in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by countries formerly possessing distinctive legal traditions, such as Russia and Japan, that sought to reform their legal systems in order to gain economic and political power comparable to that of Western European nation-states.
             To an American familiar with the terminology and process of our legal system, which is based on English common law, civil law systems can be unfamiliar and confusing. Even though England had many profound cultural ties to the rest of Europe in the Middle Ages, its legal tradition developed differently from that of the continent for a number of historical reasons, and one of the most fundamental ways in which they diverged was in the establishment of judicial decisions as the basis of common law and legislative decisions as the basis of civil law. Before looking at the history, let’s examine briefly what this means.
                   Common law is generally uncodified. This means that there is no comprehensive compilation of legal rules and statutes. While common law does rely on some scattered statutes, which are legislative decisions, it is largely based on precedent, meaning the judicial decisions that have already been made in similar cases. These precedents are maintained over time through the records of the courts as well as historically documented in collections of case law known as yearbooks and reports. The precedents to be applied in the decision of each new case are determined by the presiding judge. As a result, judges have an enormous role in shaping American and British law. Common law functions as an adversarial system, a contest between two opposing parties before a judge who moderates. A jury of ordinary people without legal training decides on the facts of the case. The judge then determines the appropriate sentence based on the jury’s verdict.
            Civil Law, in contrast, is codified. Countries with civil law systems have comprehensive, continuously updated legal codes that specify all matters capable of being brought before a court, the applicable procedure, and the appropriate punishment for each offense. Such codes distinguish between different categories of law: substantive law establishes which acts are subject to criminal or civil prosecution, procedural law establishes how to determine whether a particular action constitutes a criminal act, and penal law establishes the appropriate penalty. In a civil law system, the judge’s role is to establish the facts of the case and to apply the provisions of the applicable code. Though the judge often brings the formal charges, investigates the matter, and decides on the case, he or she works within a framework established by a comprehensive, codified set of laws. The judge’s decision is consequently less crucial in shaping civil law than the decisions of legislators and legal scholars who draft and interpret the codes.
    The following sections explore the historical roots of these differences.

    Historical Development of Civil Law

    Mosaic of Emperor Justinian I
    Mosaic of Emperor Justinian I, 6th CE. Basilica of San Vitale, Ravenna, Italy.
    The term civil law derives from the Latin ius civile, the law applicable to all Roman cives or citizens. Its origins and model are to be found in the monumental compilation of Roman law commissioned by the Emperor Justinian in the sixth century CE. While this compilation was lost to the West within decades of its creation, it was rediscovered and made the basis for legal instruction in eleventh-century Italy and in the sixteenth century came to be known as Corpus iuris civilis. Succeeding generations of legal scholars throughout Europe adapted the principles of ancient Roman law in the Corpus iuris civilis to contemporary needs. Medieval scholars of Catholic church law, or canon law, were also influenced by Roman law scholarship as they compiled existing religious legal sources into their own comprehensive system of law and governance for the Church, an institution central to medieval culture, politics, and higher learning. By the late Middle Ages, these two laws, civil and canon, were taught at most universities and formed the basis of a shared body of legal thought common to most of Europe. The birth and evolution of the medieval civil law tradition based on Roman law was thus integral to European legal development. It offered a store of legal principles and rules invested with the authority of ancient Rome and centuries of distinguished jurists, and it held out the possibility of a comprehensive legal code providing substantive and procedural law for all situations.
    As civil law came into practice throughout Europe, the role of local custom as a source of law became increasingly important—particularly as growing European states sought to unify and organize their individual legal systems. Throughout the early modern period, this desire generated scholarly attempts to systematize scattered, disparate legal provisions and local customary laws and bring them into harmony with rational principles of civil law and natural law. Emblematic of these attempts is the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius’ 1631 work, Introduction to Dutch Jurisprudence, which synthesized Roman law and Dutch customary law into a cohesive whole. In the eighteenth century, the reforming aspirations of Enlightenment rulers aligned with jurists’ desire to rationalize the law to produce comprehensive, systematic legal codes including Austria’s 1786 Code of Joseph II and Complete Civil Code of 1811, Prussia’s Complete Territorial Code of 1794, and France’s Civil Code (known as the Napoleonic Code) of 1804. Such codes, shaped by the Roman law tradition, are the models of today’s civil law systems.

    Historical development of English Common Law

    Magna Carta, 1297 exemplar
    Originally issued in the year 1215, the Magna Carta was first confirmed into law in 1225. This 1297 exemplar, some clauses of which are still statutes in England today, was issued by Edward I. National Archives, Washington, DC.
    English common law emerged from the changing and centralizing powers of the king during the Middle Ages. After the Norman Conquest in 1066, medieval kings began to consolidate power and establish new institutions of royal authority and justice. New forms of legal action established by the crown functioned through a system of writs, or royal orders, each of which provided a specific remedy for a specific wrong. The system of writs became so highly formalized that the laws the courts could apply based on this system often were too rigid to adequately achieve justice. In these cases, a further appeal to justice would have to be made directly to the king. This difficulty gave birth to a new kind of court, the court of equity, also known as the court of Chancery because it was the court of the king’s chancellor. Courts of equity were authorized to apply principles of equity based on many sources (such as Roman law and natural law) rather than to apply only the common law, to achieve a just outcome.
    Courts of law and courts of equity thus functioned separately until the writs system was abolished in the mid-nineteenth century. Even today, however, some U.S. states maintain separate courts of equity. Likewise, certain kinds of writs, such as warrants and subpoenas, still exist in the modern practice of common law. An example is the writ of habeas corpus, which protects the individual from unlawful detention. Originally an order from the king obtained by a prisoner or on his behalf, a writ of habeas corpus summoned the prisoner to court to determine whether he was being detained under lawful authority. Habeas corpus developed during the same period that produced the 1215 Magna Carta, or Great Charter, which declared certain individual liberties, one of the most famous being that a freeman could not be imprisoned or punished without the judgment of his peers under the law of the land—thus establishing the right to a jury trial.
    In the Middle Ages, common law in England coexisted, as civil law did in other countries, with other systems of law. Church courts applied canon law, urban and rural courts applied local customary law, Chancery and maritime courts applied Roman law. Only in the seventeenth century did common law triumph over the other laws, when Parliament established a permanent check on the power of the English king and claimed the right to define the common law and declare other laws subsidiary to it. This evolution of a national legal culture in England was contemporaneous with the development of national legal systems in civil law countries during the early modern period. But where legal humanists and Enlightenment scholars on the continent looked to shared civil law tradition as well as national legislation and custom, English jurists of this era took great pride in the uniqueness of English legal customs and institutions. 
    That pride, perhaps mixed with envy inspired by the contemporary European movement toward codification, resulted in the first systematic, analytic treatise on English common law: William Blackstone’s (1723-1780) Commentaries on the Laws of England. In American law, Blackstone’s work now functions as the definitive source for common law precedents prior to the existence of the United States.

    Civil law influences in American law

    Sir William Blackstone by Thomas Gainsborough
    Sir William Blackstone, 1774, by Thomas Gainsborough. Oil on canvas. Tate Collection, London.
    The American legal system remains firmly within the common law tradition brought to the North American colonies from England. Yet traces of the civil law tradition and its importance in the hemisphere maybe found within state legal traditions across the United States. Most prominent is the example of Louisiana, where state law is based on civil law as a result of Louisiana’s history as a French and Spanish territory prior to its purchase from France in 1803. Many of the southwestern states reflect traces of civil law influence in their state constitutions and codes from their early legal heritage as territories of colonial Spain and Mexico. California, for instance, has a state civil code organized into sections that echo traditional Roman civil law categories pertaining to persons, things, and actions; yet the law contained within California’s code is mostly common law.
    And while Blackstone prevails as the principal source for pre-American precedent in the law, it is interesting to note that there is still room for the influence of Roman civil law in American legal tradition. The founding fathers and their contemporaries educated in the law knew not only the work of English jurists such as Blackstone, but also the work of the great civil law jurists and theorists. Thomas Jefferson, for example, owned several editions of Justinian’s Institutes, and praised the first American translated edition from 1812, with its notes and annotations on the parallels with English law, for its usefulness to American lawyers. Indeed, a famous example of its use is the 1805 case of Pierson v. Post, in which a New York judge, deciding on a case that involved a property dispute between two hunters over a fox, cited a Roman law principle on the nature and possession of wild animals from theInstitutes as the precedent for his decision. Today Pierson v. Post is often one of the first property law cases taught to American law students. United States v. Robbins, a 1925 California case that went to the Supreme Court and paved the way for the state’s modern community property laws, was based upon a concept of community property that California inherited not from English common law but from legal customs of Visigothic Spain that dated to the fifth century CE. Cases such as these illuminate the rich history that unites and divides the civil and common law traditions and are a fascinating reminder of the ancient origins of modern law.

    DUTCH LAW WORD

    DUTCH LAW WORD
    1. ZAAKSGEVOLG / DROIT DE SUIT: yaitu mengikuti benda dimanapun dan dalam tangan siapapun benda itu berada
    2. DROIT INVIOLABLE ET SACRE: yaitu hak yang tidak dapat diganggu gugat
    3. VAGUE: kabur
    4. DWINGEN; memaksa VERBAND: hubungan : hubungan erat
    5. FEIT : perbuatan
    6. OVERTRADING: pelanggaran
    7. MISDRIFF: kejahatan
    8. DADER: pelaku tindak pidana
    9. NIET ON VARKELIJK VERKLAARD: Gugatan tidak dapat diterima
    10. A QUO:
    11. IPSO JURE: demi hukum / berdasarkan hukum.
    12. EX AEQUO ET BONO: putusan yang seadil-adilnya
    13. DADER / DOER : orang yang melakukan delik
    14. DOENPLEGER / MANUS / DOMINA : orang yang menyuruh melakukan
    15. MEDEDADER/MADEPLEGEN : Orang yang turut melakukan
    16. UIT LOKER : orang yang sengaja membujuk
    17. MEDEPLICHTIGHEID : membantu
    18. NOODWEER : dalam keadaan terpaksa
    19. OVERMACHT: keadaan yang memaksa (tidak bias dielakkan).
    20. asas proporsionalitas: harus ada keseimbangan antara kepentingan yang dilindungi dengan kepentingan yang dilanggar.
    21. VERKAPTE VRIJPRAAK : putusan bebas tidak murni
    22. POINT DE IBTERN POINT ATIM : tidak ada sengketa tidak ada perkara
    23. LAMBROSO theory : character of crime
    24. NOTOIR FEIT : hal yang telah diketahui dan dinyakini kebenarannya oleh umum tidak perlu dibuktikan lagi.
    25. NOELA POENA SINE LEGI PRAVIA POENALE : tidak ada hukuman yang tanpa didasari oleh suatu ketentuan peraturan yang telah ada sebelumnya. (Pasal 1 (1) KUHP)
    26. OVERMACH : kejadian/keadaan yang memaksa
    27. MIRANDA RULE : hak seorang tersangka untuk mendapatkan penasehat hukum dalam perkaranya.
    28. SAKSI VERBALISAN : saksi yang melakukan pemeriksaan ditingkat penyidikan.
    29. ONSPLITBAR’ AVEU : suatu pengakuan tidak dapat dipisahkan-pisahkan.
    30. INTERVENSI : masuknya pihak ketiga yang merasamempunyai hak atau kepentingan untuk turut serta dalam perkara yang sedang dalam proses pemeriksaan di pengadilan.
    31. VOEGING : menyertai (ikut salah satu pihak)
    32. TUSSENKOMST : menengahi (tidak memihak)
    33. VRIJWARING : penanggungan / pembelaan (atas permintaan biasanya tergugat)
    34. DERDEN VERZETE : perlawanan pihak ketiga yang merasa mempunyai hak dan kepentingan, yang secara nyata-nyata telah dirugikan oleh karena adanya suatu putusan pengadilan, dengan cara menggugat para pihak yang berperkara (gugatan biasa)..dapat menangguhkan eksekusi hanya jika diperintahkan oleh KPN
    35. NIET ON VARKELIJK VERKLAARD : gugatan / tuntutan tidak diterima
    36. KAUKUS : pertemuan antara mediator dengan salah satu pihak dalam proses mediasi, tanpa dihadiri oleh pihak lainnya.
    37. UIT VOOR BAR BIJ VOOR RAAD : putusan serta merta, putusan yang diputus sebelum putusan akhir, yang dapat dilaksanakan dahulu meskipuyn belum berkekuatan hukum tetap.
    38. CONSERVATOIR BESLAG : sita jaminan terhadap barang bergerak / tidak bergerak milik tergugat
    39. REVINDICATOIR BESLAG : sita terhadap barang bergerak milik penggugat yang dikuasai oleh tergugat.
    40. PACTUM DE COMPROMITENDO : klausul penyelesaian arbitrase yang dibuat sebelumnya.
    41. AKTA COMPROMI : klausul yang dibuat setelah timbul permasalahan.
    42. RES JUDIKATA PRO VERITATE HABITUR : putusan hakim dianggap benar selama belum dibuktikan atau putusan sebaliknya.
    43. UNUS TESTIS NULUS TESTIS : satu orang saksi bukan merupakan (saksi) alat bukti (min 2 org). 1866- 1895 KUHPerdata.
    44. SUMPAH DECISOIR : sumpah pemutus/ akhiri sengketa / yang diminta oleh pihak satunya terhadap pihak yang lain agar diucapkan, untuk menggantungjan putusan perkara padanya (KUHPerdata 1929).
    45. DADING : perdamaian.
    46. AUDI ET ALTEREM PARTEM : hakim harus mendengarkan keterangan dari para pihak.
    47. ACTOR SEQUITUR FORUM REI : gugaatan harus dialamatkan pada alamat tergugat.
    48. ACTOR SEQUITUR FORUM SITEI : gugatan haarus dialamatkan pada alamat di mana benda tidak bergerak tersebut berada.
    49. FIAT JUSTISIA RUAT COELUM : keadilan harus ditegakkan meskipun langit runtuh.
    50. SANS PROJUDICE : surat yang tidak dapat dijadikan alat bukti, dibuka, dalam persidangan.
    51. HAK RETENSI : hak untuk menahan dokumen/berkas klien oleh ADVOKAT yang tidak membayar / melunasi honorarium yang telah disepakati.
    52. PREROGASI : mengajukan suatu sengketa berdasarkan persetujuan / kesepakatan para pihak kepada hakim tingkat pengadilan yang lebih tinggi, yang seharusnya tidak berwenang menangani perkara tersebut ( ac.perdata)
    53. MUTSATIS MUTANDIS : diakui / sah dengan perubahan-perubahan yang ada.
    54. PACTA SUNT SERVANDA : perjanjian merupakan sebagai undang-undang bagi yang membuatnya (1338 KUHPerdata “ semua persetujuan yang dibuat secara sah berlaku sebagai undang-undang bagi mereka yang membuatnya….”
    55. VRISPRAAK : bebas/tidak terbukti secara sah dan menyakinkan
    56. ONSLAG : lepas dari segala tuntutan hukum
    57. NEGATIVE WETELIJK : (KUHAP) pembuktian minimal 2 alat bukti bukti ditambah keyakinan hakim.
    58. SAKSI ADE CHARGE : saksi yang menguntungkan terdakwa.
    59. SAKSI A CHARGE : saksi yang memberatkan terdakwa.
    60. ISBAT NIKAH : pengesahan suatu pernikahan, adanya pernikahan dalam rangka perceraian, hilangnya akta nikah, adanya keraguan tentang sah tidaknya salah satu syarat perkawainan, adanya pernikahan sebelum disahkannya UU no. 1 tahun 1974, perkawinan yang dilakukan oleh mereka yang tidak mempunyai halangan dalam perkawinan sesuai dengan UU Perkawinan UU no 1 Tahun 1974. Permohonan isbath nikah tersebut dapat dilakukan oleh ; suami, istri, anak-anak dari suami istri tersebut, pihak ketiga yang berkepentingan, wali nikah.
    61. GUGATAN HADLANAH : gugatan pemeliharaan anak ( kasus perceraian)
    62. NADZIR : pengelola benda wakaf
    63. SUMPAH LIAN : inisiatif suami karena tuduh istri selingkuh dan ba’da duqul (bersetubuh dengan laki-laki lain).
    64. HAKAM : pihak penengah / pendamai antara suami istri yang ingin bercerai karena SIQOC, ditunjuk oleh hakim, biasanya dari kerabat suami atau istri.
    65. AL QADAU, AL GA’IB : putusan verstek.
    66. MU’ AN AN MU’ SAL SAL : testimonium de auditu
    67. PRAESUMTIO IUS TAE CAUSA / ERGA OMNES : KTUN masih dianggap sah, selama blm ada suatu ketentuan yang menyatakan sebaliknya.
    68. SELF OBIDENCE/ RECPECT : kesadaran B/P TUN untuk melaksanakan putusan PTUN.
    69. ULTRA PETITA : putusan yang melebihi tuntutan ( Ac. TUN).
    70. DISMISAL PROSEDUR : pemeriksaan awal / rapat permusyawarahan.
    71. DWANGSOM : uang paksa.
    72. RECHTMATHIGEID : segi penerapan hukum.
    73. DOCHMATIGHEID : segi kebijakan B/P TUN.
    74. FREIZE ERMESSEN : tindakan responsive/tanggap dari B/P TUN (publik) untuk kemakmuran masyarakat/ umum.
    75. INVERSO : kedua belah pihak.
    76. VEXATOIR : tindakan yang sia-sia / tidak mengenai sasaran.
    77. KOOPTASI : pemilihan anggota baru dari suatu badan musyawarah oleh anggota yang telah ada.
    78. DIKOTOMI : pembagian dua kelompok yang saling bertentangan.
    79. ANOMALI : penyimpangan / kelainan.
    80. REIMBURSMENT : penggantian kontrak, untuk pengeluaran uang, pengembalian.
    81. DISKREDIT : menjelek-jelekkan / memperlemah.
    82. RAISON D’ ETRE : alasan utama.
    83. DIVESTASI : pelepasan / pengurangan / pembebasan modal / saham dari perusahaan.
    84. LEX CERTA : ketentuan dalam perundang-undangan tidak dapat di artikan lain.
    85. IN CASU : dalam hal ini.
    86. IN BORGH : jaminan.
    87. IN COGNITO : penyamaran.
    88. IN COHEREN : tidak teratur.
    89. SURAT RELAAS : bukti pemberitahuan sidang di pengadilan.
    90. NUSYUZ : (ISTRI) meninggalkan kediaman bersama (rumah) tanpa ijin suami.
    91. KONTANTE HANDELING-SIMULTANEUSTRANSFER :ketentuan hukun adat dalam jualbeli tanah yang harus secara tunai dan jelas.
    92. PUTUSAN MA. tanggal 29 maret 1982 no. 1230 K/Sip/1980(pembeli yang beritikat baik yang dilindungi UU.
    93. UBI SOCIETAS IBI IUS : dimana ada masyarakat disana terdapat hukum
    94. POWER TENT TO CORRUPT: kekuasaan cenderung bersifat korupsi. (LORD ACKTON)
    95. LAW IS A TOOL OF SOCIAL SOCIAL ENGINEERING :hukum sebagai alat dalam mewujudkan perubahan-perubahan sosial (ROSCOE POUND).
    96. VOLLE EIGENAAR: pemilik penuh (dari benda jaminan)