Advertisement

Does the New Always Prevail? Parallel Modes of Procedure in the History of Procedural Transformations

  • Henrik-Riko HeldEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 70)

Abstract

This contribution provides a historical-comparative analysis of the phases of certain relevant civil procedural reforms in which for a certain period of time the old and the new mode of procedure existed in parallel, with the possibility of the parties’ choice between the two. In the analysis, a threefold perspective is assumed, and the issue is approached from the perspective of Roman law, historical English common law and procedural law reforms in the lands of the Habsburg Monarchy in the 19th century. In the analysed periods, contrary to expectations, the parties disregarded the general evaluation of a new procedure’s efficiency. Instead, they were inclined to prefer the procedure that suited their immediate interests the best, even if it was generally considered to be outdated. The presence of this phenomenon throughout millennia and in disparate jurisdictions indicates the necessity to calculate its effects in scholarly and practical assessments of any given procedural reform.

References

  1. Albanese B (1987) Il processo privato romano delle legis actiones. Palumbo, PalermoGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthurs HW (1984) ‘Without the law’: courts of local and special jurisdiction in nineteenth-century England. J Legal Hist 5:130–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker JH (1979) An introduction to English legal history. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Betti E (1966) Processo civile (diritto romano). In: Azara A, Eula E (eds) Novissimo Digesto Italiano, vol 13. UTET, Torino, pp 1099–1120Google Scholar
  5. Birks P (1969) From legis actio to formula. Irish Jurist 4:356–367Google Scholar
  6. Blackstone W (2016) Commentaries on the laws of England, book 3. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Cannata CA (1980) Profilo istituzionale del processo privato romano, vol 1. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  8. Cannata CA (1982) Profilo istituzionale del processo privato romano, vol 2. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  9. Crook JA (1992) The development of Roman private law. In: Crook JA, Lintott A, Rawson E (eds) The Cambridge ancient history, vol 9. CUP, Cambridge, pp 532–563Google Scholar
  10. de Visscher F (1923) La condictio et le système de la Procédure formulaire. A Buyens, GandGoogle Scholar
  11. Devlin P (1956) Trial by jury. Stevens & Sons Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Engelmann A (1927) A history of continental civil procedure. Little, Brown, and Co, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. Entscheidungen des k.-k. (1885) Obersten Gerichts- und Cassationshofes in Civil- und Strafsachen, I. Jahrgang. Druck und Verlag der kaiserlich-königlichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, WienGoogle Scholar
  14. Entscheidungen des k.-k. (1890) Obersten Gerichts- und Cassationshofes in Civil- und Strafsachen, VI. Jahrgang. Druck und Verlag der kaiserlich-königlichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, WienGoogle Scholar
  15. Entscheidungen des k.-k. (1893) Obersten Gerichts- und Cassationshofes in Civil- und Strafsachen, IX. Jahrgang. Druck und Verlag der kaiserlich-königlichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, WienGoogle Scholar
  16. Fowler HH (1934) A psychological approach to procedural reform. Yale Law J 43:1254–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuenteseca P (1964) Las ‘legis actiones’ como etapas del processo romano. Anuario de historia del derecho español 34:209–233Google Scholar
  18. Girard PF (1893) La date de la loi Aebutia. ZSS RA 14:11–54Google Scholar
  19. Girard PF (1908) Nouvelles observations sur la date de la loi Aebutia. ZSS RA 29:113–169Google Scholar
  20. Guarino A (2001) Diritto privato romano. Jovene, NapoliGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanly C (2005) The decline of civil jury trial in nineteenth-century England. J Legal Hist 26:253–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holdsworth WS (1903–1966) A history of English law, vols 1–17. Methuen & Co Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Hummel JD (1966) Die Vorläufer des ‘writ of debt’ und seines Verfahrens. Eberhard-Karls-Universität, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  24. Jackson RM (1937) The incidence of jury trial during the past century. Mod Law Rev 1:132–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jolowicz JA (2000) On civil procedure. CUP, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jörs P, Kunkel W, Wenger L (1987) Römisches Recht. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaser M (1949) Das altrömische ius. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaser M (1953) Die lex Aebutia. In: Arangio-Ruiz V (ed) Studi in memoria di Emilio Albertario, vol 1. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 27–59Google Scholar
  29. Kaser M, Hackl K (1996) Das römische Zivilprozessrecht. CH Beck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  30. Loschelder M (1978) Die österreichische Allgemeine Gerichtsordnung von 1781. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  31. Luzzatto GI (1946) Procedura civile romana, vol 3. Edizioni Universitarie, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  32. Magdelain A (1991) Naissance de la procédure formulaire. TR 3-4:239–257Google Scholar
  33. Maitland FW (1997) The forms of action at common law. CUP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Mantovani D (1999) Le formule del processo privato romano. CEDAM, PadovaGoogle Scholar
  35. Maxeiner JR (2010) Pleading and access to civil procedure: historical and comparative reflections on Iqbal, A day in court and a decision according to law. Penn State Law Rev 114:1257–1289Google Scholar
  36. Mayer-Maly T (1969) Legis actio. In: Ziegler K, Sontheimer K (eds) Der kleine Pauly: Lexikon der Antike, vol 3. Alfred Müller, Stuttgart, pp 546, 547Google Scholar
  37. Melillo G (2007) Le legis actiones e i quinque modi agendi. In: Cascione C, Masi Doria C (eds) Fides humanitas ius, vol 5. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, pp 3515–3535Google Scholar
  38. Metzger E (2015) Litigation. In: Johnston D (ed) The Cambridge companion to Roman law. CUP, Cambridge, pp 272–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Milsom SFC (1969) Historical foundations of the common law. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Nicosia G (1986) Il processo privato romano, vol 1. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  41. Oberhammer P (2004) Speeding up civil litigation in Austria: past and present instruments. In: Van Rhee CH (ed) The law’s delay. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 217–232Google Scholar
  42. Oberhammer P, Domej T (2005) Germany, Switzerland, Austria (ca. 1800–2005). In: Van Rhee CH (ed) European traditions in civil procedure. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 103–128Google Scholar
  43. Oberhammer P, Domej T (2010) Delay in Austrian civil procedure and the legislator’s response. In: Van Rhee CH (ed) Within a reasonable time. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 255–277Google Scholar
  44. Paulus CG (1999) Legis actio. In: Cancik H, Schneider H (eds) Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike, vol 7. JB Metzger, Stuttgart, pp 22–24Google Scholar
  45. Plucknett TFT (2010) A concise history of the common law. Liberty Fund, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  46. Pollock F, Maitland FW (1968) The history of English law before the time of Edward I, vol 2. CUP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Proskauer JM (1928) A new professional psychology essential for law reform. ABA J 14:121–126Google Scholar
  48. Pugliese G (1961) Il processo civile romano, vol 1. Ricerche, RomaGoogle Scholar
  49. Rotondi G (1962) Leges publicae populi romani. Olms, HildesheimGoogle Scholar
  50. Sacconi G (1979) Appunti sulla lex Aebutia. Archivio giuridico ‘Filippo Serafini’ 197:63–93Google Scholar
  51. Scherillo G (1969) La ‘legis actio per iudicis arbitrive postulationem’ e le origini del processo formulare. IVRA 20:5–48Google Scholar
  52. Schneider G (2001) Das Bagatellverfahren im österreichischem Recht. MANZ, WienGoogle Scholar
  53. Schulz F (2003) Prinzipien des römischen Rechts. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  54. Sims HU (1911) Problem of reforming procedure. Yale Law J 21:215–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Swain WM (2009) Civil procedure in English common law. In: Katz SN (ed) The Oxford international encyclopaedia of legal history, vol 4. OUP, Oxford, pp 419–423Google Scholar
  56. Talamanca M (1987) Processo civile (diritto romano). In: Moratti C, Pugliatti S (eds) Enciclopedia del diritto, vol 36. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 1–79Google Scholar
  57. Talamanca M (1999) Il riordinamento augusteo del processo privato. In: Milazzo F (ed) Gli ordinamenti giudiziari di Roma imperiale. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Napoli, pp 63–260Google Scholar
  58. Uzelac A (2011) Kroatien: Rezeption des Ideenguts von Franz Klein als Aufgabe für die Zukunft? In: Rechberger WH (ed) Die Entwicklung des Zivilprozessrechts in Mittel- un Südosteuropa seit 1918. Jan Sramek, Wien, pp 175–201Google Scholar
  59. Van Caenegem RC (1971) History of European civil procedure. In: Cappelletti M (ed) Civil procedure. JCB Mohr, Tübingen, pp 1–113Google Scholar
  60. Van Caenegem RC (1988) The birth of the English common law. CUP, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van Rhee CH (2005) English civil procedure until the civil procedure rules (1998). In: Van Rhee CH (ed) European traditions in civil procedure. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 129–159Google Scholar
  62. Van Rhee CH (2012) The influence of the 1895 Austrian ZPO in the Netherlands. In: Chen L, Van Rhee CH (eds) Towards a Chinese civil code. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 521–539Google Scholar
  63. Weiss E (1925) Legis actio. In: Wissowa G, Kroll W (eds) Paulys Real-Encyklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, vol 12. JB Metzger, Stuttgart, pp 1838–1842Google Scholar
  64. Wlassak M (1888) Römische Processgesetze, erste Abteilung. Duncker & Humblot, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  65. Wlassak M (1891) Römische Processgesetze, zweite Abteilung. Duncker & Humblot, LeipzigGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations