THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE "PRIVATE" ELEMENT FROM THE CONCEPT OF THEFT: A HISTORICAL EXPLANATION

Xuewei Zhang

Makale detayları

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE "PRIVATE" ELEMENT FROM THE CONCEPT OF THEFT: A HISTORICAL EXPLANATION

Yazarlar:

Xuewei Zhang

Yayıncı:

Ankara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk

Dergi:

Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.72 Issue 2, pp.949-972

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

7/2023

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001293192

pISSN:

1301-1308

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 According to the unique public and private law division standards in Roman law, the concept of theft in Roman law has a dual nature of public and private. Ordinary theft is considered to reflect private legal relations and is a delictum, while aggravated theft reflects the legal relations dominated by the will of the state and is a public crime. The duality of this theft also affected the development of the concept of theft in the Middle Ages, both Canon law and Germanic law distinguished between ordinary theft and aggravated theft, but ordinary theft was no longer regarded as delictum. Germanic law upheld the idea of public peace, while Canon law legitimized the criminalization of theft based on the idea of atonement and finally integrated the concepts of theft in Roman law, Canon law and Germanic law through the promulgation of the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina at the end of the Middle Ages. Ultimately, Germanic jurists reinterpreted the conception of theft expounded by classical jurists and transmuted the notion of theft into one invested with the character of a public crime. This thereafter constituted the prototypical paradigm of modern German theft legislation.

 According to the unique public and private law division standards in Roman law, the concept of theft in Roman law has a dual nature of public and private. Ordinary theft is considered to reflect private legal relations and is a delictum, while aggravated theft reflects the legal relations dominated by the will of the state and is a public crime. The duality of this theft also affected the development of the concept of theft in the Middle Ages, both Canon law and Germanic law distinguished between ordinary theft and aggravated theft, but ordinary theft was no longer regarded as delictum. Germanic law upheld the idea of public peace, while Canon law legitimized the criminalization of theft based on the idea of atonement and finally integrated the concepts of theft in Roman law, Canon law and Germanic law through the promulgation of the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina at the end of the Middle Ages. Ultimately, Germanic jurists reinterpreted the conception of theft expounded by classical jurists and transmuted the notion of theft into one invested with the character of a public crime. This thereafter constituted the prototypical paradigm of modern German theft legislation.

 According to the unique public and private law division standards in Roman law, the concept of theft in Roman law has a dual nature of public and private. Ordinary theft is considered to reflect private legal relations and is a delictum, while aggravated theft reflects the legal relations dominated by the will of the state and is a public crime. The duality of this theft also affected the development of the concept of theft in the Middle Ages, both Canon law and Germanic law distinguished between ordinary theft and aggravated theft, but ordinary theft was no longer regarded as delictum. Germanic law upheld the idea of public peace, while Canon law legitimized the criminalization of theft based on the idea of atonement and finally integrated the concepts of theft in Roman law, Canon law and Germanic law through the promulgation of the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina at the end of the Middle Ages. Ultimately, Germanic jurists reinterpreted the conception of theft expounded by classical jurists and transmuted the notion of theft into one invested with the character of a public crime. This thereafter constituted the prototypical paradigm of modern German theft legislation.

 Roma Hukukunun kendine özgü kamu hukuku ve özel hukuk ayrımı uyarınca, Roma Hukukunda hırsızlık kavramı kamusal ve özel olmak üzere ikili bir karaktere sahiptir. Adi hırsızlığın özel hukuk ilişkilerini yansıttığı ve bir delictum özel suç olduğu kabul edilirken nitelikli hırsızlık devletin iradesinin hakim olduğu hukuki ilişkileri yansıtmaktadır ve bir kamu suçudur. Hırsızlığın ikili yapısı, Orta Çağda hırsızlık kavramının gelişimini de etkilemiştir. Kanonik Hukuk ve Cermen hukuku, adi hırsızlık ile nitelikli hırsızlık arasında ayrım yapmıştır, ancak adi hırsızlık artık delictum olarak kabul edilmemeye başlamıştır. Cermen Hukukunda kamu barışı fikri üstün tutulmaktayken Kanonik Hukuk, hırsızlığın suç olarak kabul edilmesini kefaret fikri üzerinden meşru kılmış ve nihayetinde Orta Çağın sonunda Constitutio Criminalis Carolinanın çıkarılmasıyla, Roma Hukuku, Kanonik Hukuk ve Cermen Hukukunun hırsızlık kavramlarını birbiriyle kaynaştırmıştır. Sonuç olarak Cermen hukukçular, Klasik Dönem hukukçuları tarafından ortaya konan hırsızlık anlayışını yeniden yorumlamış ve hırsızlık kavramını bir kamu suçu niteliğine büründürmüştür. Bu ise daha sonrasında hırsızlığa ilişkin çağdaş Alman mevzuatının öncül örneğini teşkil etmiştir.

Makale detayları

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE "PRIVATE" ELEMENT FROM THE CONCEPT OF THEFT: A HISTORICAL EXPLANATION

Yazarlar:

Xuewei Zhang

Yayıncı:

Ankara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk

Dergi:

Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.72 Issue 2, pp.949-972

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

7/2023

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001293192

pISSN:

1301-1308

Delictum

Ordinary theft

Aggravated theft

Canon law

Germanic lawDelictum

Adi hırsızlık

Nitelikli hırsızlık

Kanonik Hukuk

Cermen Hukuku

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Xuewei Zhang

Yayıncı: Ankara University

Ana Başlıklar: Hukuk

Dergi: Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.72 Issue 2, pp.949-972

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 7/2023

Belge Dili: İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.): 2001293192

pISSN: 1301-1308

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Xuewei Zhang

Yayıncı:

Ankara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk

Dergi:

Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.72 Issue 2, pp.949-972

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

7/2023

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001293192

pISSN:

1301-1308