Legal Maxims and the Ius commune
|
Regulae iuris in Justinian's Digest
Digest Book 50 Title 17 De regulis iuris 211 Regulae iuris
49 ULPIANUS libro trigensimo quinto ad edictum Alterius circumventio alii non praebet actionem. (Damage to one person does not give an action to another).
Culpa caret qui scit, sed prohibere non potest. Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest, quam ipse haberet. (No one can transfer greater rights to someone else than he possesses himself.)
(No one is seen to commit dolus who exercises his ius.)
(In doubtful cases more favorable interpretations <of facts> must be preferred.)
68 PAULUS libro singulari de dotis repetitione In omnibus causis id observatur, ut, ubi personae condicio locum facit beneficio, ibi deficiente ea beneficium quoque deficiat, ubi vero genus actionis id desiderat, ibi ad quemvis persecutio eius devenerit, non deficiat ratio auxilii. |
Regulae iuris in Canon Law
Bernardus Papiensis (Bernard of Pavia), Compilatio prima 5.37 1190 14 Regulae iuris
Raymond de Peñafort, Decretals of Pope Gregory IX 5.41 1234 11 Regulae iuris
Liber Sextus of Pope Boniface VIII, 5.ultimo De Regulis Iuris 1298 88 Regulae iuris
(An ecclesiastical office cannot be legally obtained without a canonically valid bestowal).
(A possessor in bad faith can at no time prescribe).
(Without possession, a prescription is not valid).
4. Peccatum non dimittitur, nisi restituatur ablatum. (A sin is not forgiven until the damage is restored).
(No one can be obligated to the impossible.) |
 Maxims
(Regulae iuris) in modern legal systems are confined to dictionaries (Bouvier
has many, Black has some) and separate books.Pantocrator, Capella Palatina, Palermo ca. 1240. |
Necessitas legem non habet Decretales of Pope Gregory IX, Book 5 Title 41 Canon 4
(Necessity recognizes no law)
Pseudo-Isidore (Hinschius 700-701: JK † 878, Felix IV)
"Nisi pro summa necessitate contingat,
quoniam necessitas legem non habet (Unless
moved by great necessity, because necessity negates law)"
(Anselm of Lucca, 7.119, Gregory, cardinal of Crisogono, Polycarpus, 3.16.3,
Gratian, De con. D.1 c.11) and six other minor Transalpine collections; Not in
Burchard of Worms or Ivo of Chartres.
Gratian formulated the maxim in a
dictum of the first recension of his Concordia discordantium canonum (ca.
1130-1140) (C.1 q.1 dictum post capitulum 39):
"Quia enim necessitas non habet legem, set ipsa sibi facit
legem (Because necessity negates law,
but necessity itself can make law)."
Bernard of Pavia
found almost the same concept (ca. 1190) in Bede's Commentary on Mark and
placed it among his "Regulae iuris" 1 Comp.
5.37.12(X 5.41.4):
"Quod non est licitum lege, necessitas
facit licitum (What is
not licit in law, necessity makes licit)."
Huguccio, C.1
q.1 d.p.c.39, s.v. necessitas non habet legem: "Idest in necessitate
positus non subest legi, non dicitur legis esse transgressor, idest reus
transgressionis, licet aliter faciat quam precipiat lex (That
is when one is placed in a condition of necessity, one is not called a breaker
of the law, that is guilty of transgressing the law, although one may do other
than the law commands),
ut de con. di.i. Sicut non alii" [Lons-le-Saunier, Archives
departementales du Jura, 16, fol. 126r]
Bernardus Parmensis (ca. 1250),
Ordinary Gloss to X 5.41.4, s.v. necessitas: "unde tempore
necessitatis omnia sunt communia (whence
in time of necessity all things are held in common)."
Franck Roumy has written as superb essay on the origins of the concept in "L'oringine et la diffusion de l'adage canonique 'Necessitas non habet legem' (VIIIe-XIIIe s.)," ed. Wolfgang P. Müller and Mary E. Sommar, Medieval Church Law and the Origins of the Western Legal Tradition: A Tribute to Kenneth Pennington (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press of America, 2006) 301-319. Roumy discusses the concept of "necessitas" sources close to ancient Roman law.
Korematsu v. United States 323 U.S. 214 (1944)
"Pressing Public Necessity" ― "Compelling Governmental (State) Interest" "Strict Scrutiny"