ZNR 42 (2020) Heft 1/2


    Gemeindegut und Nutzungsrechte in der Judikatur des österreichischen Verwaltungsgerichtshofes (1876 – 1918), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 1–31

This paper analyses the body of judgements of the Austrian Administrative Court (1876 – 1918) regarding communal property (Gemeindegut), as already defined in § 288 ABGB. A discipline of “public law”, based on some paragraphs in the municipality orders (Landesgemeindeordnungen) of 1863 – 66, was developed for the common lands whose users could not claim their ownership in the ordinary courts. The ownership of common lands was therefore granted to municipalities; the customary law continued to grant traditional estovers and grazing rights to different subjects varying from place to place. Frequently, these were “municipality members” who owned a farm. These rights could be revoked in case of splitting up of the farm and they were limited to the needs of the farm; beyond this limit, the yields of the communal property were conferred to the municipality. Administration of communal property was granted to municipalities and was controlled by top-level self-governing bodies (Bezirksausschuss, Landesausschuss). The Administrative Court applied the customary law in a refined way, but it recognised only customs that had already been in place before 1863 – 66. This interpretation contributed to perpetuate discriminations in the rural communities against poor people, immigrants, Jewish people, all excluded from using rights or admitted at less favourable conditions.

    Ausgestaltung der Normen für das polnische Erbrecht nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 32–44

In the 20th century, Polish succession law was regulated in two main legal acts: the decree on inheritance law of 1946 and the IV. Book of the Civil Code of 1964. Although both legal acts were issued at a time when Poland came under communist rule, both were based on the traditional principles of the civil law common for the Western European countries. The purpose of this article is to present how such a situation was possible, as it was not the result of a simple transfer of regulations from one act to another. Between the issuing of the aforementioned two legal acts there was a gloomy Stalinist era, during which efforts were made to transpose into Polish law the rules introduced then in the Soviet Union. Those efforts in the field of inheritance law concerned four main areas: limitation of the group of statutory heirs, increase of the spouse’s inheritance share, restriction of the freedom of testation, introduction of the forced share in kind (reserve system) in place of the forced share in value. Changes in the succession of agricultural farms were also postulated, which would stop the process of land fragmentation. This proposition however was not related to the direct transplantation of Soviet patterns, but to the treatment of law as an instrument of a new socialist economy.

    Policeyliche Praxis im Königreich Bayern. Von der obrigkeitlichen Policey zur sozialstaatlichen Intervention, in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 45–60

Like in the era of Enlightenment, governing in the German monarchies in the first half of the 19th century was also based on the idea, that policy making – as an instance of reasonable thinking – was a question of knowledge, not of alternative concepts. Thus, it was the legal monopoly of the government. Bavaria provides an example. The traditional political intention of policy making, namely social welfare (“good policy”,“ gute Policey”), could establish itself in the Kingdom even though it was influenced by a new understanding of the law. However the legislative initiative was the exclusive competence of the royal government. The parliament of Bavaria (“Landstände”) was only involved, when a new law would have an impact on freedom or property. Thus, many enactments only came into force through a decision of the king and his government. While this kind of political system constituted an obstacle to democratic tendencies, its traditional background of social welfare paved the way to the modern social policy of Germany in the late 19th century. As a consequence prior to a Higher Administrative Court of Prussia  decision to this effect from 1882, the German definition of “police” cannot be reduced to the function of danger prevention.

    „Ein Mann von kräftigem Rechtsgefühle“. Rudolf von Jherings Prozess gegen seine Hausangestellte und der Kampf um’s Recht, in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 61–76

In 1864 and 1865, during close to a year and a half, the famous German law professor and renowned legal expert Rudolf von Jhering was caught up in a civil action in his then hometown of Gießen. It had been brought against him by his former maidservant, a certain Caroline Kuhl, who sued him for three months’ wages. Years later, towards the end of his tenure in Vienna, Jhering vividly recalled this trial as a prime example for some of the deficiencies and absurdities of modern law which he so scathingly criticised. In the published version Der Kampf um’s Recht, which appeared in 1872, however, there is not the slightest trace neither of Kuhl nor the lawsuit she dared to bring – and win – against one of the greatest lawyers of the century. This paper presents a historical reconstruction of Kuhl v. Jhering based on the court papers from the Jhering estate preserved at the Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen (SUB), followed by an assessment of Jhering’s actions and behaviour before and during the trial. It finishes with a discussion of the lawsuit’s significance as a provider of ideas and indeed a prequel to Jhering’s single most successful work Der Kampf um’s Recht, one of the few 19th century law books with a real global reach which is still popular today.

  • WANG QIANG, Beijing
    Vom deutschen BGB bis zu Chinas neuem Zivilgesetzbuch — Eine Rezeptionsgeschichte des BGB in China, in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 77–114

In the PRC, it has been highly on the political and legislative agenda of recent years to launch its own Civil Code. Having undergone three formal revisions and thus finally fulfilled the legislative prerequisites, the Civil Code was finally promulgated at the NPC’s 2020 annual session on May 28. Since its foundation in 1949, the PRC had made several attempts to codify its civil law, however, all unsuccessful. Therefore, this Civil Code embodies not only a milestone in the PRC’s legal development, but also a significant progress in China’s whole history of civil law legislation, which, despite its thousand-year-long history, had not started until the late Qing-Dynasty (1911). Both the PRC Civil Code with its seven books and the respective leges specialis still in force have been strongly influenced by the German Civil Code (BGB). In tracing these influences back, it can be easily concluded that the evolution of the Chinese civil law has been closely connected with the adoption of the BGB, while the history of the former runs parallel to the history of the latter. It is the very aim of this article to retrace this evolutionary history and investigate into the initiation of civil law legislation in China with the BGB as the primary foreign codification model. Furthermore, in a chronological order and mainly from the legal-technical, legal-systematic, legal-terminological and legal-historical perspective, the article probes into the BGB’s continuous influences on the important Chinese civil law codifications or codification drafts that have been interrelated with each other, including the Draft Civil Code of the Qing-Dynasty (1911), the Draft Civil Code of the Republic of China (1925), the Civil Code of the Republic of China (1929 – 1931) as well as the PRC Civil Code with its constituents.

    Ignacy Koschembahr-Łyskowski und das römische Recht in Freiburg im Üechtland. Ein Stück Schweizer Wissenschaftsgeschichte (1895–1900), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 115–148

Ignacy Koschembahr-Łyskowski was one of the first professors of Roman law appointed at the newly founded University of Fribourg in the path-breaking years 1895–1900. His biography is thus a story of Romanistic legal scholarship and law teaching in Switzerland at the dawn of the 20th century. Newly discovered archive materials from Fribourg and Germany document the challenges of Fribourg’s Alma Mater as well as Koschembahr-Łyskowski’s position in the academic community and his brilliant career. Remarkably his most original works were written during his first professorship in Fribourg. Koschembahr-Łyskowski’s writings present a fascinating mind marked with belief that, in spite of changing times, Roman law can still prove to be useful as a point of reference for modern legal scholarship, due to its adaptability to the modern social and economic conditions and richness of conceptual and argumentative legal experience. That his original idea of Roman law forming a tertium comparationis for modern laws has found followers can only be explained in terms of Fribourg’s genius loci.


  • Kai Ambos, Nationalsozialistisches Strafrecht. Kontinuität und Radikalisierung (= Grundlagen des Strafrechts 6), Baden-Baden ua. 2019 (Thomas Krause), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 149–150
  • Benedikt Beßmann, Das Strafrecht des Herzogtums Braunschweig im 19. Jahrhundert bis zum Reichsstrafgesetzbuch (= Juristische Zeitgeschichte/Abt. 3, 50), Berlin 2019 (Thomas Krause), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 151–154
  • Wolfgang Burgdorf, Protokonstitutionalismus. Die Reichsverfassung in den Wahlkapitulationen der römisch-deutschen Könige und Kaiser 1519 – 1792 (Schriftenreihe der Historischen Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 94), Göttingen 2015 (Matthias Pape), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 154–155
  • Andreas Dieckmann, Gesamthand und juristische Person (= Jus Privatum 239), Tübingen 2019 (Francis Limbach), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 155–157
  • Hans Fenske, Auf dem Weg zur Demokratie. Das Streben nach deutscher Einheit 1792 – 1871, Reinbek 2018 (Hans-Christof Kraus), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 157–159
  • Stefan Gerber (Hrsg), Das Ende der Monarchie in den deutschen Kleinstaaten. Vorgeschichte, Ereignis und Nachwirkungen in Politik und Staatsrecht 1914–1939 (= Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission für Thüringen/Kleine Reihe 54), Köln, Wien, Weimar 2018 (Marc von Knorring), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 159–160
  • Dominik Glorius, Im Kampf mit dem Verbrechertum. Die Entwicklung der Berliner Kriminalpolizei von 1811 bis 1925. Eine rechtshistorische Betrachtung (= Berliner Juristische Universitätsschriften/Grundlagen des Rechts 57), Berlin 2016 (Peter Collin), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 160–162
  • Saskia Kirchgeßner, Abwehr und Ausgleich von Eigentumsstörungen unter Nachbarn. Die §§ 1004, 906 Abs. 2 S. 2 BGB und die théorie des troubles anormaux de voisinage im Vergleich (= Studien zum Europäischen Privatrecht und zur Rechtsvergleichung 18), Jena 2019 (Franz Hofmann), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 162–165
  • Martin Löhnig – Stephan Wagner (Hrsg), Das ADHGB von 1861 als gemeinsames Obligationenrecht in Mitteleuropa (= Mitteleuropäisches Zivilrecht 1), Tübingen 2018 (Martin Otto), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 165–170
  • James R. Maxeiner, Failures of American Methods of Lawmaking in Historical and Comparative Perspectives, Cambridge 2019 (Bernd Mertens), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 170–172
  • Philipp Spiller, Personalpolitik beim Kammergericht von 1933 bis 1945 (= Berliner juristische Universitätsschriften. Grundlagen des Rechts 55), Berlin 2016 (Ulrich Stump), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 172–174
  • Dominik Strohkendl, Das Strafgesetzbuch für die Preußischen Staaten vom 14. April 1851. Entstehungsgeschichte und Inhalt im Lichte weiterer deutscher Strafgesetzbücher des 19. Jahrhunderts (= Quellen und Forschungen zur Strafrechtsgeschichte 14), Berlin 2019 (Bernd Mertens), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 175–176
  • Alexander Thiele, Der gefräßige Leviathan. Entstehung, Ausbreitung und Zukunft des modernen Staates, Tübingen 2019 (Christoph M. Stoll), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 176–180
  • Christian Thomasius, Briefwechsel. Historisch-kritische Edition, Berlin/Boston 2019 (Christian M. König), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 180–161
  • Hendrike Wulfert-Markert, Clive M. Schmitthoffs Konzeption eines transnationalen Welthandelsrechts. Ein Beitrag zum Leben und Werk von Clive M. Schmitthoff (1903 – 1990) (=Beiträge zur Rechtsgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts 102), Tübingen 2018 (Albrecht Cordes), in: ZNR 42 (2020), S. 182–184