Verdurian usage question

[So Haleza Grise]

Im soan logoran, lelai dy dhini lozhi, <amrabe> i <dro??> tenu comshaynem zadadonem. So pene e im ledhan logore <dalu mue amrab?>, er so ftore zet tr?ue im <So Sannon i Leb?>, kt? n?cto zet apuele <so dro?? hipcont i Prishtina>. Credhu dy soi dhini zet celmetu im Englan? she <rightful> (soa logora mize <de jure> ot?l). Esce soi dhini dhelu ab zadadonin ca

[zompist]

The difference derives from the root words, amrab 'law' and dro? 'right'. In a well-ordered society like modern Verduria, these overlap quite a bit; but in medieval times there was a clearer distinction. Laws are codified by someone, like a king or parliament; they imply a cohesive community which follows the law-- in medieval times, generally only a city or a monastic order or a university. Rights are granted by someone, quintessentially by a feudal overlord to his vassal; or they're 'obvious' bits of morality granted to a class of people by convention. They can apply to much larger and looser-knit networks, and are ideally unchanging and self-enforcing.

To put it another way, when a law is violated, you go to the courts, or whatever other enforcement mechanism exists. When a right is violated, you reproach the lord, or appeal to his lord, or complain to society as a whole.

[hwhatting]

The difference derives from the root words, amrab 'law' and dro? 'right'. (snip)

Is the difference similar to the German distinction between "Gesetz" and "Recht"? Gesetz is a codified statute (or, collectively used, the system of codified statutes used by a jurisdiction), while Recht is the system of entitlements (and obligations), valid in a jurisdiction or universally, of which Gesetz is only a subset - it comprises also customary law ("Gewohnheitsrecht"), legal precedent, regulations issued by authorities authorised to regulate certain issues - from Finance ministry decrees on tax issues down to municipality rules on who can join municipal kindergardens. Additionally, Recht is also used for purely moral rights and human rights ("Menschenrechte").
A similar distinction also exists in other languages (French loi and droit, Russian zakon and pravo, with the distinction perhaps going back to Latin lex and ius).
It seems to me that English "right" can be used in similar way to German Recht when we talk about individual entitlements; the difference is that English uses "law" to express the collective meanins of both Recht and Gesetz.
Perhaps this is due to the English common law tradition, against the continental history of reception and emulation of Roman law. (Has there been a re-disovery of Cadhinorian law after the dark ages in Verduria? Or did it never go entirely out of fashion?)
Best regards,

Hans

[zompist]

I think I need to do some more research into the history of law. I find I have no idea why England has a "common law" tradition and the continent doesn't.

At a guess, though, Verdurian law would strongly resemble Cadhinorian law. It was settled by the Cadhinorians and doesn't derive from any intervening (e.g. barbarian) state, so there would never be any reason to change the foundations.

[hwhatting]

As far as I remember from German history, up to the middle ages German law went back to the old Germanic customary law in which also the English common law was rooted. There were several codifications of this by various kings, princes, and emperors.
At some stage, in parallel with the rise of the universities, attempts were made to codify law based on the re-discovered Roman law. There was a certain correlation between the Roman law movement, monarchical centralising tendencies, and private property rights (especially of big property owners) on one side and customary law, the defense of the privileges of the estates (St?nde) against the monarch, and traditional collective land use on the other side.
As far as I understand, in England the kings didn't succeed very much in moving beyond the stage of codifying common law. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that they also weren't able to establish an absolute monarchy, as happened in most European countries. (In Germany, the emperors never succeeded in that for the empire as a whole, either, but most princes did establish centralised, absolute monarchies in their principalities).
Best regards,

Hans-Werner

Addendum: Why the correlation between centralising tendencies, universities, and Roman law? Customary law was based on existing rights, varied from region to region, and its application required knowledge of and respect for local traditions, so it suited a system of local feudal lords and elected or otherwise delegated representatives of the estates. Roman law offered a template for a codified law that was independent of traditional privileges and regional variations, had the glory of a great imperial past (which was claimed as historical legitimation by the German emperors anyway), and required knowledge of Latin and detailed studies, so it suited a new class of university-educated bureaucrats.

[So Haleza Grise]

I think I need to do some more research into the history of law. I find I have no idea why England has a "common law" tradition and the continent doesn't.

Mostly because of the Anglo-Saxons, whose laws were based on customs and developed over time. Henry II formalised the system so that precedent became properly authoritative and custom formalised by decisions of courts. During the later mediaeval era, Equity developed from the Chancery (church-influenced) courts.

Continental countries kept the precepts of Roman law after the Empire vanished. The situation in Germany was somewhat complicated, as Hans-Werner has elaborated.

Also, Continental legal systems typically owe a great deal to Napoleon's codification. The Code Civil had a major influence wherever his armies went and further.

Louisiana has a civil law system, as does Quebec.