Obrok from article 110 of the Dushan code and posul from legal sources of Russian medieval law

IF 0.1 0 MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES
Z. Čvorović
{"title":"Obrok from article 110 of the Dushan code and posul from legal sources of Russian medieval law","authors":"Z. Čvorović","doi":"10.2298/zrvi2259157c","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The provision of Article 110 of Dushan?s Code, which prohibits judges from taking obrok by force, has not been examined from a comparative legal point of view, although in civilizationally close Russian law, primarily in the Sudebniks from 1497 and 1550 and the Saborno ulozhenie from 1649, there are similar anti-corruption regulations that prohibit judges from taking posul. The evolution of the concept of posul in Russian law, as well as the related tax institutions of obrok and korm, sheds a different light both on the overall development of the tax institution if obrok in Serbian law during the 13th and 14th centuries, as well as on the meaning of Article 110 of Dushan?s Code itself. While previous research on the Serbian obrok gives an extremely static view of this fiscal institution, according to which obrok from Dushan?s Code has the same meaning as obrok from the Bistrica Charter of King Stefan Vladislav, the related regulations of Russian legal sources show that the same tax expressions over time received a completely different legal meaning. This paper starts from the premise that the new meaning of the term ?obrok? from the Article 110 of Dushan?s Code is directly related to the changes in the organization of Dushan?s state, which in its legal nature is close to the Muscovite state of Emperor Ivan IV Vasilyevich.","PeriodicalId":53859,"journal":{"name":"Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta","volume":"73 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/zrvi2259157c","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The provision of Article 110 of Dushan?s Code, which prohibits judges from taking obrok by force, has not been examined from a comparative legal point of view, although in civilizationally close Russian law, primarily in the Sudebniks from 1497 and 1550 and the Saborno ulozhenie from 1649, there are similar anti-corruption regulations that prohibit judges from taking posul. The evolution of the concept of posul in Russian law, as well as the related tax institutions of obrok and korm, sheds a different light both on the overall development of the tax institution if obrok in Serbian law during the 13th and 14th centuries, as well as on the meaning of Article 110 of Dushan?s Code itself. While previous research on the Serbian obrok gives an extremely static view of this fiscal institution, according to which obrok from Dushan?s Code has the same meaning as obrok from the Bistrica Charter of King Stefan Vladislav, the related regulations of Russian legal sources show that the same tax expressions over time received a completely different legal meaning. This paper starts from the premise that the new meaning of the term ?obrok? from the Article 110 of Dushan?s Code is directly related to the changes in the organization of Dushan?s state, which in its legal nature is close to the Muscovite state of Emperor Ivan IV Vasilyevich.
摘自《独山法典》第110条,摘自俄罗斯中世纪法的法律渊源
《独山法》第一百一十条的规定?尽管在文明接近的俄罗斯法律中,主要是1497年和1550年的苏德尼克(Sudebniks)和1649年的萨博尔诺乌洛涅(Saborno ulozhenie),也有类似的反腐败法规禁止法官使用武力,但禁止法官使用武力的《俄罗斯法典》并未从比较法的角度加以审查。俄罗斯法律中“暂存权”概念的演变,以及奥布鲁克和科尔姆相关税收制度的演变,为13世纪和14世纪塞尔维亚法律中“暂存权”税收制度的整体发展,以及《独山?代码本身。虽然之前对塞尔维亚地区的研究对这一财政机构给出了一个极其静态的看法,但根据独山的哪个地区?虽然《税法》与《斯特芬·弗拉季斯拉夫国王的比斯特里察宪章》的含义相同,但俄罗斯法律资料的相关规定表明,相同的税收表述随着时间的推移,其法律含义完全不同。本文从“obrok”一词的新义的前提出发。《独山法》第110条?《独山规范》与独山组织结构的变化直接相关。这个国家在法律性质上接近于伊凡四世·瓦西里耶维奇皇帝的莫斯科国家。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta
Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信