This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Customary law article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"In Canada, customary aboriginal law has a constitutional foundation and for this reason has increasing influence." What?? Aboriginal law in Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winedrauv (talk • contribs) 00:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
custom(law) is a thing that tells you what kind of laws there are in Togo. The laws aren't that stricked. You can get away with almost anything.
"In any case, it is hard to find any practically relevant examples. In the Scandinavian countries customary law continues to exist and has great influence."
Which is it? Relevant or not? If you're going to edit these things, make sure you fix it so it isn't directly contradicting something else in the article.
I am not qualified to select which one is correct. Someone who is please take care of this. Andy Christ 19:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to explain the partial reversion of the edits by Fhusis- I reverted the portion dealing with custom under civil law traditions, but left the section on Canada (which I really don't know anything about. The information I have, mostly Merryman, but not exclusively, as well as consistency with the principles of the civil law tradition, indicates that custom is always inferior. It makes sense as it would put far too much power in the hands of judges (a very bad thing in the perception of civil law states).
As far as the deleted consitutional reference, this can be taken one of two ways, neither of which seemed appropriate. First, it could mean that being included in the constitution means it is no longer inferior to statutes or regulations. My understanding is that custom as a source is included in the constitution, but the hierarchy is not changed. I could be wrong and it could be by statute, but I don't believe so. Second, it could mean that specific customs could become superior if included in the constitution. The problem there is that, in that case, what was a custom is now superior because it constitutional (a "super statute"). In other words, it is the consitutional process that makes it superior, not its evolution as custom.
At any rate, I'll also point out that that paragraph does not make any statement about how custom is handled in Canada as Canada is a common law state, not a civil law state. IMHO (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I am a swedish lawyer and I have to say that the swedish legal system is not a customary one. It is true that the scandinavian countries have similar legal systems that are different from continental Europe but it is still civil law in that 1) the law is codified 2) there is no stare decisis. I should add that in some legal areas, custom is a factor in deciding the outcome of a trial. An example would be that in a certain field of business or insdustry there is a commmon contract used by allmost all businesses, the regulations of this contract could start to have effect on all contracts signed in the same kind of industry (eg construction). Would this be custom law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winedrauv (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The only Swedish example I can think of is the Allemansrätt (lit. everyman's right) usually refered to as the freedom to roam. However; that was made constitutional in 1994 so I guess it doesn't qualify as customary law any longer. I don't know wether the same kind of change has ocurred in the other countries having similar laws. (Norway plus I think Finland, Iceland and Scottland have some similar laws as well even if they are not Scandinavian countries). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Softwiki (talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Where is this magical R v Boomsdale case from? Could the person who posted it please include a citation or at least which country's legal tradition it is from? I'm finding it impossible to track down. Or are you referring to something that's analogous to the implication of terms by custom into contracts? In that case, there would be any number of cases you could refer to. Jasmeen Malhotra (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
In image:LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png, the only countries marked as having customary law are Mongolia and Sri Lanka, both not mentioned here. The ones mentioned (Kyrgyzstan, Somalia and to some extent Canada and unspecified Scandinavian and African countries) are not marked in the map. I am aware that a lossless visualization is impossible, but here there's no overlap at all between the map and the text.--87.162.30.35 (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
what is the difference between the tow? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The main focus of this article seems to be Customary law, not Custom (law). I would suggest either splitting this article into two, as above, or renaming the article to the former. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Support. This merger makes sense... The topics of the two articles seem to fit together nicely, and Consuetudinary is not much more than a stub. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Would the unwritten British constitution fall under this? I keep hearing there is a constitution, but no one has bothered to write it down. (Apparently it's not deemed important enough.) There doesn't seem to be case law about it either (not sure what court would be competent), so custom seems all that's left? --86.135.174.109 (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Custom (law). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Custom (law). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Custom (law). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move the page to Customary law at this time, per the discussion below. It is true that the new title refers to a set (and a set is singular), but as noted, this also reflects the way the article is currently written. Dekimasuよ! 00:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Custom (law) → Legal custom – Per WP:NATURALDISAMBIG. Rreagan007 (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The article uses the phrase "third world" and links to that page. This is dated, I believe. The phrase used should be "Developing" world or countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.139.7.86 (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The lead section mentions "prescription", but the cited source is materially different from what is written in the article. The source talks about prescription as "A method of acquiring a nonpossessory interest in land through the long, continuous use of the land." so it appears to be a special case of customary law about land, and not a general legal concept. A related concept is prescriptive law. The nature of a statement that prescribes how things ought to be. A prescriptive theory is one that says how people or things should function, as opposed to how they actually do.
Anyway, "prescription" seems out of place in the lead section and I will remove it for now, until it is rewritten and place in a more appropriate place in the article. --Happyseeu (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)