In the early 13th century, the warrior aristocrats in the Christian Europe were tied to the rescued legal system with the Magna Carta of England in 1215 and other treaties across Europe. Slightly later, complex moral norms and behavior rules occurred to limit professional warriors. Power and power are now under legal rules, and the road to the Constitutional Government was in progress.
The story is well known to Americans and Europeans. But that’s not the case. Very similar things happened at the same time. The change is the topic of the new paper of Peter Leeson, an economist at George Mason University. With with “AnakiThe law and economics of the samurai organization investigate the birth of Kamakura Baku Fu (literally the “tent government”) in the medieval Japan.
Samurai was a skilled professional warrior, a deadly expert. They were similar to European knights in many ways, but there was one main difference. They depended on others about the right to land or the product. Specifically, they depended on the court nobles. kuge.
These aristocrats had no true military power and could not effectively execute order in most of Japan. Thus, they hired samurai and sometimes hired to provide military power, but they collected membership fees from tenants, operated real estate, and sent their income to the owner of Kyoto. The power between these two classes was asymmetrical. In the dispute between the owner and the samurai, the judicial authorities were with the owner and became a judge in the case of himself. also Shi-The bundle of the rights of the warrior attached to the land-was held according to the will. The owner can end easily. This resulted in exploitation and abuse as the anger of the samurai increased.
KUGE was able to solve this problem for a while because the samurai faced collective behavior. Eventually this took place in the 1180 to 1185 Genpei war. After his victory in the conflict, Samurai leader Minamoto Tomo made Bakufu and based on it. After a sudden death, Hojo Clan strengthened the organ.
Bakufu was not a government that ruled Japan. Samurai’s company has provided governance services to members who are no longer in the jurisdiction of the court. that kuge The government still existed and continued to exercise power, but it was not for the members of Bakufu. And Bakufu did not include all samurai. Thus, Bakufu had a lot of attributes of the sovereign, but did not exercise sovereignty for non -members. Leeson says: “The Kamakura era Japan was a double politics. … The analogy of European history has become a jurisdiction of sovereignty, such as Knights and Hospitals, but more members. In some ways, Bakufu’s position was similar to the position of the Roman Catholic Church of Europe.
Samurai, a member of Bakufu, was called GokeeninOr honorable house. I was able to bring a lawsuit to Manman Baku Fu Court, so I had all the protection and benefits. In return, they had to serve military for the organization and perform regular expenses at Kamakura headquarters. Members were voluntary and mostly genetic. Bakufu did not try to expand its membership. In part, it was powerful enough because it was not necessary because it exaggerated the judicial system and diluted the quality. (In fact, in response to the threat of the invasion of Mongolia, it helped to help the system breakdown in 1333.)
Gokeenin can be appointed as two types of positions. that Jito Shiki Bakufu, not the owner, gave the right to Shikiki. (This provided much more security.) The other options are Shugo. The position has been immutable due to various administrative authorities, including some law enforcement and prosecution crimes.
Two important aspects of the structure of Bakufu were guaranteed to serve as a neutral mediator between members, members and others. The first is that Bakufu itself was involved in operating a very small number of real estate, not a major landlord. It meant that there was no significant interest in the outcome of the event. The only concern as an organization is that it looks effective, honest and so.
This comes from the voluntary characteristics of the second feature, the membership. If Bakufu is not fair, the owner may organize or operate a contract that is operated or operated. If it disappoints members, they will militaryly weaken defects and positions. Therefore, the truly neutral and objective was a powerful incentive. For example, in an important initial decision, Minamoto cooking Tomo with the court in the war kuge.
The judicial service provided by Bakufu was organized as a two -tier court system. The first was the Cooperation Committee.Haikisuke), 3 to 6 chambers (usually 5). Each Chamber of Commerce had a chairman, three or four senior judges, and several court secretary. There was a board of directors on them.Hyōjōshū) This was a render to the Supreme Court, but it was also a deliberation agency. It was composed of the chairman of the committee and the senior officers of Bakufu. So the structure was simple and simple.
The same was true of the procedure. LEESON explains this in detail SATA MIRENSHOThe handbook was written in the second half of the existence of Bakufu. The key fact here was that Bakufu was purely judged. It did not prosecute anyone. It only provided a means of claiming the dispute parties to claim their events, reach and implement decisions. The court depended on oral testimony and documents, but the latter was given greater weight. This process was transparent, and all the parties were entirely knowledgeable about the other party’s evidence and claims. The final judgment includes a detailed description of the reasoning used to reach the basic interest of the judgment. In short, there was a legitimate procedure.
The institution of the law applied by the court Goseibai shikimokuEditing the norms and precedents raised in 1232. This text shows the general laws that grow organically in solved cases. These cases have been generated and qualified and all of them are generalized to create comprehensive and flexible laws. The method created like that purlin-The natural definition of the samurai community. The main concern of the law was to restrict and regulate the authority of Baku and his agent, to restrict Samurai violence, to guarantee orderly inheritance and transfer of property, and to prevent lawsuit.
Leeson argues that this system is effective, fair and predictable. The effect is revealed by the fact that it has passed the market test. I did not lose any customers or cases of other systems. You can see the fairness in the surviving evidence of how the case is handled. And the predictability is proved by increasing the frequency of settlements outside the court. (These private contracts were still ratified so that the court could implement.)
All of this was an amazing achievement. After all, Samurai was a trained murderer. The temptation to exploit and plunder this must be significant, and there is no need for many North Koreans to solve the system. But Kamakura Bakufu lasted for 148 years.
This is a challenge not only in Japan and Europe but also in human problems. Protection of predation and to execute individual rights are required. It cannot always be done through consensus, norms or non -violence sanctions. If such a coercion should be placed in a way that improves rather than weakening social stability, those who are arranging it restrict their own power to other society while protecting themselves to other warriors. If you limit internal conflicts within the warrior group, it is possible that the whole group will feed everyone else. If you do not limit the conflict, you have a risk of risk of the inter -Korean war or similar kind of chaos. In both Japan and Europe, these challenges have been treated with some success. But the path was different.
For example, in the 12th century, Stephen’s rule was the second problem. Accordingly, Henry II enacted legal reform. But the monarch and his servants could use the legal process to abuse the rest of the warrior class without mentioning everyone else. Thus, the bonns were rebellious and forced the king to agree to be arrested and executed by the system. Of course, the agreement that established this was Magna Carta.
Why did this process occur at the end of Eurasia at the same time? It may simply be a coincidence, but it can come from general technology and military development. In particular, it is an economic surplus that can reduce the cost of a certain kind of weapons and devote themselves to full time to develop martial arts technology. Another similar point was the development of the Code of Action, which restricts the behavior of warriors at least to some extent. (This also happened in the Islamic world and China.)
Creating a process was inevitable. The ruling of law is not a natural or universal feature of human society. Objection and random rules were common throughout history. But sometimes, despite all obstacles, stable and relatively legal order can occur.
