Misplaced Pages

#167832

73-659: The Great Ming Code was the legal code of the Ming dynasty , focused primarily on criminal law . It was created at the direction of the dynasty’s founder, the Hongwu Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang, in the late 14th century, as part of broader social and political reforms. From 1397 to the fall of Ming in 1644, the Great Ming Code served as the principal governing law of China. Under the Qing dynasty it

146-595: A catchall prohibition on doing anything that "ought not to be done according to reason" in Article 410. Punishments for violating Article 410 were limited to no greater than 80 strokes with the heavy stick. Beyond that, the Code imposed strict limits on the use of legal analogy . An official seeking to apply a provision of the Code to a situation not expressly covered in the Code or the Great Ming Commandment

219-615: A common law country with legislative practices in the English tradition , codes modify the existing common law only to the extent of its express or implicit provision, but otherwise leaves the common law intact. In the United States and other common law countries that have adopted similar legislative practices, a code of law is a standing body of statute law on a particular area, which is added to, subtracted from, or otherwise modified by individual legislative enactments. The legal code

292-523: A comparable situation. The analogy is typically governed by the ratio legis , or underlying purpose of the statute. For example, in a 2010 decision, the Italian Constitutional Court determined that a statute allowing drivers of public transport vehicles to carry only an authenticated photocopy of the vehicle registration , rather than the originals, also extended to waste haulers, even though they were not expressly covered by

365-540: A comparatively short time. Work toward a new law code for what would become the Ming dynasty began in 1364, around the time that the future emperor captured Wuchang and began to call himself the Prince of Wu. In 1367 he ordered his Left Grand Councilor, Li Shanchang , to oversee and begin compiling a new code establishing principles of law and ritual with a focus on comparative lenience and simplicity. The resulting Ming Code

438-443: A distinct form of legal argument since it does not involve a direct analogy from an established case to a new one. Legal analogy is also distinguished from related forms of legal argument that also turn on the underlying reason for a legal norm, such as argumentum e contrario and argumentum a fortiori . The analogical interpretation of statutes may also be distinguished from interpretation by implication, although this distinction

511-470: A form of analogy also used by the courts in common law jurisdictions to interpret statutes is analogous interpretation: if there are two similar statutes and one has already been construed, the court may construe the second statute by analogy to the construction of the first. This has been referred to as "analogical extensive interpretation". Some statutes expressly provide for their provisions to be applied analogously. This statutory mandate to analogize gives

584-427: A statutory interpretation by analogy was one of several techniques for arguing against a literal interpretation. In that context it was called exemplo multarum legum , "by example of many laws". This technique was widely used by orators but was not recognized by jurists such as Salvius Julianus . Instead, the jurists largely restricted their use of analogy to drawing analogies among similar juristic precedents. In

657-445: Is a method of resolving issues on which there is no previous authority by using argument from analogy . Analogy in general involves an inference drawn from one particular situation to another based on similarity, but legal analogy is distinguished by the need to use a legally relevant basis for drawing an analogy between two situations. It may be applied to various forms of legal authority , including statutory law and case law . In

730-452: Is found in the Dutch civil code of 1992 , where certain provisions governing liability for animals and dangerous objects call on the judge to analogize the case to a counterfactual. For example, Article 6:179 provides that the possessor of an animal is liable for damage unless the possessor would not have been liable, even if the animal was under his control, under the limitations of liability in

803-491: Is most commonly used to apply and extend precedent. In addition, these legal systems have developed elaborate typologies of analogy, although these are often disputed. The analogical extension of criminal penalties ("punishment by analogy") and tax liability is prohibited in many modern jurisdictions, under the various legal principles that safeguard legal certainty. Historically, however, punishment by analogy has been part of many legal systems, including those of imperial China ,

SECTION 10

#1732776623168

876-446: Is not commonly drawn in the civil law tradition. In broad terms, the use of analogy in law arises from the presumption that similar principles should apply to similar cases. In this broad sense, some legal scholars have argued that all legal reasoning is analogical. More particularly, the general method of legal analogy has been described as having four steps: The question of what makes the analogized case relevant generally turns on

949-441: Is of relatively recent origin. Early modern common law commentators such as Edmund Plowden encouraged the analogical construction of both civil and criminal statutes. In English law, the modern prohibition took hold in the 18th century and was adopted by commentators such as Blackstone and Matthew Bacon . Among civil law jurisdictions, punishment by analogy was expressly provided for under several early criminal codes, including

1022-711: Is very different in form and content from all other civil codes. A civil code typically forms the core of civil law systems. The legal code typically covers exhaustively the entire system of private law. A criminal code or penal code is a common feature in many legal systems. Codification of the criminal law allows the criminal law to be more accessible and more democratically made and amended. van Gulik, R.H. Crime and Punishment in Ancient China: The Tang Yin Pi Shih . Orchid Press, 2007. ISBN   9745240915 , ISBN   978-974-524-091-9 . Legal analogy Analogy in law

1095-611: The Austrian civil code ( Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch ) of 1812, the German civil code ( Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch ) of 1900 and the Swiss codes . The European codifications of the 1800s influenced the codification of Catholic canon law resulting in the 1917 Code of Canon Law which was replaced by the 1983 Code of Canon Law and whose Eastern counterpart is the Code of Canons of

1168-536: The Brehon law tradition of Ireland, which first entered the written record in early medieval times, analogy ( cosmailius ) was one of the sources of law on which a judge could base a decision. Analogy was often used to adapt traditional legal maxims to new technologies. For example, various precepts governing water mills were developed by analogy after that technology was introduced in the third century. A Brehon law text that employed analogy particularly extensively

1241-651: The Code of Lipit-Ishtar (1934–1924 BC), and the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC), are among the earliest and best preserved legal codes, originating from Sumer , Mesopotamia (now Iraq ). In the Roman empire , a number of codifications were developed, such as the Twelve Tables of Roman law (first compiled in 450 BC) and the Corpus Juris Civilis of Justinian, also known as

1314-788: The Eight Deliberations , and other legal privileges. After the fall of the Ming Dynasty in 1644, the Qing Dynasty replaced the Great Ming Code with the Great Qing Legal Code . The Great Ming Code had been translated into Manchu by Wu Dahai in the early 17th century, and in the early years of Qing the Ming Code was kept largely in effect. In the Joseon dynasty of Korea, the criminal provisions of

1387-702: The Five Punishments . The remaining six chapters were divided into laws on personnel, rituals, revenue, military affairs, penal affairs, and public works. This division corresponds to the organization of the Ming government into the Six Ministries , and differs considerably from both the Statutes of the Yuan Dynasty and the Tang Code. In addition to the enumerated crimes, the Code contained

1460-623: The Great Ming Code remained the primary penal law of Korea throughout the Joseon dynasty. In Japan during the Edo period , research was carried out on the Great Ming Code in order to reform the legal system of the preceding Sengoku period , which had been influenced by the Bakuhan feudal system. Representative works in this field include Takase Tadaatsu 's Interpretation and Translation of

1533-524: The Russian penal code of 1845 , and also in Nazi German law following the decree of June 28, 1935. Forms of legal analogy arose in antiquity in several traditions, including classical Greek, Indian, and Chinese law. The exact uses and doctrines surrounding legal analogy have developed differently in various different legal traditions. In the law courts of ancient Athens, where decisions were made by

SECTION 20

#1732776623168

1606-761: The Treaties of the European Union . A teleological approach entails the frequent use of analogy to ensure that the purpose of a treaty's drafters is adequately served. In addition, some treaties expressly call for their provisions to be interpreted analogously in certain situations. For example, the First Geneva Convention directly addresses the actions of belligerents, but in Article 6 also calls for neutral powers to apply its provisions by analogy. Various classifications of legal analogy have been proposed. One typology that has been influential in

1679-449: The civil law and common law traditions, the basis of legal relevance that allows drawing a legally valid analogy is described by different terms depending on the source of law involved: ratio decidendi for precedent, ratio legis for statutory law, and ratio iuris for unwritten legal principles. The use of analogy in both traditions is broadly described by the traditional maxim Ubi eadem est ratio, ibi idem ius (where

1752-414: The 460 articles, 260 set forth the duties of imperial officials and corresponding punishments. For example, deceiving the throne could carry a penalty of strangulation or decapitation . Some provisions were also concerned with regulating private transactions, such as land sales. The first chapter, "Laws on Punishments and General Principles", set out general rules of criminal law and punishment, including

1825-635: The Americas, the influence of Continental legal codes has manifest itself in two ways. In civil law jurisdictions, legal codes in the Continental tradition are common. In common law jurisdictions, however, there has been a strong trend towards codification. The result of such codification, however, is not always a legal code as found in civil law jurisdictions. For example, the California Civil Code largely codifies common law doctrine and

1898-505: The Code was reorganized at the request of officials from the Ministry of Justice. The final revision of the Code was officially promulgated in 1397, containing 460 articles, with only minor adjustments from the 1389 edition. The emperor ordered that the Code remain unchanged after 1397, and indeed the text of the Code remained unchanged throughout the dynasty, although emperors added their own ad hoc legislation and precedents to it. During

1971-595: The Constitution of South Africa has also been similarly extended to protect against forms of discrimination analogous to those listed in the constitution. In United States constitutional law, rights implied by analogy are often referred to as being in the penumbra of the Bill of Rights . This terminology was used by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. to describe rights developed by analogy to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of

2044-622: The Eastern Churches . Meanwhile, African civilizations developed their own legal traditions, sometimes codifying them through consistent oral tradition, as illustrated e.g. by the Kouroukan Fouga , a charter proclaimed by the Mali Empire in 1222–1236, enumerating regulations in both constitutional and civil matters, and transmitted to this day by griots under oath. The Continental civil law tradition spread around

2117-792: The German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch , and also influenced by the Japanese code. This new tradition has been largely maintained in the legal system of the People's Republic of China since 1949. Meanwhile, codifications also became more common in common law systems. For example, a criminal code is found in a number of common law jurisdictions in Australia and the Americas , and continues to be debated in England . In

2190-599: The Great Ming Code and Substatutes and Ogyu Hokkei 's Ming Code: Kyōho Edition . In Vietnam under the Lê dynasty , the Lê Code 's 722 articles included 17 articles influenced by the Great Ming Code, although a larger number were influenced by the Tang Code . Legal code In a civil law country, a code of law typically exhaustively covers the complete system of law, such as civil law or criminal law . By contrast, in

2263-558: The Great Ming Code were adapted for Korea by Taejo of Joseon . The version used was The Great Ming Code Directly Explicated , which contained the 1389 version of the Great Ming Code with added commentaries. A surviving exemplar is preserved as a state-designated heritage item in the National Palace Museum of Korea . Subsequent domestic enactments such as the Kyŏngguk taejŏn modified and expanded on certain provisions, but

Great Ming Code - Misplaced Pages Continue

2336-517: The Justinian Code (429–534 AD). However, these law codes did not exhaustively describe the Roman legal system. The Twelve Tables were limited in scope, and most legal doctrines were developed by the pontifices , who interpreted the tables to deal with situations far beyond what is contained therein. The Justinian Code collected together existing legal material at the time. In ancient China ,

2409-645: The Prussian code of 1721 and the Constitutio Criminalis Theresiana of 1769. This practice was criticized by Enlightenment theorists such as Montesquieu and Beccaria. The first criminal code to bar the use of analogy was the Austrian penal code of 1787. Such bans quickly spread across Europe in the late 18th and 19th centuries, reaching Prussia in 1794 and Germany in 1871. However, punishment by analogy continued to be allowed under

2482-904: The US Constitution, and also later by William O. Douglas to describe rights implied by various constitutional amendments, which he regarded as protected by the Ninth Amendment . In 2022, in NYSRPA v. Bruen , the United States Supreme Court adopted a doctrine that requires courts to use historical analogies to determine whether a statute violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution . The theory of penumbral rights developed by analogy with those articulated in

2555-568: The basis of the legal systems of many countries. Roman law was either adopted by legislation (becoming positive law ), or through processing by jurists. The accepted Roman law is usually then codified and forms part of the central Code. The codification movement gathered pace after the rise of nation-states after the Treaty of Westphalia . Prominent national civil codes include the French Napoleonic Code ( code civil ) of 1804,

2628-489: The builders to recover from the property owner. Analogia legis is formally recognized in the civil codes of many jurisdictions. The Portuguese Civil Code for example provides that "cases for which the law does not provide shall be governed by the norm applicable to similar cases". Some countries, such as Ukraine , formally recognize both analogia legis and analogia iuris by name in their civil codes. A number of European countries, including Italy and Slovenia, follow

2701-411: The case must be decided according to natural principles of law, with regard to the carefully collected and maturely considered facts. Ronald Dworkin 's distinction between legal rules and legal principles has sometimes been adopted to distinguish rule-based analogies, which seek to fill in gaps in a system of rules, and principle-based analogies, which analogize specific cases based on deeper values of

2774-417: The civil law tradition classifies legal analogies as intra legem or extra legem based on the legal gaps that they fill: Other terms are also used: Analogia legis , also known as "statutory analogy" or "analogy from statute", is a method of statutory interpretation in which the legal principle applicable to a fact pattern not covered by a legal norm is determined by analogy to a norm that governs

2847-534: The constitution has also been adopted in other countries. For example, courts in Bangladesh and India have used penumbral theory to extend a constitutional guarantee of the right to life to a right to a healthy environment. Teleological interpretation is commonly practiced by international tribunals. It is particularly associated with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice in interpreting

2920-531: The distinction between analogia legis and analogia juris is traditional, some authorities have argued that there is no tenable distinction between them, as both involve the same interpretive techniques. A prominent example of analogia iuris occurred in the Dutch case of Quint v. Te Poel , decided by the Dutch Supreme Court in 1959, in which homebuilders sought compensation from the owner of

2993-422: The early USSR , and the People's Republic of China prior to 1998. A few countries have retained legal provisions that at least nominally allow for punishment by analogy. Legal analogy is usually considered distinct from extensive interpretation , which stays within the words of existing law. However, some authorities argue that the distinction between the two is unclear or untenable, as both approaches extending

Great Ming Code - Misplaced Pages Continue

3066-413: The effect of a statute beyond its literal words based on the purpose or intent of the legislature. Some authorities do not distinguish between the two at all. The use of inductive reasoning to derive a general rule from multiple legal norms or precedents and apply it to a new case is sometimes regarded as a form of analogy, for example [[#Analogia iuris| analogia iuris ]], but is sometimes considered

3139-432: The errors made in past cases. In Alexander's phrasing, analogical reasoning in law amounts to asking the question "what would be morally correct in a world in which moral errors were not errors?" Less forcefully, some authorities argue that analogy is at best a heuristic tool, without any argumentative force of its own. For those authorities that recognize a proper role for analogy in law, some common limitations include

3212-419: The example of the Austrian civil code in that they provide for both analogia legis and analogia juris , but describe them rather than naming them: If a case cannot be decided based on either the words of a statute or the natural sense of the statute, consideration must be given to similar cases that have been decided in the statutes and the bases of other statutes related to it. If the case remains in doubt,

3285-515: The first chapter of Code. Many punishments could be avoided by paying of a redemption fine, although some could not. The Code defined the Ten Abominations as plotting rebellion, plotting "great sedition", plotting treason, contumacy, depravity, great irreverence, lack of filial piety, discord, unrighteousness, and incest. These were particularly severe crimes, which deprived those committing them of eligibility for amnesty, mitigation under

3358-600: The first comprehensive criminal code was the Tang Code , created in 624 AD in the Tang dynasty . This, and subsequent imperial codes, formed the basis for the penal system of both China and other East Asian states under its cultural influence. The last and best preserved imperial code is the Great Qing Legal Code , created in 1644 upon the founding of the Qing dynasty . This code was the exclusive and exhaustive statement of Chinese law between 1644 and 1912. Though it

3431-469: The first time the Great Ming Code , consisted of 606 articles (288 of which were taken from the first Ming Code ). The text of the Great Ming Code of 1374 is also no longer extant. In 1376, a new version of the Code was prepared at the emperor's direction in 1376 by Left Grand Councilor Hu Weiyong and Censor-in-Chief Wang Guangyang . Its text has also been lost, and it is unclear if there may have been minor revisions made at other times as well. In 1389,

3504-472: The following steps: An often-cited example of analogical reasoning in case law is Adams v. New Jersey Steamboat Co. , in which the New York Court of Appeals was called upon to decide whether a steamboat line was liable for money being stolen from a passenger's stateroom, even if neither the passenger nor the crew had been negligent. There was no settled rule of precedent for steamboat liability. If

3577-729: The following: In most legal systems today, analogy cannot be used in the interpretation of criminal statutes, unless the result is favorable to the accused. Such a ban finds its footing in the maxim nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (no crime or punishment without law), which is understood in the way that there is no crime or punishment unless it is plainly provided for in a law-controlled provision or an already existing judicial precedent. Some jurisdictions such as Germany also extend this prohibition to lesser punishments such as contraventions , and to disciplinary proceedings against public servants, even if these are not considered criminal in nature. In its modern, absolute form, this prohibition

3650-502: The jury of dikastai , arguments by analogy were commonly used. For example, the fourth-century BCE orator Isaeus argued against the validity of a will made by a minor by reference to a law prohibiting minors from making contracts. In the Nicomachean Ethics , Aristotle advanced an "equitable" theory of statutory interpretation that became the basis of many Western approaches to analogical interpretation: When therefore

3723-527: The law lays down a general rule, and thereafter a case arises which is an exception to the rule, it is then right, where the lawgiver's pronouncement because of its absoluteness is defective and erroneous, to rectify the defect by deciding as the lawgiver would himself decide if he were present on the occasion, and would have enacted if he had been cognizant of the case in question. Aristotle's teaching has been adopted historically by authorities in both civil law and common law. In Roman legal oratory, arguing for

SECTION 50

#1732776623168

3796-436: The legal system. Bartosz Brożek has argued that rule-based analogies, as well as "factual analogies" which purport to be based purely on factual similarity, are only justifiable if they rest on principles. The principles of legal analogy vary among jurisdictions. Sometimes the use of analogy is forbidden: the most common such limitation is on the use of analogy to extend criminal liability . Some authorities argue against

3869-609: The preceding section. Even in jurisdictions that do not widely practice statutory analogy, analogical methods may be used for interpreting constitutional law . For example, in Canada, the Section 15 Charter right to be free of discrimination covers not only the specific grounds for discrimination listed in the Charter, but also "analogous" grounds such as sexual orientation and marital status. The analogous prohibition in Section 9 of

3942-421: The property on which they had built homes, although the owner was not a party to the homebuilders' contract. The Dutch Civil Code of 1838, which was then in effect, contained clauses prohibiting specific examples of unjust enrichment but did not contain any general prohibition on unjust enrichment. The court generalized from these existing provisions to create a new cause of action for unjust enrichment, allowing

4015-462: The proprietors owe to the passengers in their charge ought to be the same" and that "no good reason is apparent" for departing from the strict liability that applied to innkeepers. Therefore, because the cases were analogous in relevant respects and there were no countervailing considerations, the steamboat company was also liable. In a more recent example, in Popov v. Hayashi , a valuable baseball

4088-470: The reason for the existing norm (for example, the ratio legis of a statute or the ratio decidendi of a judicial precedent). The detailed application of this method varies by the source of law . Within a legal system, the permitted use of analogy may vary greatly for example between statutory law and case law. In case law , which is most prominently associated with the common law legal tradition, analogies are drawn from precedential cases. In

4161-436: The reason is the same, the law is the same). Although all legal systems use analogy in some fashion, different jurisdictions and legal traditions apply or limit analogy in many different ways. The civil law and common law traditions differ most prominently in the subject matter to which analogy is typically applied: in civil law courts, analogy is most typically employed to fill in gaps in a statute, while in common law courts it

4234-467: The reign of the Wanli Emperor in 1585, 382 regulations or precedents were appended to the Code. In addition, scholarly commentaries circulated widely, providing interpretations of the Code's individual provisions. The Great Ming Code consisted of 460 articles organized into 30 sections which were in turn organized into seven chapters. The Code was heavily concerned with public administration: of

4307-430: The resulting analogies greater legal weight. One form of statutorily-mandated analogy is mutatis mutandis application, often translated as "analogous application". For example, the Dutch euthanasia statute provides for the provisions regarding an informed decision by the patient to be applied mutatis mutandis where the patient is incapable of making such decisions. A more unusual example of mandated analogy

4380-442: The same event had occurred at an inn, the innkeeper would have been liable. In deciding the case, judge Denis O'Brien wrote that that a steamboat passenger "procures and pays for his room for the same reasons that a guest at an inn does" and that a "steamer carrying passengers upon the water, and furnishing them with rooms and entertainment, is, for all practical purposes, a floating inn". He therefore concluded that "the duties which

4453-458: The statute but within its underlying justification. This kind of statutory interpretation by analogy is formally recognized in the civil codes of most civil law jurisdictions, in both analogia legis and analogia iuris forms. In practice, however, such analogies come into play in only a small minority of cases. A 1978 survey of approximately 1,000 German civil cases found that only 1/20 of them involved statutory analogies. In addition,

SECTION 60

#1732776623168

4526-400: The statute, because the same legislative purpose applied in both cases. When analogia legis is not possible then analogia iuris may apply, in which the analogy is derived not from a statute but from fundamental legal or constitutional principles. Analogia iuris has also been described as the court constructing a new, previously unarticulated general principle of law. However, although

4599-415: The strongest case, a judge who decides a case at hand may find that the facts of the case are so similar to the facts of a prior case that the outcomes of these cases should be the same: stare decisis . Reasoning from the absence of analogy is also done, when a judge distinguishes a precedent and declines to apply it to the case at hand. In one formulation, the method of analogy in applying precedent has

4672-592: The use of analogy in legal reasoning entirely, for example on the basis that it is essentially ad hoc or unscientific. In the American tradition, for example, Frederick Schauer argued that analogy in caselaw can only involve deduction from a rule that happens to apply to both cases. Richard Posner regards analogy as merely a mixture of induction, deduction, and rhetoric, which would be better replaced by straightforward considerations of correctness and stability. Lawrence A. Alexander criticized analogy for entrenching

4745-712: The world along with European cultural and military dominance in recent centuries. During the Meiji Restoration , Japan adopted a new Civil Code (1898), based primarily on the French civil code and influenced by the German code. After the Xinhai Revolution of 1911 in China, the new Republic of China government abandoned the imperial code tradition and instead adopted a new civil code strongly influenced by

4818-470: Was a common feature of the legal systems of the ancient Middle East. Tablets discovered in the ancient city of Ebla (Tell Mardikh in modern-day Syria ) provide the earliest known evidence of a law code, dating back to 2400 BC. In addition, The UrukAgina Law Code (2380–2360 BC), the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100–2050 BC), the Code of Eshnunna (approximately 100 years before Lipit-Ishtar),

4891-457: Was appropriate to order an equitable division among the two people who caught the baseball. The court's decision in Popov has been analogized to the civil law practice of analogia legis to fill in gaps in existing legal norms. In statutory interpretation , analogy is used chiefly in civil law legal systems to extend a statute to cover new situations that are outside the actual language of

4964-481: Was caught by two different people, confronting the California Superior Court with a fact pattern not governed by established legal standards for possession . The court reasoned by analogy with a New Jersey case involving children tossing an abandoned sock that turned out to contain money in determining that possession required both physical control and intent, and that under the circumstances it

5037-407: Was completed and promulgated at the end of 1367, consisting of 285 articles and based closely on the Tang Code . It was promulgated along with the Great Ming Commandment . No copies of this first Ming Code are extant. On January 6, 1374, the emperor ordered Liu Weiqian , the Minister of Justice, to revise the Code, and this was completed in the spring of the same year. This new code, called for

5110-415: Was divided into various degrees. Some of the punishments were already in place, while others were newly created under the Ming Code. In the imperial preface to the Code, the emperor explained that he had gone beyond the traditional Five Punishments in hopes of making the people afraid to violate the laws. The Eight Deliberations for mitigating the punishment of offenders of a certain rank were also defined in

5183-434: Was in form a criminal code, large parts of the code dealt with civil law matters and the settlement of civil disputes. The code ceased its operation upon the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1912, but significant provisions remained in operation in Hong Kong until well into the 1970s due to a peculiar interaction between it and the British common law system. In Europe, Roman law , especially the Corpus Juris Civilis , became

5256-454: Was replaced by the Great Qing Legal Code , which borrowed heavily from it. Portions of the Great Ming Code were adopted into the legal systems of Joseon dynasty Korea, Edo period Japan, and Lê dynasty Vietnam. The promulgation of the Great Ming Code in 1397 was the culmination of a series of efforts toward legal reform and codification spanning more than 30 years. No previous Chinese law code had gone through so many revisions in such

5329-554: Was required to send the proposed punishment to the Ministry of Justice for review followed by imperial approval. Article 439 also provided that cases cannot be decided by analogy to case-specific imperial decrees, and an official doing so was subject to punishment. Punishments were classified into the Five Punishments (beating with the light stick, beating with the heavy stick, imprisonment, exile, and death), each of which

#167832