Albert Venn Dicey y la escuela de derecho de Oxford: ciencia frente a tradición en una época progresiva (1835-1922)
Loading...
Publication date
Authors
Department
Research group
Center
Metrics
Export
Abstract
Albert Venn Dicey ocupa un lugar prominente en el derecho inglés de finales del XIX y
principios del siglo XX. Se ha dicho de él que estableció el tono de la enseñanza del derecho
constitucional británico del siglo XX. El prestigio de su figura ha estado íntimamente ligado a la
cátedra Viner de Derecho inglés de la Universidad de Oxford, cuyo primer titular fue William
Blackstone (1758). William Holdsworth, noveno ocupante de la cátedra, afirmó que Dicey
permanecería en la historia de la literatura jurídica del siglo XIX en un lugar no inferior al que
Blackstone ocupó en la del siglo XVIII. El undécimo catedrático, Harold Hanbury, denominó a
su vez a Dicey el “profeta de la constitución”. Sus mayores críticos también enaltecieron su
figura. “La incomparable gracia de su estilo, la lúcida profundidad de su pensamiento −escribió
Laski−, han concedido al libro [Law of the Constitution] un lugar junto a Bagehot y Bryce y De
Tocqueville como un mínimo irreductible del análisis político que el moderno estudiante del
gobierno debe leer”. Jennings proclamó a su vez que solamente Dicey, de entre los juristas
ingleses, podía ser comparado con Laband, Jellinek, Duguit o Hauriou. Estudiante brillante, obtuvo un first class en Literae Humaniores, pero también superó la
escuela de Jurisprudencia e Historia moderna. Su etapa en Oxford coincidió con un gran interés
por la reforma de la enseñanza del derecho en Inglaterra. En 1846 un comité nombrado por los
Comunes había publicado un Report on Legal Education sobre la enseñanza jurídica que
registró el lamentable estado de esta. Dicey se socializó en sus años de estudiante de Oxford en
ambientes liberales partidarios de la reforma curricular de Oxford, la especialización, y para el
caso del derecho, la construcción de una ciencia jurídica inglesa. Dicey fue admitido como estudiante en Inner Temple en 1858 y se convirtió en barrister en 1863. Fue una época disruptiva para la jurisprudencia inglesa. En 1861 fue publicada la segunda edición de las Lectures on Jurisprudence de John Austin y Maine publicó su Ancient Law –un año antes se aprobó el Código Penal indio de Macaulay−. Las Inns of Court londinenses organizaron cierta enseñanza jurídica para los candidatos a barrister, aunque las examinaciones obligatorias no se implementaron hasta la década siguiente. Asistente a las lecciones de Maine, Dicey reconoció su importancia.
Durante los años 60 y 70, Dicey se dedicó a la abogacía y al periodismo. Fue asistente de importantes law officers al servicio de la Corona como John D. Coleridge (1820-1894) o John Holker (1828-1882) y en 1876 fue nombrado para el puesto de Junior Standing Counsel to the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue. Al mismo tiempo participaba en proyectos políticos junto con el grupo de antiguos University liberales de Oxford y Cambridge. Fueron especialmente activos en tres batallas parlamentarias o judiciales: la derogación de las Test Acts y la reforma parlamentaria de 1867 y un Jamaica Committee dirigido por Mill no de acusar criminalmente al gobernador de la isla por la violenta supresión de una protesta.
El joven Dicey y su grupo de juristas mostraron gran entusiasmo por la empresa codificatoria durante los años sesenta y setenta y se dedicaron personalmente a la composición de digests de diferentes ramas del derecho inglés: “The aim of this treatise” −reza la primera línea de su primer tratado− “is to reduce or digest the law of parties into a series of rules”. Su Parties to an Action (1870) y su Law of Domicil (1879) fueron digests de estas ramas del derecho inglés cuyo único objetivo era la exposición del derecho inglés de manera científica, exacta y sistemática.
Dicey fue nombrado catedrático Viner de Oxford en 1882. Su lección inaugural (1883) pertenecía a la etapa precedente. El catedrático abogaba por una formación del jurista tanto supeditada a la codificación y producción de digests. Tras Law of the Constitution (1885), Dicey se dedicó a cuatro proyectos diferentes: England’s Case Against Home Rule (1886), Conflict of Laws (1896) y Comparative Constitutionalism (1895-1900) y Law and Opinion (1905). Todas tienen un elemento común: la teoría austiniana devino mera categoría vacía, artificio más gramatical que material. En Conflict of Laws, la obra más técnica, podía ser descartada sin merma de la exposición del derecho internacional privado inglés, autosuficiente en los reports y en menor medida en leyes, sin necesidad de imaginar ninguna soberanía ilimitada proveniente del ente llamado soberano y de órdenes cada vez pensadas menos centrales en el funcionamiento del sistema jurídico. La gran novedad del periodo 1886-1905 es la aparición del Estado, seriamente desafiado según Dicey por el Home Rule de 1886, pero también por la agitation de grupos sociales religiosos o de trabajadores. Un Estado que jurídicamente no existía para su Law of the Constitution, apareció después claramente aunque no sin contradicciones como producto de la historia inglesa, tendente a concretarse en el judiciary inglés.
Albert Venn Dicey holds a prominent place in the English law of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It has been said of him that he set the tone for the teaching of 20th century British constitutional law. The prestige of his figure has been intimately linked to the Vinerian Chair of English Law at Oxford University, whose first incumbent was William Blackstone (1758). William Holdsworth, the ninth occupant of the chair, stated that Dicey would remain in the history of nineteenth-century legal literature in a place not inferior to that which Blackstone occupied in that of the eighteenth century. The eleventh professor, Harold Hanbury, in turn called Dicey the "prophet of the constitution." His greatest critics also extolled his figure. "The incomparable grace of his style, the lucid depth of his thought," wrote Laski, “have given the book [Law of the Constitution] a place alongside Bagehot and Bryce and De Tocqueville as an irreducible minimum of the political analysis which the modern student of government must read”. Jennings in turn proclaimed that only Dicey, among English jurists, could be compared with Laband, Jellinek, Duguit or Hauriou. A brilliant student, he obtained a first class in Literae Humaniores, but also passed the School of Jurisprudence and Modern History. His time at Oxford coincided with a keen interest in the reform of legal education in England. In 1846 a committee appointed by the Commons had published a Report on Legal Education on legal education which recorded the parlous state of legal education. Dicey was socialized in his Oxford undergraduate years in liberal milieus in favor of Oxford curricular reform, specialization, and for the case of law, the construction of an English legal science. Dicey was admitted as a student at Inner Temple in 1858 and became a barrister in 1863. It was a disruptive time for English jurisprudence. In 1861 the second edition of John Austin's Lectures on Jurisprudence was published and Maine published his Ancient Law – a year earlier Macaulay's Indian Penal Code was adopted. The London Inns of Court organized some legal education for barrister candidates, although compulsory examinations were not implemented until the following decade. An attendee at the Maine lessons, Dicey recognized their importance. During the 1960s and 1970s, Dicey devoted himself to law and journalism. He was assistant to important law officers in the service of the Crown such as John D. Coleridge (1820-1894) or John Holker (1828-1882) and in 1876 he was appointed to the post of Junior Standing Counsel to the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue. At the same time he was involved in political projects together with the group of former University liberals from Oxford and Cambridge. They were especially active in three parliamentary or judicial battles: the repeal of the Test Acts, the parliamentary reform of 1867 and a Jamaica Committee led by Mill not to criminally charge the governor of the island for the violent suppression of a protest. The young Dicey and his group of jurists showed great enthusiasm for the codifying enterprise during the sixties and seventies and he personally devoted themselves to the composition of digests of different branches of English law: "The aim of this treatise" - reads the first line of his first treatise - "is to reduce or digest the law of parties into a series of rules". His Parties to an Action (1870) and his Law of Domicil (1879) were digests of these branches of English law whose sole aim was the exposition of English law in a scientific, exact and systematic manner. Dicey was appointed Vinerian Professor at Oxford in 1882. His inaugural lecture (1883) belonged to that preceding intelectual current. The professor advocated a jurist’s universitary training in otder to promote the codification and production of digests. After Law of the Constitution (1885), Dicey occupied himself with four different projects: England's Case Against Home Rule (1886), Conflict of Laws (1896), Comparative Constitutionalism (1895-1900) and Law and Opinion (1905). They all have a common element: the Austinian theory became a mere empty category, an artifice more grammatical than material. In Conflict of Laws, the most technical work, it the analytical theory could be discarded without detriment to the exposition of English private international law, self-sufficient in reports and to a lesser extent in laws, without the need to imagine any unlimited sovereignty coming from the entity called sovereign and from his orders. The great novelty of the period 1886-1905 is the emergence of the State, seriously challenged according to Dicey by the Home Rule of 1886, but also by the agitation of religious or workers’ social groups. A State that juridically did not exist for his Law of the Constitution, appeared later clearly although not without contradictions as a product of English history, tending to become concrete in the English judiciary .
Albert Venn Dicey holds a prominent place in the English law of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It has been said of him that he set the tone for the teaching of 20th century British constitutional law. The prestige of his figure has been intimately linked to the Vinerian Chair of English Law at Oxford University, whose first incumbent was William Blackstone (1758). William Holdsworth, the ninth occupant of the chair, stated that Dicey would remain in the history of nineteenth-century legal literature in a place not inferior to that which Blackstone occupied in that of the eighteenth century. The eleventh professor, Harold Hanbury, in turn called Dicey the "prophet of the constitution." His greatest critics also extolled his figure. "The incomparable grace of his style, the lucid depth of his thought," wrote Laski, “have given the book [Law of the Constitution] a place alongside Bagehot and Bryce and De Tocqueville as an irreducible minimum of the political analysis which the modern student of government must read”. Jennings in turn proclaimed that only Dicey, among English jurists, could be compared with Laband, Jellinek, Duguit or Hauriou. A brilliant student, he obtained a first class in Literae Humaniores, but also passed the School of Jurisprudence and Modern History. His time at Oxford coincided with a keen interest in the reform of legal education in England. In 1846 a committee appointed by the Commons had published a Report on Legal Education on legal education which recorded the parlous state of legal education. Dicey was socialized in his Oxford undergraduate years in liberal milieus in favor of Oxford curricular reform, specialization, and for the case of law, the construction of an English legal science. Dicey was admitted as a student at Inner Temple in 1858 and became a barrister in 1863. It was a disruptive time for English jurisprudence. In 1861 the second edition of John Austin's Lectures on Jurisprudence was published and Maine published his Ancient Law – a year earlier Macaulay's Indian Penal Code was adopted. The London Inns of Court organized some legal education for barrister candidates, although compulsory examinations were not implemented until the following decade. An attendee at the Maine lessons, Dicey recognized their importance. During the 1960s and 1970s, Dicey devoted himself to law and journalism. He was assistant to important law officers in the service of the Crown such as John D. Coleridge (1820-1894) or John Holker (1828-1882) and in 1876 he was appointed to the post of Junior Standing Counsel to the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue. At the same time he was involved in political projects together with the group of former University liberals from Oxford and Cambridge. They were especially active in three parliamentary or judicial battles: the repeal of the Test Acts, the parliamentary reform of 1867 and a Jamaica Committee led by Mill not to criminally charge the governor of the island for the violent suppression of a protest. The young Dicey and his group of jurists showed great enthusiasm for the codifying enterprise during the sixties and seventies and he personally devoted themselves to the composition of digests of different branches of English law: "The aim of this treatise" - reads the first line of his first treatise - "is to reduce or digest the law of parties into a series of rules". His Parties to an Action (1870) and his Law of Domicil (1879) were digests of these branches of English law whose sole aim was the exposition of English law in a scientific, exact and systematic manner. Dicey was appointed Vinerian Professor at Oxford in 1882. His inaugural lecture (1883) belonged to that preceding intelectual current. The professor advocated a jurist’s universitary training in otder to promote the codification and production of digests. After Law of the Constitution (1885), Dicey occupied himself with four different projects: England's Case Against Home Rule (1886), Conflict of Laws (1896), Comparative Constitutionalism (1895-1900) and Law and Opinion (1905). They all have a common element: the Austinian theory became a mere empty category, an artifice more grammatical than material. In Conflict of Laws, the most technical work, it the analytical theory could be discarded without detriment to the exposition of English private international law, self-sufficient in reports and to a lesser extent in laws, without the need to imagine any unlimited sovereignty coming from the entity called sovereign and from his orders. The great novelty of the period 1886-1905 is the emergence of the State, seriously challenged according to Dicey by the Home Rule of 1886, but also by the agitation of religious or workers’ social groups. A State that juridically did not exist for his Law of the Constitution, appeared later clearly although not without contradictions as a product of English history, tending to become concrete in the English judiciary .
Unesco Subjects
Bibliographic citation
Collections
The license for this item is described as Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España