DEFINITION OF LAW

The collection of rules imposed by authority; "civilization presupposes respect for the law"; "the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order"

Jurisprudence: the branch of philosophy concerned with the law and the principles that lead courts to make the decisions they do

The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties

In general, a rule of being or of conduct, established by an authority able to enforce its will; a controlling regulation; the mode or order according to which an agent or a power acts.

In morals: The will of God as the rule for the disposition and conduct of all responsible beings toward him and toward each other; a rule of living, conformable to righteousness; the rule of action as obligatory on the conscience or moral nature.

The Jewish or Mosaic code, and that part of Scripture where it is written, in distinction from the gospel; hence, also, the Old Testament.

An organic rule, as a constitution or charter, establishing and defining the conditions of the existence of a state or other organized community.

Any edict, decree, order, ordinance, statute, resolution, judicial, decision, usage, etc., or recognized, and enforced, by the controlling authority.

In philosophy and physics: A rule of being, operation, or change, so certain and constant that it is conceived of as imposed by the will of God or by some controlling authority; as, the law of gravitation; the laws of motion; the law heredity; the laws of thought; the laws of cause and effect; law of self-preservation.

In matematics: The rule according to which anything, as the change of value of a variable, or the value of the terms of a series, proceeds; mode or order of sequence.

Collectively, the whole body of rules relating to one subject, or emanating from one source; -- including usually the writings pertaining to them, and judicial proceedings under them; as, divine law; English law; Roman law; the law of real property; insurance law.

---

Legal science; jurisprudence; the principles of equity; applied justice.

---

Trial by the laws of the land; judicial remedy; litigation; as, to go law.

---

An oath, as in the presence of a court.

SOURCE: INTERNET LAW DEFINITION AND MOSTLY FROM WWW.BRAINQOUTE.COM 

CHAPTER V. COMPARISON OF THE FRENCH
AND AMERICAN DECLARATIONS.
DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DE
L'HOMME ET DU CITOYEN.
AMERICAN BILLS OF RIGHTS.
ART. I. Les homes naissent et demeurent
libres et égaux en droits. Les distinctions
sociales ne peuvent être fondées que sur
l'utilité commune.
2. Le but de toute association politique est
la conservation des droits naturels et
imprescriptibles de l'homme. Ces droits
sont la liberté, la propriété, la sûreté et la
résistance à l'oppression.
VIRGINIA, I. That all men are by nature
equally free and independent, and have
certain inherent rights, of which, when they
enter into a state of society, they cannot, by
any compact, deprive or divest their
posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and
liberty, with the means of acquiring and
possessing property, and pursuing and
obtaining happiness and safety.
VIRGINIA, IV. That no man, or set of men,
are entitled to exclusive or separate
emoluments or privileges from the
community, but in consideration of public
services.
MASSACHUSETTS, Preamble to the
Constitution. The end of the institution,
maintenance, and administration of
government is to secure the existence of the
bodypolitic, to protect it, and to furnish the
individuals who compose it with the power
of enjoying, in safety and tranquillity, their
natural rights and the blessings of life.
MARYLAND, IV. The doctrine of
nonresistance, against arbitrary power and
oppression, is absurd, slavish and destructive
of the good and happiness of mankind.
3. Le principe de toute souveraineté réside
essentiellement dans la nation. Nul corps,
nul individu ne peut exercer d'autorité qui
n'en émane expréssement.
VIRGINIA, II. That all power is vested in,
and consequently derived from, the people;
that magistrates are their trustees and
servants, and at all times amenable to them.
4. La liberté consiste à pouvoir faire tout
ce qui ne nuit pas à autrui; aussi
l'exercise des droits naturels de chaque
homme n'a de bornes que celles qui
MASSACHUSETTS, Preamble. The
bodypolitic is formed by a voluntary
association of individuals; it is a social
compact by which the whole people
assurent aux autres membres de la société
la jouissance de ces mêmes droits. Ces
bornes ne peuvent étre déterminées que
par la loi.
covenants with each citizen and each citizen
with the whole people that all shall be
governed by certain laws for the common
good.
MASSACHUSETTS, X. Each individual of
the society has a right to be protected by it in
the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and
property, according to standing laws.
5. La loi n'a le droit de défendre que les
actions nuisibles à la société. Tout ce qui
n'est pas défendu par la loi ne peut être
empêtre contraint à faire ce qu'elle
n'ordonne pas.
MASSACHUSETTS, XI. Every subject of
the commonwealth ought to find a certain
remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for
all injuries or wrongs which he may receive
in his person, property, or character.
NORTH CAROLINA XIII. That every
freeman, restrained of his liberty, is entitled
to a remedy, to inquire into the lawfulness
thereof, and to remove the same, if unlawful;
and that such remedy ought not to be denied
or delayed.
VIRGINIA, VII. That all power of
suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by
any authority, without consent of the
representatives of the people, is injurious to
their rights, and ought not to be exercised.1
MARYLAND, V. That the right in the
people to participate in the Legislature, is the
best security of liberty, and the foundation of
all free government.
6. La loi est l'expression de la volonté
générale. Tous les citoyens ont le droit de
concourir personnellement ou par leurs
représentants à sa formation. Elle doitêtre
la même pour tous, soit qu'elle protège,
soit qu'elle punisse. Tous les citoyens
étant égaux à ses yeux, sont également
admissibles à toutes dignités, places et
emplois publics, selon leur capacité, et
sans autre distinction que celle de leurs
vertus et leurs talents.
MASSACHUSETTS, IX. All elections ought
to be free;2 and all the inhabitants of this
commonwealth, having such qualifications as
they shall establish by their frame of
government, have an equal right to elect
officers, and to be elected, for public
employments.
NEW HAMPSHIRE, XII. Nor are the
inhabitants of this State controllable by any
other laws than those to which they or their
representative body have given their consent.
7. Nul homme ne peut être accusé, arrêté,
ni détenu que dans les cas déterminés par
la loi et selon les formes qu'elle a
MASSACHUSETTS, XII. No subject shall
be held to answer for any crimes or no
offence until the same is fully and plainly,
prescrites. Ceux qui sollicitent, expédient,
exécutent ou font exécuter des ordres
arbitraires, doivent être punis; mais tout
citoyen appelé ou saisi en vertu de la loi
doit obéir à l'instant; il se rend coupable
par sa résistance.
substantially and formally, described to him;
or be compelled to accuse, or furnish
evidence against himself; and every subject
shall have a right to produce all proofs that
may be favorable to him; to meet the
witnesses against him face to face, and to be
fully heard in his defence by himself, or his
counsel at his election. And no subject shall
be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or
deprived of his property, immunities, or
privileges, put out of the protection of the
law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or
estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or
the law of the land.3
VIRGINIA, X. That general warrants,
whereby an officer or messenger may be
commanded to search suspected places
without evidence of a fact committed, or to
seize any person or persons not named, or
whose offence is not particularly described
and supported by evidence, are grievous and
oppressive, and ought not to be granted.
NEW HAMPSHIRE, XVIII. All penalties
ought to be proportioned to the nature of the
offence.4
8. La loi ne doit établir que des peines
strictement nécessaires et nul ne peut être
puni qu'en vertu d'une loi établie et
promulguée antérieurement au délit et
légalement appliquée. MARYLAND, XIV. That sanguinary laws
ought to be avoided, as far as is consistent
with the safety of the State; and no law, to
inflict cruel and unusual pains and penalties,
ought to be made in any case, or at any time
hereafter.5
MARYLAND, XV. That retrospective laws,
punishing facts committed before the
existence of such laws, and by them only
declared criminal, are oppressive, unjust, and
incompatible with liberty; wherefore no ex
post facto law ought to be made.
9. Tout hommeétant présumé innocent Cf. above, MASSACHUSETTS, XII; further
jusqu' à ce qu'il ait été déclaré coupable,
s'il est jugé indispensable de l'arrêter,
toute rigueur qui ne serait pas nécessaire
pour s'assurer de sa personne doit être
sévèrement réprimée par la loi.
MASSACHUSETTS, XIV. Every subject
has a right to be secure from all unreasonable
searches and seizures of his person, his
houses, his papers, and all his possessions.
MASSACHUSETTS, XXVI. No magistrate
or court of law shall demand excessive bail
or sureties, impose excessive fines6…
10. Nul doit étre inquiété pour ses
opinions, même religieuses, pourvu que
leur manifestation ne trouble pas l'ordre
public établi par la loi.
NEW HAMPSHIRE, V. Every individual
has a natural and unalienable right to worship
GOD according to the dictates of his own
conscience, and reason; and no subject shall
be hurt, molested or restrained in his person,
liberty or estate for worshipping GOD, in the
manner and season most agreeable to the
dictates of his own conscience, or for his
religious profession, sentiments or
persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the
public peace, or disturb others, in their
religious worship.
VIRGINIA, XII. That the freedom of the
press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty,
and can never be restrained but by despotic
governments.
11. La libre communication des pensées et
des opinions est un des droits les plus
précieux de l'homme; tout citoyen peut
donc parler, écrire, imprimer librement
sauf à répondre de l'abus de cette liberté
dans les cas determinés par la loi. PENNSYLVANIA, XII. That the people
have a right to freedom of speech, and of
writing, and publishing their sentiments.
12. La garantie des droits de l'homme et
du citoyen nécessité une force publique.
Cette force est donc instituée pour
l'avantage de tous, et non pour l'utilité
particulière de ceux auxquels elle est
confiée.
PENNSYLVANIA, V. That government is,
or ought to be, instituted for the common
benefit, protection and security of the people,
nation or community; and not for the
particular emolument or advantage of any
single man, family, or sett of men, who are a
part only of that community.
13. Pour l'entretien de la force publique et
pour les dépenses d'administration, une
contribution commune est indispensable;
elle doit ére également répartie entre tous
les citoyens en raison de leurs facultés.
MASSACHUSETTS, X. Each individual of
the society has a right to be protected by it in
the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and
property, according to standing laws. He is
obliged, consequently, to contribute his share
to the expense of this protection; to give his
personal service, or an equivalent, when
necessary.
14. Tous les citoyens ont le droit de
constater, par eux mêmes ou par leur
représentants, la nécessité de la
contribution publique, de la consentir
librement, d' en suivre l'emploi, et d'en
déterminer la qualité, l'assiette, le
MASSACHUSETTS, XXIII. No subsidy,
charge, tax, impost, or duties, ought to be
established, fixed, laid or levied, under any
pretext whatsoever, without the consent of
the people, or their representatives in the
legislature.
recouvrement et la durée.
15. La société a le droit de demander See above, VIRGINIA, II; further
compte à tout agent public de son
administration. MASSACHUSETTS V. All power residing
originally in the people, and being derived
from them, the several magistrates and
officers of government vested with authority,
whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are
the substitutes and agents, and are at all times
accountable to them.
NEW HAMPSHIRE, III. When men enter
into a state of society, they surrender up
some of their natural rights to that society, in
order to insure the protection of others; and
without such an equivalent, the surrender is
void.
16. Toute société, dans laquelle la
garantie des droits n'est pas assurée, ni la
séparation des pouvoirs déterminée, n'a
point de constitution.
MASSACHUSETTS, XXX. In the
government of this commonwealth, the
legislative department shall never exercise
the executive and judicial powers, or either
of them; the executive shall never exercise
the legislative and judicial powers, or either
of them; the judicial shall never exercise the
legislative and executive powers, or either of
them; to the end it may be a government of
laws, and not of men.
17. La propriété étant un droit inviolable
et sacré, nul ne peut en être privé, si ce
n'est lors que la nécessité publique,
légalement constatée, l'exige évidemment,
et sous la condition d'une juste et
préalable indemnité.
MASSACHUSETTS, X…. But no part of the
property of any individual can, with justice,
be taken from him, or applied to public uses,
without his own consent, or that of the
representative body of the people…. And
whenever the public exigencies require that
the property of any individual should be
appropriated to public uses, he shall receive a
reasonable compensation therefor.
VERMONT, II. That private property ought
to be subservient to public uses, when
necessity requires it; nevertheless, whenever
any particular man's property is taken for the
use of the public, the owner ought to receive
an equivalent in money.
reference:
Georg Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man
and of Citizens: A Contribution to Modern Constitutional
History (1895)

CHAPTER IV. VIRGINIA'S BILL OF RIGHTS AND
THOSE OF THE OTHER NORTH AMERICAN
STATES.
THE Congress of the colonies, which were already resolved upon separation from the
mother country, while sitting in Philadelphia issued on May 15, 1776, an appeal to its
constituents to give themselves constitutions. Of the thirteen states that originally made
up the Union, eleven had responded to this appeal before the outbreak of the French
Revolution. Two retained the colonial charters that had been granted them by the English
crown, and invested these documents with the character of constitutions, namely,
Connecticut the charter of 1662, and Rhode Island that of 1663, so that these charters are
the oldest written constitutions in the modern sense.1
Of the other states Virginia was the first to enact a constitution in the convention which
met at Williamsburg from May 6 to June 29, 1776. It was prefaced with a formal "bill of
rights",2 which had been adopted by the convention on the twelfth of June. The author of
this document was George Mason, although Madison exercised a decided influence upon
the form that was finally adopted.3 This declaration of Virginia's served as a pattern for
all the others, even for that of the Congress of the United States, which was issued three
weeks later, and, as is well known, was drawn up by Jefferson, a citizen of Virginia. In
the other declarations there were many stipulations formulated somewhat differently, and
also many new particulars were added.4
Express declarations of rights had been formulated after Virginia's before 1789 in the
constitutions of
• Pennsylvania of September 28, 1776,
• Maryland of November 11, 1776,
• North Carolina of December 18, 1776,
• Vermont of July 8, 1777,5
• Massachusetts of March 2, 1780,
• New Hampshire of October 31, 1783, (in force June 2, 1784.)
In the oldest constitutions of New Jersey, South Carolina, New York and Georgia special
bills of rights are wanting, although they contain many provisions which belong in that
category.6 The French translation of the American Constitutions of 1778 includes a
déclaration expositive des droits by Delaware that is lacking in Poore's collection.7
(The translator has reprinted this declaration in an article in the American Historical
Review, of July, 1898, entitled "The Delaware Bill of Rights of 1776".)
In the following section the separate articles of the French Declaration are placed in
comparison with the corresponding articles from the American declarations. Among the
latter, however, I have sought out only those that most nearly approach the form of
expression in the French text. But it must be once more strongly emphasized that the
fundamental ideas of the American declarations generally duplicate each other, so that
the same stipulation reappears in different form in the greater number of the bills of
rights.
We shall leave out the introduction with which the Constituent Assembly prefaced its
declaration, and begin at once with the enumeration of the rights themselves. But even
the introduction, in which the National Assembly "en présence et sous les auspices de
l'Être suprême" solemnly proclaims the recognition and declaration of the rights of man
and of citizens, and also sets forth the significance of the same, is inspired by the
declaration of Congress and by those of many of the individual states with which the
Americans sought to justify their separation from the mother country.
reference:
Georg Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man
and of Citizens: A Contribution to Modern Constitutional
History (1895)

CHAPTER III. THE BILLS OF RIGHTS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL STATES OF THE NORTH
AMERICAN UNION WERE ITS MODELS.
THE conception of a declaration of rights had found expression in France even before the
assembling of the States General. It had already appeared in a number of cahiers. The
cahier of the Bailliage of Nemours is well worth noting, as it contained a chapter entitled
"On the Necessity of a Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens",1 and sketched a
plan of such a declaration with thirty articles. Among other plans that in the cahier des
tiers état of the city of Paris has some interest.2
In the National Assembly, however, it was Lafayette who on July 11, 1789, made the
motion to enact a declaration of rights in connection with the constitution, and he
therewith laid before the assembly a plan of such a declaration.3
It is the prevailing opinion that Lafayette was inspired to make this motion by the North
American Declaration of Independence.4 And this instrument is further declared to have
been the model that the Constituent Assembly had in mind in framing its declaration. The
sharp, pointed style and the practical character of the American document are cited by
many as in praiseworthy contrast to the confusing verbosity and dogmatic theory of the
French Declaration.5 Others bring forward, as a more fitting object of comparison, the
first amendments to the constitution of the United States,6 and even imagine that the latter
exerted some influence upon the French Declaration, in spite of the fact that they did not
come into existence until after August 26, 1789. This error has arisen from the French
Declaration of 1789 having been embodied word for word in the Constitution of
September 3, 1791, and so to one not familiar with French constitutional history, and
before whom only the texts of the constitutions themselves are lying, it seems to bear a
later date.
By practically all those, however, who look further back than the French Declaration it is
asserted that the Declaration of Independence of the United States on July 4, 1776,
contains the first exposition of a series of rights of man.7
Yet the American Declaration of Independence contains only a single paragraph that
resembles a declaration of rights. It reads as follows:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation
on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
This sentence is so general in its content that it is difficult to read into it, or deduct from
it, a whole system of rights. It is therefore, at the very start, improbable that it served as
the model for the French Declaration.
This conjecture becomes a certainty through Lafayette's own statement. In a place in his
Memoirs, that has as yet been completely overlooked, Lafayette mentions the model that
he had in mind when making his motion in the Constituent Assembly.8 He very
pertinently points out that the Congress of the newly formed Confederation of North
American free states was then in no position to set up, for the separate colonies, which
had already become sovereign states, rules of right which would have binding force. He
brings out the fact that in the Declaration of Independence there are asserted only the
principles of the sovereignty of the people and the right to change the form of
government. Other rights are included solely by implication from the enumeration of the
violations of right, which justified the separation from the mother country.
The constitutions of the separate states, however, were preceded by declarations of rights,
which were binding upon the people's representatives. The first state to set forth a
declaration of rights properly so called was Virginia.9
The declarations of Virginia and of the other individual American states were the sources
of Lafayette's proposition. They influenced not only Lafayette, but all who sought to
bring about a declaration of rights. Even the above-mentioned cahiers were affected by
them.
The new constitutions of the separate American states were well known at that time in
France. As early as 1778 a French translation of them, dedicated to Franklin, had
appeared in Switzerland.10 Another was published in 1783 at Benjamin Franklin's own
instigation.11 Their influence upon the constitutional legislation of the French Revolution
is by no means sufficiently recognized. In Europe until quite recently only the Federal
constitution was known, not the constitutions of the individual states, which are assuming
a very prominent place in modern constitutional history. This must be evident from the
fact, which is even yet unrecognized by some distinguished historians and teachers of
public law, that the individual American states had the first written constitutions. In
England and France the importance of the American state constitutions has begun to be
appreciated,12 but in Germany they have remained as yet almost unnoticed. For a long
time, to be sure, the text of the older constitutions in their entirety were only with
difficulty accessible in Europe. But through the edition, prepared by order of the United
States Senate,13 containing all the American constitutions since the very earliest period,
one is now in a position to become acquainted with these exceptionally important
documents.
The French Declaration of Rights is for the most part copied from the American
declarations or "bills of rights".14 All drafts of the French Declaration, from those of the
cahiers to the twenty-one proposals before the National Assembly, vary more or less
from the original, either in conciseness or in breadth, in cleverness or in awkwardness of
expression. But so far as substantial additions are concerned they present only doctrinaire
statements of a purely theoretical nature or elaborations, which belong to the realm of
political metaphysics. To enter upon them here is unnecessary. Let us confine ourselves
to the completed work, the Declaration as it was finally determined after long debate in
the sessions from the twentieth to the twenty-sixth of August.
reference:
Georg Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man
and of Citizens: A Contribution to Modern Constitutional
History (1895)

CHAPTER II. ROUSSEAU'S CONTRAT SOCIAL
WAS NOT THE SOURCE OF THIS DECLARATION.
IN his History of Political Science—the most comprehensive work of that kind which
France possesses— Paul Janet, after a thorough presentation of the Contrat Social,
discusses the influence which this work of Rousseau's exercised upon the Revolution.
The idea of the declaration of rights is to be traced back to Rousseau's teachings. What
else is the declaration itself than the formulation of the state contract according to
Rousseau's ideas? And what are the several rights but the stipulations and specifications
of that contract?1
It is hard to understand how an authority upon the Contrat Social could make such a
statement though in accord with popular opinion.
The social contract has only one stipulation, namely, the complete transference to the
community of all the individual's rights.2 The individual does not retain one particle of
his rights from the moment he enters the state.3 Everything that he receives of the nature
of right he gets from the volonté générale, which is the sole judge of its own limits, and
ought not to be, and cannot be, restricted by the law of any power. Even property belongs
to the individual only by virtue of state concession. The social contract makes the state
the master of the goods of its members,4 and the latter remain in possession only as the
trustees of public property.5 Civil liberty consists simply of what is left to the individual
after taking his duties as a citizen into account.6 These duties can only be imposed by
law, and according to the social contract the laws must be the same for all citizens. This
is the only restriction upon the sovereign power,7 but it is a restriction which follows
from the very nature of that power, and it carries in itself its own guarantees.8.
The conception of an original right, which man brings with him into society and which
appears as a restriction upon the rights of the sovereign, is specifically rejected by
Rousseau. There is no fundamental law which can be binding upon the whole people, not
even the social contract itself.9
The Declaration of Rights, however, would draw dividing lines between the state and the
individual, which the lawmaker should ever keep before his eyes as the limits that have
been set him once and for all by "the natural, inalienable and sacred rights of man."10
The principles of the Contrat Social are accordingly at enmity with every declaration of
rights. For from these principles there ensues not the right of the individual, but the
omnipotence of the common will, unrestricted by law. Taine comprehended better than
Janet the consequences of the Contrat Social.11
The Declaration of August 26, 1789, originated in opposition to the Contrat Social. The
ideas of the latter work exercised, indeed, a certain influence upon the style of some
clauses of the Declaration, but the conception of the Declaration itself must have come
from some other source.
reference:
Georg Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man
and of Citizens: A Contribution to Modern Constitutional
History (1895)

CHAPTER I. THE FRENCH DECLARATION OF
RIGHTS OF AUGUST 26, 1789, AND ITS
SIGNIFICANCE.
THE declaration of "the rights of man and of citizens" by the French Constituent
Assembly on August 26, 1789, is one of the most significant events of the French
Revolution. It has been criticised from different points of view with directly opposing
results. The political scientist and the historian, thoroughly appreciating its importance,
have repeatedly come to the conclusion that the Declaration had no small part in the
anarchy with which France was visited soon after the storming of the Bastille. They point
to its abstract phrases as ambiguous and therefore dangerous, and as void of all political
reality and practical statesmanship. Its empty pathos, they say, confused the mind,
disturbed calm judgment, aroused passions, and stifled the sense of duty,—for of duty
there is not a word.1 Others, on the contrary, and especially Frenchmen, have exalted it as
a revelation in the world's history, as a catechism of the "principles of 1789" which form
the eternal foundation of the state's structure, and they have glorified it as the most
precious gift that France has given to mankind.
Less regarded than its historical and political significance is the importance of this
document in the history of law, an importance which continues even to the present day.
Whatever may be the value or worthlessness of its general phrases, it is under the
influence of this document that the conception of the public rights of the individual has
developed in the positive law of the states of the European continent. Until it appeared
public law literature recognized the rights of heads of states, the privileges of class, and
the privileges of individuals or special corporations, but the general rights of subjects
were to be found essentially only in the form of duties on the part of the state, not in the
form of definite legal claims of the individual. The Declaration of the Rights of Man for
the first time originated in all its vigor in positive law the conception, which until then
had been known only to natural law, of the personal rights of the members of the state
over against the state as a whole. This was next seen in the first French constitution of
September 3, 1791, which set forth, upon the basis of a preceding declaration of rights, a
list of droits naturels et civils as rights that were guaranteed by the constitution.2
Together with the right of suffrage, the "droits garantis par la constitution", which were
enumerated for the last time in the constitution of November 4, 1848,3 form to-day the
basis of French theory and practice respecting the personal public rights of the
individual.4 And under the influence of the French declaration there have been introduced
into almost all of the constitutions of the other Continental states similar enumerations of
rights, whose separate phrases and formulas, however, are more or less adapted to the
particular conditions of their respective states, and therefore frequently exhibit wide
differences in content.
In Germany most of the constitutions of the period prior to 1848 contained a section upon
the rights of subjects, and in the year 1848 the National Constitutional Convention at
Frankfort adopted "the fundamental rights of the German people", which were published
on December 27, 1848, as Federal law. In spite of a resolution of the Bund of August 23,
1851, declaring these rights null and void, they are of lasting importance, because many
of their specifications are to-day incorporated almost word for word in the existing
Federal law.5 These enumerations of rights appear in greater numbers in the European
constitutions of the period after 1848. Thus, first of all, in the Prussian constitution of
January 31, 1850, and in Austria's "Fundamental Law of the State" of December 21,
1867, on the general rights of the state's citizens. And more recently they have been
incorporated in the constitutions of the new states in the Balkan peninsula.
A noteworthy exception to this are the constitutions of the North German Confederation
of July 26, 1867, and of the German Empire of April 16, 1871, which lack entirely any
paragraph on fundamental rights. The constitution of the Empire, however, could the
better dispense with such a declaration as it was already contained in most of the
constitutions of the individual states, and, as above stated, a series of Federal laws has
enacted the most important principles of the Frankfort fundamental rights. Besides, with
the provisions of the Federal constitution as to amendments, it was not necessary to make
any special place for them in that instrument, as the Reichstag, to whose especial care the
guardianship of the fundamental rights must be entrusted, has no difficult forms to
observe in amending the constitution.6 As a matter of fact the public rights of the
individual are much greater in the German Empire than in most of the states where the
fundamental rights are specifically set forth in the constitution. This may be seen, for
example, by a glance at the legislation and the judicial and administrative practice in
Austria.
But whatever may be one's opinion to-day upon the formulation of abstract principles,
which only become vitalized through the process of detailed legislation, as affecting the
legal position of the individual in the state, the fact that the recognition of such principles
is historically bound up with that first declaration of rights makes it an important task of
constitutional history to ascertain the origin of the French Declaration of Rights of 1789.
The achievement of this task is of great importance both in explaining the development of
the modern state and in understanding the position which this state assures to the
individual. Thus far in the works on public law various precursors of the declaration of
the Constituent Assembly, from Magna Charta to the American Declaration of
Independence, have been enumerated and arranged in regular sequence, yet any thorough
investigation of the sources from which the French drew is not to be found.
It is the prevailing opinion that the teachings of the Contrat Social gave the impulse to
the Declaration, and that its prototype was the Declaration of Independence of the
thirteen United States of North America. Let us first of all inquire into the correctness of
these assumptions.
reference:
Georg Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man
and of Citizens: A Contribution to Modern Constitutional
History (1895)

What is a letter of credit and how can an exporter use it when exporting?

 

          A letter of credit (L/C) is an arrangement whereby a bank (the issuing or opening bank) guarantees on behalf of its customers (the applicant or importer) to make payment to the beneficiary (or exporter) upon presentation of documents specified in the credit, under specified terms and conditions.  The financial transaction may be further secured by the intervention of another bank.  The intervening bank informs the exporter of the issue of the L/C and may add its confirmation to it, thereby guaranteeing the payment against the risk of default of the issuing bank.

 

The L/C is a very precise document, usually created by following an international standard form model.  It contains a brief description of the goods, a listing of documents required to obtain payment, the shipping date, and the expiration date after which the payment will no longer be made.  The L/C guarantees the exporter will be paid only after fulfilling certain terms and conditions.  Upon the fulfillment of all the conditions set down in the L/C, the exporter can submit appropriate shipping documents to the bank to collect payment.  The following documents are required to be submitted in order to obtain payment according to the L/C (however, there are no specific rules on what an L/C most often should require):

 

·            Commercial invoice

·            Bill of lading (B/L) or another multi-modal transport document proving that the goods have been embarked for transport, sometimes also evidencing that the freight has been pre-paid

·            Insurance document

·            Certificate of origin

·            Inspection certificate showing conformity to quality, quantity, packaging requirements

·             Packing list

 

If the exporter has a long-standing relationship with the foreign buyer, cash advance may be the easiest form of payment.  If this is not the case, the letter of credit can act as the easiest way of getting paid while, at the same time, protecting the exporters interests.  The most commonly used forms of L/C are:

 

Irrevocable Documentary L/C  This form of L/C cannot be canceled or modified without agreement of all parties involved.  Payment is guaranteed by the bank provided that the exporter fulfills all the terms and conditions laid down in the contract, including the presentation of the required documents.

 

Revocable L/C.  This form offers fewer guarantees but is more flexible as it can be canceled or modified at any time without the knowledge of beneficiary.  A few exporters accept these L/Cs.

  

Revolving L/C.  This form is often used in repeated trade transactions with the same client.  The funds used for the same or a similar transaction will again be available in the future, usually under the same terms without having to issue a new L/C.

 

Although a letter of credit is used most frequently in the process of payment, there could be several problems in employing this method. 
reference: 

TRADE
  SECRETS  

The Export Answer Book
for Small and Medium-Sized Exporters
 in the Sultanate of Oman