Hırsızlık Kavramından “Özel” Unsurunun Kaybolması: Tarihsel Bir Açıklama

Öz

Roma Hukuku'nun kendine özgü kamu hukuku ve özel hukuk ayrımı uyarınca, Roma Hukuku'nda hırsızlık kavramı kamusal ve özel olmak üzere ikili bir karaktere sahiptir. Adi hırsızlığın özel hukuk ilişkilerini yansıttığı ve bir delictum (özel suç) olduğu kabul edilirken nitelikli hırsızlık devletin iradesinin hakim olduğu hukuki ilişkileri yansıtmaktadır ve bir kamu suçudur. Hırsızlığın ikili yapısı, Orta Çağ'da hırsızlık kavramının gelişimini de etkilemiştir. Kanonik Hukuk ve Cermen hukuku, adi hırsızlık ile nitelikli hırsızlık arasında ayrım yapmıştır, ancak adi hırsızlık artık delictum olarak kabul edilmemeye başlamıştır. Cermen Hukuku'nda "kamu barışı" fikri üstün tutulmaktayken Kanonik Hukuk, hırsızlığın suç olarak kabul edilmesini "kefaret" fikri üzerinden meşru kılmış ve nihayetinde Orta Çağ’ın sonunda Constitutio Criminalis Carolina'nın çıkarılmasıyla, Roma Hukuku, Kanonik Hukuk ve Cermen Hukuku’nun hırsızlık kavramlarını birbiriyle kaynaştırmıştır. Sonuç olarak Cermen hukukçular, Klasik Dönem hukukçuları tarafından ortaya konan hırsızlık anlayışını yeniden yorumlamış ve hırsızlık kavramını bir kamu suçu niteliğine büründürmüştür. Bu ise daha sonrasında hırsızlığa ilişkin çağdaş Alman mevzuatının öncül örneğini teşkil etmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Delictum
• Adi hırsızlık
• Nitelikli hırsızlık
• Kanonik Hukuk
• Cermen Hukuku

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE "PRIVATE" ELEMENT FROM THE CONCEPT OF THEFT: A HISTORICAL EXPLANATION

Öz

According to the unique public and private law division standards in Roman law, the concept of theft in Roman law has a dual nature of public and private. Ordinary theft is considered to reflect private legal relations and is a delictum, while aggravated theft reflects the legal relations dominated by the will of the state and is a public crime. The duality of this theft also affected the development of the concept of theft in the Middle Ages, both Canon law and Germanic law distinguished between ordinary theft and aggravated theft, but ordinary theft was no longer regarded as delictum. Germanic law upheld the idea of “public peace”, while Canon law legitimized the criminalization of theft based on the idea of “atonement” and finally integrated the concepts of theft in Roman law, Canon law and Germanic law through the promulgation of the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina at the end of the Middle Ages. Ultimately, Germanic jurists reinterpreted the conception of theft expounded by classical jurists and transmuted the notion of theft into one invested with the character of a public crime. This thereafter constituted the prototypical paradigm of modern German theft legislation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Delictum
• Ordinary theft
• Aggravated theft
• Canon law
• Germanic law

Kaynakça

1. Albanese, Bernardo. “La nozione del furtum fino a Nerazio.” Annali del Seminario Giuridico della Università di Palermo 23 (1953): 5-111.
2. Arsic, Aleksandar. “Furtum in Roman and Contemporary Law.” Ius Romanum, no. 2 (2016): 456-471.
3. Frydek, Miroslav. “Terminology of Roman Criminal Law - Crimen et Delictum.” Journal on European History of Law 1, no. 1 (2010): 69-72.
4. Händl, Claudia. “Theft in The Codice Picturati of The Sachsenspiegel.” Brathair 20, no. 2 (2020): 353-379.
5. Janssen, Heinrich. “Der Diebstahl in seiner Entwicklung von der Carolina bis zum Ausgang des 18. Jahrhunderts.” PhD diss., Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen, 1969.
6. Jaramaz Reskusic, Ivana. “Theft in Roman Law: Delictum Publicum and Delictum Privatum.” Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu 57, no. 2 (2007): 313-352.
7. Jolowicz, H. F. and Barry Nicholas. Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law. London: the Eastern Press Ltd, 1971.
8. Kaser, Max and Rolf Knütel. Römisches Privatrecht: Ein Studienbuch. München: Verlag C. H. Beck, 2014. (Römisches Privatrecht)

9. Maine, Henry Sumner. Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of Society and Its Relation to Modern Ideas. London: John Murray, 1908.
10. Meister, Christian Friedrich Georg. Principia juris criminalis Germaniae communis. Gottingae: 1755.
11. Niederländer, Hubert. “Die Entwicklung des furtum und seine etymologischen Ableitungen.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Romanistische Abteilung 67 (1950): 185-260. (Die Entwicklung)
12. Nonius Marcellus. De Compendiosa Doctrina Libri XX. Vercelli: digilibLT, 2017. https://digiliblt.uniupo.it/opera.php#.
13. Pepe, Laura. Ricerche sul Furto nelle XII Tavole nel Diritto Antico. Milan: CUEM, 2004.
14. Pernice, Alfred. “Der verbrecherische Vorsatz im griechisch- römischen Rechte.” Zeitschrift der Savigny- Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 17 (1896): 205-251.
15. Sirks, A. J. B.. “Furtum and manus /potestas.” The Legal History Review 81 (2013): 465-506.
16. Su, Yanxin. “The Formation of European Common Law in the Middle Ages.” Journal of Comparative Law, no. 3 (2011): 130-134.
17. The Latin Library. “Q. Horatius Flaccus: Carmina 2.” Accessed May 5, 2023. https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/horace/carm2.shtml.
18. Thomas, Joseph Anthony Charles. Textbook of Roman Law. Amsterdam: North- Holland Publishing Company, 1976.
19. University of Chicago. “Gellius: Attic Nights book I.” Accessed May 5, 2023. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Gellius/2*.html
20. University of Chicago. “Gellius: Attic Nights book XI.” Accessed May 5, 2023. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Gellius/11*.html.
21. Watson, W. A. J.. “The definition of furtum and the trichotomy.” Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 28, (1960): 197-210.
22. Weitzel, Karl. “Diebstahl und Frevel und ihre Beziehung zu Hoch- und Niedergerichtsbarkeit in den alamannischen Rechtsquellen des Mittelalters.” PhD diss., Hohen Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Leipzig, 1909. (Diebstahl)
23. Westenberg, Johann Ortwin. Meditatio Auspicii Caussa Suspecta de Furto Tertio Simplici, Prima Alteraque Vice Non Punito, Ne Carolino Quidem Iure Capitali. Lugduni Batavorum: 1726. (Meditatio)
24. Wieacker, Franz. “Endoplorare: Diebstahlsverfolgung und Gerüft im altrömischen Recht.” Festschrift Wenger, no. 1 (1944): 129-179.
25. Wu, Jishu. “A Brief History of Tort Law from the Perspective of Its Function.” Journal of Southwest Petroleum University (Social Sciences Edition), no. 3 (2014): 50-59.
26. Xu, Aiguo. “On the History of Tort Law.” Legal Science, no. 1 (2006): 135-145. (History)
27. Xu, Guodong. Commemtarius ad Institutes Iustinianorum. Beijing: Beijing University Press, 2005.
28. Yaron, Reuven. The Laws of Eshnunna. Jerusalem: the Magnes Press, 1988.
29. Zillgen, Ingeborg. “Geschichte und Sinn des schweren Diebstahls.” PhD diss., Friedrich- Wilhelms- Universität zu Berlin, 1940. (Geschichte)
30. Zimmermann, Reinhard. The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. Johannesburg: Juta & Co, Ltd., 1990. (The Law of Obligations)