東南アジア学会会員の皆様

総務担当理事の山口です。

東京大学東洋文化研究所で9月24日に開催されるセミナーの案内をいただきました。

東南アジアにも関連する内容ですのでお知らせいたします。

山口元樹

——–

東文研セミナー Customary Legalism: Rules of Law in Early India, Java, and Bali (A Lecture by Prof. Timothy Lubin) のお知らせ

東京大学東洋文化研究所ではこの度、当研究所訪問研究員でダルマシャーストラ研究の第一人者であるTimothy Lubin教授の講演会を開催することとなりました。前近代南アジアから東南アジア島嶼部にいたる法の実態について、最新の研究成果をうかがう良い機会ですので、どうか奮ってご参加ください。

日時：2025年9月24日15時～17時

会場：東京大学東洋文化研究所３階第一会議室

発表者：Timothy Lubin (Washington and Lee University / Visiting Researcher, Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, The University of Tokyo)

題目：Customary Legalism: Rules of Law in Early India, Java, and Bali

司会：古井龍介（東京大学東洋文化研究所）

使用言語：英語

要旨：A persistent question in the comparative study of premodern legal history is the role of writing, and whether it is a sine qua non of law in the formal sense, in contrast with customary norms, orally expressed, which are presumed to lack fixity, uniformity, or regularity of application (what is called ‘legalism’). In ancient and medieval South Asia, writing began to be used for legal purposes from around the third century BCE, both for composing doctrinal works of religious law and for producing public documents, decrees, and deeds. What is strikingly lacking is more than a few possible examples of statute-production: the legislation of laws enforceable by the king or the polity. In this talk, I propose (1) that this apparent lack does not mean that such laws did not exist; in many cases, we can with some confidence infer the existence of generally applicable laws from the immunities and privileges stipulated in grant charters and other decrees — the “exemption that proves the rule,” so to speak; and (2) that in many cases, these rules may have existed with considerable fixity of expression and regular enforceability even without being written down, given that they are expressed in a widely dispersed technical idiom of terms and maxims that are employed formulaically from earliest attestation already in regular usage, without being explained anywhere. After laying out these points, I will illustrate them with a sketch of property laws deducible from select grant charters from India, Java, and Bali, drawing on the Oxford legal philosopher Tony Honoré’s list of eleven “incidents of ownership” (i.e., property rights).

——–