- and the public sphere of all that was directly controlled or administrated by the state.This distinction has been conceptualised in the Continental as well as the Scandinavian countries’, by a no less strained distinction between “private” law and “public” law.The distinction was a detail of the legal system of the historical school that had the most obvious connection to political ideologies, since it presupposed that private law was characterised by economic freedom. Freedom of contract demanded that the state did not interfere in the citizens’ economic activities.146 This transfer from status to individual autonomy has been linked to the advance of liberalism and its boundary line between public law and private law.However many advocates of the historical school took an ambivalent, sometimes even negative, attitude towards economic as well as political liberalism.The new individual autonomy was not given to everyone. Savigny’s theses about personal autonomy did not lead him to the conclusion that all men were equals before the law. On the contrary, his doctrine paradoxically created a new type of foundation for maintaining many of the considerable differences between estates, guilds and sexes, which had been established during the much decried era of natural law.147 Some people had, according to Savigny, lost all, or parts, of their legal capacity. From this point of departure he and others of the same school rebuilt the Roman law classification intopersonæ-res-actiones, into a system containing five different areas of private law: general doctrines, property law, law of contracts or obligations, family law and law of inheritance.148 Within all legal areas there were duties, but these had different foundations.The duties within the law of obligations arose from the involved persons’ manifestations of will. The duties within the family law, however, arose from the status of the person involved.149 p a r t 1 i i , c h a p t e r 3 76 146 Björne 1998, pp. 229-233. 147 Peterson, C, 1982, p. 151. 148 Björne 1998, p. 251. 149 Savigny, System I, pp.345, 367, 369;Windscheid, II,1874-75, pp.1-2. Björne 1998, p. 252.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=