Modernity, Reception, and Transformation in 19th-Century Ottoman Law: Transplantation of Concordat into Turkish Legal History
Ali Ekber CinarThe 19th century was a watershed for the modernization of Ottoman law. The codifications and transplantations of the 19th century included Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret (1850), a commercial code transplanted from French law, more specifically Code de commerce (1807). The dominant view in the scholarly literature considers Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret to be a literal translation of France’s Code de commerce. In this paper, I revisit this view and examine (i) the relationship between Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret and Code de commerce and (ii) the modernization of Ottoman law in the 19th century, with a specific focus on the legal procedure known as concordat. I claim that Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret differed from Code de commerce in significant ways through the many additions, deletions, and modifications the Ottomans made, and my examination demonstrates that approximately a third of the articles present in Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret have no equivalent in Code de commerce. As a result, I argue that the Ottoman legislator did not hesitate to go beyond merely transplanting European ideas and ideals, taking the local context into consideration throughout the process of modernization and reception in the Ottoman Empire during the 19th century.
19. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Hukukunda Modernleşme, İktibas ve Dönüşüm: Konkordatonun Türk Hukukuna Girişi
Ali Ekber Cinar19. yüzyıl Osmanlı hukuk modernleşmesi bakımından büyük önem taşımaktadır. Modernleşmenin en belirgin yönlerinden birini oluşturan kanunlaştırmanın önemli bir örneğini 1850 tarihli Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret oluşturmaktadır. Fransız hukukundan iktibas edilen bu kanunnamenin mehazını 1807 tarihli Fransız Ticaret Kanunu oluşturmaktadır. Literatürde ileri sürülen görüşler genellikle kanunnamenin mehaz kanunun bir tercümesinden ibaret olduğu yönündedir. Çalışmamız özelde 1850 tarihli Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret ile 1807 tarihli Fransız Ticaret Kanunu arasındaki ilişkiyi, genelde 19. yüzyıl Osmanlı hukuk modernleşmesini, günümüzde hala güncelliğini koruyan ve kullanımı yaygın şekilde devam eden konkordato müessesesi üzerinden okumaktadır. Çalışmamız mehaz kanunun konkordatoya ilişkin hükümleri iktibas edilirken Osmanlı kanun koyucusunun söz konusu hükümler üzerinde esaslı ölçüde değişiklikler yaptığını, mehaz kanunda bulunan bazı hükümleri iktibas etmezken, mehazda yer almayan bazı hükümleri de kendiliğinden ilave ettiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bağlamda konkordatoya ilişkin hükümler özelinde Osmanlı kanun koyucusunun iktibas sürecinde “aktif iktibas” olarak adlandırdığımız bir tavır tutunduğunu söylemek mümkündür. Buna göre 1850 tarihli Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret’te yer alan konkordatoya ilişkin her üç hükümden en az bir tanesi Osmanlı kanun koyucusunun inisiyatifi ile sevk edilmiştir. Bu nedenle 1850 tarihli Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret’in 1807 tarihli Fransız Ticaret Kanunu’nun aynen tercümesinden ibaret olduğu iddiasına ihtiyatlı yaklaşmak gerektiği gibi, Osmanlı hukuk modernleşmesi ve hukuk iktibası sürecinde Osmanlı kanun koyucusunun oldukça seçici ve mehaza müdahale edici olduğunu söylemek mümkündür.
The 19th century was a watershed for the Muslim world, and the Ottoman Empire was no less affected by the drastic transformation and modernization prevailing in the region. One of the most important aspects of Ottoman modernization was the codification of various laws in various fields, an important example of which was Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret, a commercial code adopted in 1850.
The preamble of Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret clearly demonstrates that it was transplanted from French law as an adaptation of Code de commerce, the French commercial code enacted in 1807. The nature of this transplantation, however, has so far remained ambiguous, with most researchers having claimed Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret to be only a literal translation of Code de commerce.
In this paper, I challenge this claim and argue that, while Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret was evidently transplanted from Code de commerce, the Ottoman Empire acted in a highly fastidious, intervenient, and selective manner during the transplantation, as demonstrated by my examination of the legal procedure known as concordat.1 As a procedure visibly transplanted from French law, concordat was introduced to Ottoman legal history for the first time in 1850 through the third book of Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret.
To explore whether Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret was indeed a literal translation of Code de commerce, I study condordat as a case study and comparatively examine the pertinent chapters in both texts (i.e., Articles 211-248 in Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret and Articles 519-526 in Code de commerce). My examination demonstrates that the two texts differ one from another significantly in both form and content. For instance, the individual articles in Code de commerce are relatively longer, while those in Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret are much shorter. Similarly, the chapter headings and subheadings do not always match. In terms of content, I see three different ways through which Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret diverged from Code de commerce. First, some articles were modified by additions and deletions during the transplantation. Second, a number of articles were left un-transplanted and hence did not become part of Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret. Third, numerous new articles were added throughout the text, leading to many passages that do not appear in Code de commerce.
By the same token, based on a comparative reading of the two texts, I discuss several points regarding the transplantation of Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret in particular and Ottoman modernization in general. More specifically, I try to quantitatively compare the articles relating to concordat in both texts, namely Chapter 6 (altıncı bâb) of Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret and Chapter 8 (chapitre VIII) of Code de commerce. The comparison demonstrates that Chapter 6 of Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret includes 38 articles, 2,452 words, and 19,115 characters. However, Chapter 8 of Code de commerce is overall shorter, as it comprises no more than 18 articles, 856 words, and 5,430 characters. Although it goes without saying that the two texts are in two different languages (i.e., Turkish and French), I still believe that the difference in length already casts new light on how Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret was transplanted. Given that the formal comparison might seem insufficient for drawing conclusions, I have also compared the contents of both texts to further crystallize the differences. By comparatively examining the two texts, I have identified the articles that appear in both text either fully and partially, as well as those that do not appear. My examination has revealed that 65.78% of the articles, 66.19% of the words, and 65.89% of the characters in Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret have an equivalent with a close or similar meaning in Code de commerce. In other words, 34.21% of the articles, 33.80% of the words, and 34.10% of the characters are unique to Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret and thus have no equivalent in Code de commerce, indicating the Ottoman Empire was highly selective during the transplantation, for approximately a third of the rules regarding concordat was created and introduced by Ottomans. As a result, I take issue with the dominant view in the literature that Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret consists merely of a literal translation of Code de commerce. I also argue that, as demonstrated in the example of concordat, the 19th-century modernization of Ottoman law was a process where Ottomans did not hesitate to go beyond merely transplanting European ideas and ideals, taking the local context into consideration. I believe that further studies exploring other parts of Kânûnnâme-i Ticâret and examining legal practice will allow for better understanding of the dynamics of the Ottoman Empire’s modernization agenda and for drawing a more cogent picture of the 19th-century modernization of Ottoman law.
