Law of Lathadu

The Law of Lathadu refers to the legal system of the Republic of Lathadu, which is a civil law jurisdiction primarily based on legal codes and statutes, with doctrine, custom, and case law playing secondary roles. The more influential of the Lathadun legal codes is the Lebor Cabmuc, or Code of Cambuc, which would go on to inspire later civil codes in Lathadu and across the region. The Constitution of Lathadu first adopted in 1871 is the supreme law of the land. International organization law, such as that of the World Forum and Alutran Commercial Community, is becoming increasingly important in Lathadu as well.

In academic terms, Lathadun law can be divided into two main categories: private law and public law. Private law governs relationships between individuals, including the fields of civil law (inheritance, family, property, contract, and civil law), commercial law, and employment law. Public law defines the structure and workings of the government as well as the relationships between the state and the individual; it includes two main fields of criminal law and constitutional law. Together, these two primary distinctions form the core of legal studies in Lathadu, such that it has become a classical sort of distinction.

History
In the Middle Ages, most legal situations in Lathadu were highly local, regulated by local customs and practices of various communities. Historians tend to be attracted by the large regional or urban customs, rather than local judicial norms and practices. Beginning with the 12th century, law emerged as a unitary scholarly discipline, initially with scholars from Salia, Ordrey, and elsewhere as professors, teaching their legal systems in more built up areas, namely Ushteyghoo and Calleebane. Despite this, these fields of study were largely academic and disconnected from application, especially in the west and southwest.

Throughout Lathadu, private and unofficial compendiums of local customs in different regions began to emerge in the 13th and 14th centuries. These compendiums were often drafted by judges who needed to decide cases based on unwritten customs, and the authors often incorporated foreign law from Salia and Ordrey, procedures from religious strictures and rules, and edicts handed down by ruling clans. In the early modern period, laws in Lathadu gradually went through unification, rationalization, and centralization. After the nation gained its independence in 1751, rulers began asserting authority over the federation in a quest of piecemeal institutional centralization. Through the creation of a centralized (albeit non-hereditary) quasi-monarchy, the beginnings of an administrative and judicial system emerged in the second half of the 18th century, with national legislation also greatly increasing at this time.

The Ordinance of Ushteyghoo (1754) was an important starting point to this period, as it ordered the official recording and homologation of Lathadun customary law. Customs would be compiled by local practitioners and approved by local elected assembles, with disagreements resolved by the central court. At the time, the wholesale adoption of a more centralized law would have been unrealistic, as the authority of the Lanshad was insufficient to impose a unified legal system over all areas. In the process of recording, local customs were sometimes simplified or reformed. By the 17th century, around sixty general customs were recorded and granted official status, disqualifying any unrecorded customs from having official status. Ordrish law remained as a reserve, to be used for augmentation and supplement customary law as a persuasive body.

Even before the start of the Anti-Aristocrat Movement, Lathadun thinkers from the time of the Great National Awakening in the latter half of the 18th century advocated for ideas such as natural rights, separation of political powers, and others introduced from neighboring nations. The Lathadun legal system underwent great changes following the end of the Silent Years in 1871, and the foundation of the Republic. The First National Diet of 1871 overhauled the nation’s judicial system by 1872. A criminal code was adopted in 1873. The Civil Code (1874), the Code of Civil Procedure (1886), and the Commercial Code (1887) were adopted under the guidance of Pol Cabmuc, a preeminent political figure and legal scholar reflecting Ordrish and Salian law, pre-revolutionary ordinances and custom, scholarly legal writings, newer intellectual ideas, and his own personal vision of the law. These codes consisted of numbered articles, were written in elegant Gundioc, and were meant to be understood by the layman. Additionally, they introduced many reforms, such as abolishing the few remaining feudal institutions the country had remaining, and establishing rights of personality, property, and contract for all citizens.

Sources of Law
According to Lathadu’s constitution, “the sources of law are legislation, regulations, custom, judicial opinions, and doctrine.” Legislation is seen as the primary source of Lathadu law. Despite this emphasis, some bodies of law, like constitutional law, were primarily created by the courts (namely the nation’s Constitutional Court). Lawyers often look to case law and legal scholarship, or doctrine, for reliable but nonbinding interpretation and statements of the law.

Legislative sources
Lathadun legislative sources are classified into four categories: Constitutional laws Treaties National statutes Government regulations

Hierarchy of norms
Lathadun legislation follows a hierarchy of norms. Constitutional laws are superior to all other sources, then treaties, then national statutes, then government regulations. Legislation enacted by orders and regulations issued by the executive under certain articles of the constitution have the same status as national statutes.

Legislation
There are several categories of legislation:
 * Organic statutes are laws on areas specified in the Constitution, like national elections and the status of judges. Organic statutes must be referred to the Constitutional Court before they are passed.
 * Referendum statutes are laws adopted by referendum. The Premier has the power to refer certain bills, on the organization of public powers, social, economic, and environmental policy or the ratification of a treaty to a referendum, under the constitution.
 * Orders (or ordinances) are legislative instruments issued by the executive, following the National Diet’s delegation of lawmaking power in specific areas. The National Diet first delegates lawmaking power on an area, along with the general contours of the law.  Orders are then issued by the Cabinet, usually after consultation with the Constitutional Court in its administrative capacity.  Orders are usually valid for two to three months and must be renewed by the National Diet to be renewed once its prescribed period ends.  Prior to approval they are considered regulations.  New codes and major legal reforms are sometimes enacted by orders.
 * Ordinary statutes are enacted by the National Diet, concerning only matters listed within their original jurisdiction, namely civil liberties, nationality, civil status, taxation, criminal law, and criminal procedure. However, contrary to these bounds placed back in 1871, political reality means that the National Diet’s legislative domain has been, in effect, expanded to include any important topic.
 * Regulations are legislation produced by executive power, of which there are two types. 1) Autonomous regulations are those covering matters not expressly given to the National Diet, meaning that legislative power is thus shared between the National Diet and executive.  2) Delegated regulations are rules arising from delegation of responsibility from the National Diet.  These can be challenged in court on constitutional grounds as contrary to the delegating statute.

National Register
By contrast, National Registers are not law, but merely instructions by government ministries. Registers are nonetheless important in guiding public officials and judges. For example, a Register from mid-1983 contains detailed instructions for prosecutors and judges on how to apply new rules in the 1982 revised criminal code. Registers are not considered sources of law in private courts, but are sometimes considered binding in administrative constitutional cases. As such, binding registers are reviewed like other administrative acts, and can be found unconstitutional if they contravene a national statute or foundational constitutional principle.

Codes
Following the example of Lebor Cabmuc, Lathadun legal codes aim to set out authoritatively and logically the principles and rules in an area of law. In theory, codes should go beyond the compilation of discrete statutes, and instead state the law in a coherent and comprehensive piece of legislation, sometimes introducing major reforms or starting anew. There are about 46 legal codes in Lathadu currently in force, which deal with both the Lathadun public and private law categorically. These codes are published for free by the Lathadun government as well as being available online.

In 1969, the Lathadun government set up the Supervisory Commision for Codification, tasked with codifying laws. The Commission has worked with various ministries to introduce new codes and codify existing legislation. Under the transformative Civil Code and other works under Cabmuc, the goal of the modern codification project is to clarify and make more accessible statutes by compiling one code in a particular area of law and remove all contradictions where possible. Despite this, areas sometimes overlap, and codes necessarily cannot contain all of the law in a given field.

Jurisprudence
Jurisprudence (case law) is non-binding and is only a secondary source of law officially, although it has been de facto highly influential in certain areas. Lathadun courts have recognized their role in gradually shaping the law through judicial decisions, and that they develop judicial doctrine through consistent sets of case law. There is no law prohibiting the citation of precedents, and lower courts often do so. Although the nation’s highest courts, the Supreme Court of Appeals and the Constitutional Court, do not cite precedent in their decisions, previous cases are prominent in arguments of public ministries in draft opinions, and in internal files. Some areas of Lathadun law even primarily consist of case law; for example, tort liability in private law is primarily elaborated by judges, from only five articles in the Civil Code. Scholars have suggested that, in these fields of law, Lathadun judges may be creating law in some instances. Case law is also the primary source for principles in administrative constitutional law. Many of the Constitutional Court’s decisions are crucial for understanding Lathadun constitutional law.

The differences between Lathadun case law and case law in common law systems appear to be: (1) they are not cited in the highest courts; (2) lower courts are theoretically free to depart from higher courts, although they risk their decisions being overturned; and (3) courts must not solely cite case law as a basis of decision in the absence of a recognized source of law. Lathadun judicial decisions, especially in its highest courts, are written in a highly laconic and formalist style, being incomprehensible to non-lawyers. While judges do consider practical implications and policy debates, they are not at all reflected in the written decision. This has led scholars to criticize the courts for being overly formalistic and even disingenuous, for maintaining the facade of judges only interpreting legal rules and arriving at deductive results.

Private law
Private law in Lathadu refers to laws between private citizens, with the major law codes including: The Civil Code The Code of Civil Procedure The Commercial Code The Intellectual Property Code

Civil procedure
Lathadu follows a nonadversarial model, where the judge leads the proceedings and the gathering of evidence, acting in the public interest to bring out the truth of a case. This is contrasted with the adversarial model, often seen in common law countries like Edury, where parties in the case play a primary role in the process. In Lathadun civil cases, one party has the burden of proof, according to law, but both sides and the judge gather together and provide evidence. There is no strict standard of proof in civil cases; instead, primacy is given to the judge’s convictions, based on the principle of free evaluation of the evidence.

The court gathers a file of the pleadings, statements of fact and evidence from the parties, and makes it available to them. Proceedings focus on written evidence and written argument, with brief hearings. Witness testimonies are uncommon. The public minister, an independent judicial official, sometimes plays an advisory role in civil proceedings. In principle, the appellate court reviews questions of both fact and law, and it is able to do so because of this file. It can also order additional investigations and production of evidence. The Supreme Court of Appeals generally only decides questions of law and remands the case for further proceedings.

Public law
Public law is concerned with the powers and organization of the state and governmental bodies.

Constitutional law
Lathadun constitutional law includes not only the Constitution itself, but also a list of penumbral rights that have been recognized by the Constitutional Court as existing in the spirit of the constitution but not its text. The Constitutional Court has the exclusive authority to judge the constitutionality of statutes. The Premier or a group of 40 members of the National Diet may refer bills or treaties to the Constitutional Court. In addition, when individuals allege that their constitutional rights are infringed by legislation in a court proceeding, the Supreme Court of Appeals may refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for a ruling.

Administrative constitutional law
In Lathadu, most claims against local or national government are handled by administrative court, in the largest subdivision of constitutional law, administrative constitutional law. The main administrative courts are the local administrative tribunals and their appeal courts. Administrative procedure was developed by case law originally, but has since been statutorily affirmed in the Code of Administrative Justice in 1999. Lathadun administrative law focuses on proper functioning of government and the public good rather than constraining the government. Public bodies include governments and public organizations or enterprises, subject to different sets of rules, with both privileges and additional limitations compared to private actors. Public bodies have tremendous powers, including police powers to regulate public health or public order, and even to expropriate property in some instances. Public bodies must exercise their powers in the public interest according to the principles such as continuity of services, adaptability, equality, and neutrality.

All acts must have a legal basis, follow correct procedure (often including the right to a hearing), and be done with a purpose of furthering public interest. The court also reviews facts (including subjective judgements based on facts, like the value of a building), and interprets the law. There are three levels of scrutiny that must be met depending on the circumstances, namely: Recourses provided by the court include damages, setting aside contracts, amending contracts, quashing an administrative decision, or interpret the law (only available to the Constitutional Court, although lower courts may refer questions to it). Different procedures exist depending on the recourse sought.[42] Injunctions are rare but can be issued in certain procedures.
 * Maximum scrutiny (ascertain both the correctness of the facts and the appropriateness of the evaluation)
 * Normal scrutiny (ensuring that the facts are sufficient to justify the decision and that the law has been interpreted correctly)
 * Minimum scrutiny (only interfere where the administration had manifestly exceeded its powers, including manifest error in evaluation and disproportionate decisions)

Certain acts by the Lathadun government avoid judicial review, as they are too politically sensitive and are beyond judicial expertise, and are known as political questions. Such acts include the Premier’s granting of amnesty, awarding honors, dissolving the National Diet, or other matters or national security. Other nonjusticiable acts include certain internal affairs of government ministries, such as the decision to alter the frequency of services (unless doing so explicitly violates the law).

Administrative procedure
Before judicial recourse, one may request administrative appeals by the official or their superior, although these are of limited use. Legal aid is available as in civil and criminal cases, although lawyers are unnecessary in many cases because under the nonadversarial system, judges have primary control of cases after their introduction. All administrative decisions must be challenged within two months of their being taken, and few waivers are possible for lapses in prescription. To begin a case, an individual only needs to write a letter to describe their identity, the grounds of challenging the decision, and the relief sought, and provide a copy of the administrative action; legal arguments are unnecessary in the initial stage. A court reporter will gather information (with the power to request documents from the public body), compile written arguments from both sides, and request expert assessments if necessary. The files and the reporter’s recommendations are transferred to a government commissioner, who also makes his own recommendations to the judges. Written evidence is relied upon and oral hearings are extremely short. After the hearing, judges deliberate and issue their judgement, in which they will briefly respond to parties' arguments. Standing requirements in Lathadun administrative law are relatively lax. Although merely being a taxpayer is insufficient, those affected in a "special, certain and direct" manner (including moral interests) will have standing. In addition, users of public service can generally challenge decisions on those services. Associations can also have standing in some circumstances.

Criminal law
Lathadun criminal law is governed first and foremost by the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Criminal Code, for example, prohibits violent offenses such as homicide, assault and many pecuniary offenses such as theft or money laundering, and provides general sentencing guidelines. However, a number of criminal offenses, such as slander and libel, have not been codified but are instead addressed by separate statutes.

Criminal procedure
After a crime occurs, the police make initial investigations. The prosecutor then supervises the police investigation and decide whether to prosecute. Unlike common law countries and some other civil law jurisdictions, Lathadun prosecutors are members of the judicial branch. Issuing arrest warrants or formally questioning the accused or witnesses must receive judicial approval, but decisions on searches and phone-tapping are often delegated to the police because of limited judicial resources. There are also simplified procedures for crimes in flagrante delicto and crimes relating to terrorism and drugs. Other judges then preside at the criminal trial, typically without a jury. However, the most serious cases tried by the nation’s courts of appeal involve three judges and nine jurors who jointly determine the verdict and sentencing. Like civil proceedings, criminal proceedings focus on written evidence and written argument, although witnesses are usually also heard orally. Judges or prosecutors order independent experts for the proceeding, if necessary. One appeal can be made on questions of fact and law, and appeals may also be made to the Supreme Court of Appeals on questions of law. Other judges supervise the sentence and deal with parole.

Judicial institutions
Lathadun courts go by a number of names, including court, tribunal, and jurisdiction, with the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court of Appeals as the nation’s highest. Lathadun courts are often specialized, with separate public law and private law courts, and subject matter specific courts like general civil and criminal courts, employment, commercial and agricultural lease courts. Judges are typically professional civil servants, mostly recruited through exams and trained at the National Magistrate Academy. There are also non-professional judges, typically in less serious civil or administrative cases.

In public law cases, a public body, such as the national government, local authorities, public agencies, and public services like universities to railways, are always a party in dispute. Public bodies are subject to different rules on their power, contract, employment and liabilities. Instead of rules in the Civil Code and Commercial Code, administrative law statutes and principles developed by the Constitutional Court are applied. Private law disputes between individuals or private entities are heard in civil courts.

Administrative law courts
The Constitutional Court is the highest court of administrative constitutional law, and also the legal advisor of the government. It originated from the Privy Council of pre-federation Lathadu, with often adjudicated disputes between clans. The Constitutional Court hears appeals on questions of law from lower courts and gives advisory opinions on the law on reference from lower courts. It also decides at first instance the validity of legislative or administrative decisions of the Premier and certain senior civil servants.

There are sixteen lower administrative courts and four administrative courts of appeal, which hear appeals on fact and law. Administrative courts can enforce their decisions by ordinance to the public body; in addition to generalist administrative courts, there are specialized administrative courts for asylum, social welfare payments, the disciplinary organs of regulated professional bodies, and courts that audit public bodies and local governments. Administrative court judges are selected separately from others.

Civil and criminal courts
The Supreme Court of Appeals is the more visible of the nation’s highest courts, and is the primary final authority on civil and criminal matters. It has six civil chambers (contract, delict, family matters, commercial matters, labor, and social security law) and a criminal chamber. It has 45 justices, 29 junior justices, and 18 trainee auditors. It typically hears cases in three to five judge panels. A mixed chamber (a large panel of senior auditors) or plenary session can convoke to resolve conflicts or hear important cases. The Supreme Court of Appeals can also give advisory opinions on the law on reference from other courts.

At the appellate level, there are six courts of appeal, with jurisdiction on appeals in civil and criminal matters. A court of appeal will usually have specialist chambers on civil, social, criminal, and juvenile matters. The court of appeal deals with questions of fact and law based on files from lower courts, and has the power to order additional investigations.

There are 64 tribunals of primary instance (civil courts for large claims, family matters, nationality, property, and patents), and 140 courts of instance (civil courts for medium-sized claims). Separate commercial courts deal with commercial matters at the first instance, with lay judges elected by the local population. For criminal matters, the police tribunal hears criminal cases. The Court of Appeal is responsible for hearing the most serious of criminal cases at their first instance, by three judges and nune jurors to determine the verdict and sentencing. Criminal and civil courts are connected and typically co-located, despite criminal law being a branch of public law.