For 18th century Mongols living under Qing rule, the imperial state was not the only source of law. Among the rules acknowledged to have binding character were Buddhist legal traditions, customary legal practices as well as rights and duties emanating from dependencies and prerogatives. Yet, the existence of these different legal practices and codes raises many questions about the specific way these different realms of law were interwoven, how Mongols used them and how they could be acting in different spheres of law at the same time. On the basis of archival material, this paper discusses how in the 18th century people switched between different regulatory orders, but also demonstrates that since legal disputes often—maybe even regularly—occurred in more than one legal realm at the same time, it is not always possible to determine where the one sphere began and the other ended. To address complexity of this legal environment, this paper draws on theoretical approaches from legal anthropology, especially research on legal pluralism. I begin with some general remarks on the legal situation in Qing-dynasty Mongolia and the relationship between the law of the Qing state, Buddhist law and local legal conditions. Then, I address two legal cases from the late 18th century that will illustrate how individual litigants and courts chose between different fields of legal reasoning. I argue that the wide spectrum of legal actors within this complex legal environment both enabled and compelled people to switch between different spheres of law.
目次
Abstract 165 Legal Pluralism 166 Disputes over Succession 168 Legal Situation in Mongolia during the Qing Dynasty 170 Buddhism and Law in Qing Dynasty Mongolia 171 Tracing Mongolian Legal History 174 Case Study No. 1: Negotiating Power Relations and Buddhist Legal Reasoning 175 Lines of Reasoning of the Disputants 176 The Legal Reasoning by the Heads of the League and the Switch to Buddhism 179 Conclusion of Case Study No. 1 181 Case Study No. 2: Networking and Informal Agreements 182 The Lines of Reasoning of the Disputants 183 Legal Reasoning of the Lifanyuan 183 Conclusion of Case Study No. 2 184 Conclusion 186 Bibliography 189
