Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Law in China

ISSN 1673-3428

ISSN 1673-3541(Online)

CN 11-5742/D

Postal Subscription Code 80-981

Front. Law China    2016, Vol. 11 Issue (2) : 236-242    https://doi.org/10.3868/s050-005-016-0014-6
Orginal Article
MAGNA CARTA AND THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
Joshua C. Tate()
SMU Dedman School of Law, Dallas, US
 Download: PDF(168 KB)  
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

The 800th anniversary of Magna Carta has been marked by much pageantry and celebration. Some scholars have taken this opportunity to point out that the myth of Magna Carta is far greater than what the actual 1215 Charter managed to accomplish. Nevertheless, Magna Carta did make a meaningful and concrete contribution to due process in 1215, as shown by certain provisions that are seemingly overlooked by critics eager to downplay the Charter’s importance. This article highlights two lesser known clauses of Magna Carta that had real contemporary significance in guaranteeing the availability of jury trial for some categories of civil litigation. The ringing promises of Clauses 39 and 40 may have inspired great jurists and founders of nations, but the more humble Clauses 17 and 18 — specifying the proper location and manner of hearing certain civil cases — must also be taken into account in assessing the Charter’s importance.

Keywords Magna Carta      legal history      trials      access to justice      property      fundamental rights     
Issue Date: 20 June 2016
 Cite this article:   
Joshua C. Tate. MAGNA CARTA AND THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS[J]. Front. Law China, 2016, 11(2): 236-242.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/flc/EN/10.3868/s050-005-016-0014-6
https://academic.hep.com.cn/flc/EN/Y2016/V11/I2/236
[1] ZHANG Wenxian. Forty Themes on the Innovation and Development of Chinese Legal Research in the Reform and Opening Up Era[J]. Front. Law China, 2019, 14(1): 2-38.
[2] Daniel Wolff. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ERA, HORIZONTAL EFFECT AND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN “STATE” AND “SOCIETY” IN GERMAN AND EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY[J]. Front. Law China, 2018, 13(3): 441-455.
[3] Christoph Krönke. DATA REGULATION IN THE INTERNET OF THINGS[J]. Front. Law China, 2018, 13(3): 367-379.
[4] Norman P. HO. THE LEGAL THOUGHT OF EMPEROR TAIZONG OF THE TANG DYNASTY (618–907)[J]. Front. Law China, 2017, 12(4): 584-625.
[5] Michael Blakeney. GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION[J]. Front. Law China, 2017, 12(2): 162-173.
[6] Kevin M. Cremin. WHAT DOES ACCESS TO JUSTICE REQUIRE? — OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO INVOKE THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES[J]. Front. Law China, 2016, 11(2): 280-322.
[7] JIANG Dong. THE FIRST CENTURY OF MAGNA CARTA IN CHINA: AN ACADEMIC HISTORY FROM 1840’S TO 1940’S[J]. Front. Law China, 2016, 11(2): 266-279.
[8] H. Robert Baker. MAGNA CARTA AND THE AMERICAN POLITICAL IMAGINATION: TWO INSTANCES OF HABEAS CORPUS VINDICATED[J]. Front. Law China, 2016, 11(2): 215-235.
[9] Timothy Endicott. MAGNA CARTA 1215: A GLORIOUS FAILURE[J]. Front. Law China, 2016, 11(2): 204-214.
[10] Ruizhi Zhang. The Special Role of Foreign Legal History in China in the Construction of a New Legal System[J]. Front Law Chin, 2011, 6(3): 481-495.
[11] Qinhua He. Studies of Foreign Legal History in China over the Past 60 Years[J]. Front Law Chin, 2011, 6(3): 459-480.
[12] HE Xiaoyong. Sino-US disputes over “criminal threshold” of intellectual property rights[J]. Front Law Chin, 2009, 4(2): 163-177.
[13] YI Jiming , ZHOU Qiong. On property with personality interests[J]. Front Law Chin, 2008, 3(4): 556-582.
[14] LIANG Huixing. Some opinions and suggestions on the draft of real property law[J]. Front. Law China, 2007, 2(2): 198-223.
[15] CHENG Jie. The injustice and reconstruction of procedures in eminent domain and land acquisition[J]. Front. Law China, 2007, 2(1): 65-97.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed