- To the reviewer's knowledge, so far only Sedat Bingöl has presented works devoted to these specific courts, each helpful for an institutional or local understanding of the courts’ functioning. See Tanzimat Devrinde Osmanli'da Yargi Reformu. Nizâmiye Mahkemeleri'nin Kuruluşu ve İşleyişi 1840–1876 (Anadolu Üniv Yay, 2004), or Hirsova Kazâ Deâvî Meclisi Tutanaklari. Nizamiye Mahkemeleri. Tutanaklarindan Bir Örnek (Anadolu ÜnivYay, 2002). The Nizamiye courts are usually dealt with as part of general works on the Ottoman judicial reforms. See, for example, Roderic H Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856–1876 (Princeton University Press, 1963), or Ekrem B Ekinci, Osmanli Mahkemeleri: Tanzimat ve Sonrasi (Arı Sanat Yay, 2004).
- While this approach is rather favourable to a ‘law in action’ method, the author does not claim to be (though he seems to be) following scholars like Ido Shadar—indeed, he rightly criticises him (61)—or Jacques Vanderlinden, in his conception of legal pluralism re-elaborated after the serious objections of John Griffiths.
- This extreme proceduralisation of the Ottoman judiciary was added to the sprawling Ottoman bureaucracy that was already quite tightly organised and controlled. See Rhoads Murphey, Exploring Ottoman Sovereignty: Tradition, Image and Practice in the Ottoman Imperial Household, 1400–1800 (Continuum, 2008).
Comparative Legal History
Volume 1, 2013 - Issue 2