Innovation in a hybrid system: the example of Nepal
Abstract
The Nepali legal tradition is a legal hybrid in many regards. Nepal was not colonised
by a Western state, and the Hindu legal tradition therefore dominated all areas of law
until the middle of the 20th century. Since the 1950s there has been a strong
influence of Indian common law. It is probably for this reason that comparative
classifications that include Nepal see the legal system as a mixture of common law
and customary law. However, other mixtures mark the Nepali legal tradition. French
law inspired the ruler in the 19th century, and that influence can still be found in the
formal law. In addition, the plurality of Nepalese society made it necessary to provide
space for different customary regimes to coexist with the formal Hindu law. When it
comes to innovations within the legal system, including international law, the different
ingredients interact.
In family-related matters, the case-law of the Nepali Supreme Court illustrates the
confrontation between international legal standards and the traditional rules. The
Supreme Court has referred to the culturally conditioned discrimination against
women and called for a thorough (political) analysis in order to eliminate
discrimination without a radical change of culture. In the area of discrimination
against homo- and transsexuals the Supreme Court took a more innovative
approach. It remains to be seen, however, if such a change is effective beyond the
courtroom.
In the area of private financial compensation for wrongs, the formal (written) Nepali
law does not have a general concept of tort. Compensation is generally integratedwithin the ambit of criminal law. Field research indicates that it would be possible to
resort to existing customary principles of compensation rather than to the relatively
complex common law of torts favoured by some Nepali scholars. However, this
approach might not be without difficulty, as it might imply admitting the “superiority”
of the customary practices of ethnic groups of lower standing in society.
The example of Nepal shows that innovation in a hybrid system is often marked by
the difficulty of – at least apparently – contradictory elements and layers of the legal
system. There might be a tendency towards choosing the dominant or the most
easily accessible solution. This paper suggests that the hybrid nature of the legal
system offers opportunities that could be taken in order to achieve effective change
and appropriate solutions.