ABSTRACT
The subject raises at least two problems of definition: the meanings to be given to the concepts of ‘private law’ and ‘dependence’. In the case of ‘private law’ the difficulty is not in determining which branches of law are to be covered but in deciding whether to consider law as the body of formal or codified enactments or to expand the definition to cover law as the people of these states experience it, that is, to include traditional or customary law. This choice depends on one’s philosophy of law; for this will determine whether the law of a state is seen as consisting solely of what issues from the duly constituted law-making authority or is regarded as including all those rules which govern behaviour and are accepted as constraints by the members of the society. Legal realism requires that we adopt this second definition; for it is customary law which shapes the lives of virtually all the citizens of these countries and which also influences most of the processes of law in these societies. This more general approach has the advantage – as well as the complication – of going beyond a static analysis and, by adding another dimension, takes us into the sociology of law.
