You only need a lawspeaker when disputes involve a lot of notables who don't necessarily see each other much and who also have a lot to lose (and fight over) if the judgement doesn't go their way.
I don't think this is the case, they were an important part of the institution in all cases. Often the dispute would continue after court, or rather than going to court, but this applied to everyone.
Next step is to write the precedents down, which I expect happened at some point. That may be a fruitful area of inquiry for you. When did Scandinavians start writing precedents down and when did the state administration start assuming the powers of the thing? Somewhere in there is where you move from custom to law.
For most European countries it was as I mentioned here >>9 basically they codified the law, and ended custom when the kings converted to Christianity and with it gained literacy. This is the case for the English, for the Russians, in Sweden it was supposedly due to less direct Christian influences. I think the Germans too. For Iceland interestingly it happened when they were conquered by Norway. Denmark by contrast was apparently never Scandinavian.
I would say that when agents of the state assume exclusive authority to make the judgement and apply the punishment - confiscation, violence, whatever - then it's law. Any similar actions that don't rely on the state, and it is custom.
That's fine although keep in mind customary law has a definitive (even legal) definition and does exist but it doesn't help me find a sound basis for the law which was my original concern, something similar to what I found for morality.
That's fine although keep in mind customary law has a definitive (even legal) definition and does exist but it doesn't help me find a sound basis for the law which was my original concern, something similar to what I found for morality.
Ok. Well, I think you answered your own question in
>>9
Unforuntately the codification of customary law by the state seems to negate much of what makes it customary law,
I'd say that state codification negates all of it. Custom emerges from the community and is enforced by the community. The basis for it is the memory, habits, and way of life of the people that live it. Honour and personal interest would play a part as well. It will be different in each locality and time period.
Once the state writes down whatever it thinks custom dictates and starts to enforce it systematically through state agents as "customary law", there's nothing customary about it. It's just law that the state justifies as custom. It's a tidy way of writing communities out of the process of making and enforcing decisions about their own affairs.