Search

Purpose of the essay is to inquire into the legal issues concerning the ownership of the war booty during the Roman Republic. The article aims to distinguish the booty (praeda) from the single objects that each civilian-soldier took directly away from the enemy (res hostium). Just with the beginning of the Republic probably the plebs succeed in imposing to the patricians not to keep what each soldier stripped from the enemies, imposing on the contrary a customary duty to deposit each object of the enemies in the middle of the camp. Thus the concept of preaeda, previously referred only to the land booty, were now extended to the movable objects. This praeda were neither property of the State nor common property of the soldiers. It was handled by the command in chief of the exercitus. Just after the magistratus decided upon the destination of the booty, the ownership of the latter became clear (property of the State, of the magistratus, of the soldiers, of the praedae sectores.

Lo studio affronta la problematica della redemptio ab hostibus e dello status del redemptus ab hoste, nel loro sviluppo storico. Esso si concentra sulla redemptio iure commercii, quella cioè effettuata da un terzo estraneo al redemptus, non mosso da intenti liberali. Particolare attenzione è dedicata ai mezzi di tutela del redemptor, alla data e alla fonte della loro introduzione, al loro contenuto, alla loro estensione (se ristretti alla redemptio ab hostibus, o estesi pure alla redemptio ab extranei e a latronibus). Profilo di fondamentale importanza è il rapporto fra la redemptio e il postliminium e il connesso status del redemptus. Affrontati tali aspetti, si analizza il regime giuridico che disciplinava il redemptus ab hoste e, infine, le cause di estinzione del vincolo che legava il redemptus al redemptor., The essay aims to look thourough into the redemptio ab hostibus and the status of the redemptus in its historical development. The research focuses on the redemptio iure commercii, that is to say made by subjects not familiar to the redemptus and whose action was not meant to be a gift for him. It pays attention to the rights granted to the redemptor, to the date and source of their introduction, to their content, to their extention (if restricted to the redemptio ab hostibus, or opened also at the redemptio ab extranei or a latronibus). Fundamental issues are also the relationship between redemptio ab hostibus and postliminium and the connected status of the redemptus.

Review of a monography devoted to the topic of 'system' in the work of a Roman jurist (Scaevola)

Review of a book related to the law of heritage in Roman law. In particular to the effects of the joined disposition about heritage or legacy made by the de cuius

The essay deals with acquire of ownership by fluvial activity in Roman Law, with particular reference to adluvio. The topics herein studied are natural description of fluvial events in Roman law sources (quite complex on adluvio), their juridical nature (increase or in some cases decrease of land that borders with a river), legal effects of them (acquisition of property ipso iure by the land owner rather as a juridical acquire iure gentium than as a mere physical increase of land with no legal matters related to it, also in case of adluvio and of the phenomenon later called avulsio in legal tradition), condition of lands where fluvial acquires could take place. A glance is also given to modern regulation of French and Italian code about fluvial phenomenon as well as to the reform carried out in Italy in 1994. Taken into account this new enactment, massive trouble of distinguishing «incrementi» in 941 Italian civil code article (heritage of Bartolus’ doctrine) from the kind of adluvio ruled in 942 Italian civil code article, with different rules of law (private property in art. 941, public property in art. 942), is underlined: a solving solution is proposed.

The purpose of the article is to afford the topic of when and how the Theodosian Code gained legal force in the western part of the Empire, lately solved with solutions that do not ought to be widely accepted. Overlooked theories on the subject, here is stated that in the West there was no official enactment of the Code because its copying and spreading into the chancellery of the judges would have been evaluated by contemporaries as far as enough to give legal strength to it. No question was raised for lack of simultaneity with eastern part of the Empire because the constitution that enacted to the Code and gave legal force since January 2 439 in the East (Nov. Th. 1) was not even known in the West (that’s why the Senate met in December 438). The sending of Nov. Th. 1 to the West in 447 shows that in the eastern part of the Empire a distintinction between enactment and spread, by officially copying the legal book of Theodosius, was made, so they want to mend the mistake taken into the West in the legal procedure to enact and spread the Code.

Review of a book related to the overall aspects of the adoption of a person sui iuris in Roman Law

Scopo del saggio è indagare le relazioni esistenti fra pronuncia sulla competenza nel processo civile romano e la formazione, o meno, della res iudicata sul punto, con relative conseguenze. All’uopo lo studio prende le mosse dalla ricostruzione di Giuseppe Chiovenda in merito alla forma dei provvedimenti nel processo romano, che riserva la morfologia della sentenza, e la conseguente formazione della res iudicata, unicamente alla pronuncia sul merito (res) della controversia (in iudicium deducta e, poi, iudicata). Premessa un’analisi circa il regime attualmente vigente nel processo civile italiano – occasionata dalla riforma del 2009, che ha modificato la forma dei provvedimenti sulla competenza (da sentenza a ordinanza) –, la ricerca si snoda dal processo formulare a quello cognitorio, confermando, nella sostanza, i risultati degli studi di Chiovenda sul processo civile romano.

The essay deals with acquire of ownership by alluvial activity in Roman Law, with particular reference to a constitution issued by Theodosius II in 440, happily known in its reasonably original extension (Nov.Th.20, sum up by Justinian’s code commission in 534 [C.7.41.3]). The topics herein studied are natural description of ‘adluvio’ in Roman law sources (quite complex on this issue), juridical nature of ‘adluvio’ (increase of land that borders with a river), legal effects of ‘adluvio’ (acquisition of alluvial increase by the land owner rather as a juridical acquire ‘iure gentium’ than a mere physical increase of land with no legal matters related to it), condition of lands where alluvial acquires could take place. A significant connection with other fluvial events that gained relevance in Roman law (known in legal tradition as ‘avulsio’, ‘alveus derelictus’, ‘insula in flumine nata’) is always set forth in the article.

By premising a blink to the definition and origins of postliminium, the essay inquires into the elements of postliminium, particularly in Late Roman Law. During this period it lays on war imprisonment, as well as in the past, since before the end of the Republic. Little room was also for imprisonment abroad without existing wars (postliminium in pace), whether from allies or not, as in the past, even if in the allied cities settled into the boundaries of the Empire there was probably no space for postliminium in the Empire because there was no legal deprivation of freedom in this context (but it was no probable at all that a Roman citizen would have suffered deprivation of freedom over there. Kidnapping meant for extortion did not cause legal deprivation of freedom so no room for postliminium). There was no space at all for mutation of citizenship, as well as during the Principate (postliminium for change of citizenship was recognized only during the Foedus Cassianum between Latin cities). The elements of postliminium in late Roman Law were not separated from the ones created by Roman jurisprudence. It is not conceivable that postliminium was extended or were created ad hoc ‘postliminium in pace’ for late war prisoners because they did not fulfill the requirements of Roman jurisprudence to be considered war prisoners. It is only outgoing that a big loud of war prisoners were civilian, freed during the fighting or after the peace – even if no treaty at all was agreed –, captured into the Roman boundaries. But there was space for postliminium in these occasions also according to the Roman classic jurisprudence. To ensure a deep analysis is paid attention also to the effects of postliminium, aspect in which a fundamental role was played by the sullan lex Cornelia de captivis. Before that lex the subject was only reintegrated into Roman citizenship, with no recovery of his possessions, after the lex, with no more universal succession in his possession, births the concep

Late Roman law sources on trial misdeeds of the judges - the ones holders or committed to judicial power rather than private arbitrators chosen by litigators - let distinguish between willful offences, whether to enrich or not, and negligent misdeeds, committed with no aim to harass litigators. This distinction has not only scientific value, having indeed reflections on different penalties of various misdeeds of the judges. Overlooked that the majority of the authors support criminal nature and objective liability of the judge in late roman law, as well as atypical nature of judges' offences, the sources of IV-V century outstand the concourse, generally cumulative, of criminal as well as civil liability of the judges for their trial offences, misdeeds that can be sanctioned even without a past legislation on the matter, with an ad hoc ex post rule. Anyway codifications of V-VI century help judges offences to be put in written and past rules of law. A fundamental issue, often left aside for the only study of liability of judges , is the chance left by law to the judge's misdeed victim to react against it within the same trial where it has happened. If late roman trial was not scarcely vitiated by judges' offences and misdeeds, conceiving it as completely sunk in corruption and arbitrary power is historically unfit

Late Roman law sources on trial misdeeds of the judges - the ones holders or committed to judicial power rather than private arbitrators chosen by litigators - let distinguish between willful offences, whether to enrich or not, and negligent misdeeds, committed with no aim to harass litigators. This distinction has not only scientific value, having indeed reflections on different penalties of various misdeeds of the judges. Overlooked that the majority of the authors support criminal nature and objective liability of the judge in late roman law, as well as atypical nature of judges' offences, the sources of IV-V century outstand the concourse, generally cumulative, of criminal as well as civil liability of the judges for their trial offences, misdeeds that can be sanctioned even without a past legislation on the matter, with an ad hoc ex post rule. Anyway codifications of V-VI century help judges offences to be put in written and past rules of law. A fundamental issue, often left aside for the only study of liability of judges , is the chance left by law to the judge's misdeed victim to react against it within the same trial where it has happened. If late roman trial was not scarcely vitiated by judges' offences and misdeeds, conceiving it as completely sunk in corruption and arbitrary power is historically unfit

Asconius In Pis. 3 Clark is the only witness of the institution of latin colonies in Transpadana (indeed to be extended also to main urban settlements of Cispadana not yet organized in Roman towns forms), in different shapes from the previous ones settled, and of the attribution of ius Latii to the concerned inhabitants, by Pompeius Strabo in 89 BC. Which where those differences is disputed. Overlooked theories of the authors about it, the way in which this new type of colonies was settled and their Constitution are investigated, as well as if their magistrates could achieve Roman citizenship, and eventually in which way, and also if the attribution of ius Latii should be referred just to the inhabitants of these towns or to all Cisalpini, point related to the content of ius Latii starting from 89 BC.

The purpose of the essay is to proceed to an overview of Giorgio Luraschi’s researches about the Roman citizenship, compared to the previous studies on it, and to check how they have been discussed by Scholars. The analysis of leges de civitate issued between 90 and 89, to which Giorgio Luraschi paid much attention, done, Luraschi’s thought on the gain of Roman citizenship by strangers (with brief references to the loss of civitas) is systematically organized, inspecting the characters of the procedure and the effects of citizens’ registers, not bypassed ways in which Latins could reach Roman citizenship, in force of ius migrandi (and the connected effects of citizens’ registers in that particular issue) and of ius adispicendae civitatis per magistratum (and the related topic of double citizenship in late republican times), and ending with the exclusion of the gain of Roman citizenship by birth in the particular matter ruled by the lex Minicia de liberis, as conceived, in relation to the date, object and people interested by the law, by Giorgio Luraschi (and other Scholars).

Il brano di Asconio in Pis. 3 Clark costituisce l’unica testimonianza sulla costituzione di colonie latine in Transpadana (ma da estendere in realtà anche ai principali nuclei urbani non ancora romanizzati della Cispadana), in forme differenti da quelle precedentemente istituite, e della concessione del ius Latii ai relativi abitanti, per opera di Pompeo Strabone intorno all’89 a.C. In che cosa consistessero queste differenze è discusso. Passate in rassegna le tesi dottrinali in merito, si indaga su quali fossero le modalità costitutive di questo nuovo tipo di colonie, se la concessione del ius Latii vada riferita unicamente agli abitanti di queste città o invece a tutti i Cisalpini - questione collegata al contenuto del ius Latii a partire dall’89 a.C. - e infine se i magistrati di queste colonie potessero accedere alla cittadinanza romana, e in che modo., Asconius, in Pis. 3 Clark, is the only witness of the institution of latin colonies in Transpadana (indeed to be extended also to main urban settlements of Cispadana not yet organized in the forms of Roman towns), in different shapes from the previous ones settled, and of the attribution of ius Latii to the concerned inhabitants, by Pompeus Strabo around 89 b.C. Which were those differences is disputed. Overlooked theories of the Authors about it, the way in which this new type of colonies was settled is investigated, as well as if the attribution of ius Latii should be referred just to the inhabitants of these towns or to all Cisalpini - point related to the content of ius Latii starting from 89 b.C. - and in the end if magistrates of those colonies could achieve Roman citizenship, and eventually in which way.

The purpose of the essay is to investigate on the two type of judges other than the ordinary ones - that is to say the magistrates with jurisdictional powers -, and so the judges committed by the emperors and by their magistrates as well as the judges active in cities (the local judges). This inquire aims to enlighten the goals of Justinian's massive legislation about civil trial, from the point of view of the judicature.

The purpose of the essay is to investigate on the two type of judges other than the ordinary ones - that is to say the magistrates with jurisdictional powers -, and so the judges committed by the emperors and by their magistrates as well as the judges active in cities (the local judges). This inquire aims to enlighten the goals of Justinian's massive legislation about civil trial, from the point of view of the judicature.

By premising a blink at the judges who were active in late roman trial, the essay analyses Justinian’s constitutions in which lists of contemporary judges are held, in order to identify the subjects that are herein cited as being a part of the judicature. The paper aims to evaluate the extent of the thoroughness of Justinian’s lists and to inquire into the reason of some obscurities and omissions that are there noticeable

The purpose of the article is to show the double meaning of the expression iudices ordinarii in late Roman law sources. The first labels the governors of the provinces not ranked as proconsules (rectores provinciarum), the second indicates the holders of ordinary jurisdiction in juxtaposition with special judges when a matter of jurisdiction arises. If the latter fits well with the up-to-date concept of ordinary judges and needs no particular explanation, the former is justified by the more general indication of the province’s governor as iudex tout court in contemporary sources and by his fulfilment of first instance jurisdiction characterized by a lower honorary rank, rather than his lack of iurisdictio vice sacra. It is remarkable that also in the second meaning amongst the law sources collected in the Theodosian Code iudices ordinarii indicate to some degree the rectores provinciarum.