Roman concept of dominium has been fundamental in the formation of concepts of ownership in European legal tradition. It is, however, often considered outside the context of Roman imperial rule and of the multiplicity of legal regimes governing property relations in Roman provinces outside Italy. This chapter starts from the classic passage in the Institutes of Gaius, claiming that the right of dominium did not exist in provincial land, where it belonged to the Roman state. Gaius’ statement is often dismissed in modern historical scholarship as a ‘conveyancer’s fantasy’ (A.H.M. Jones). It is argued here that, on the contrary, this passage and other similar statements in Roman juristic literature and technical literature on land-measurement, show an important facet of Roman ideas of ownership as a socially contingent right, dependent on civic status of the owner, status of the territory within the empire, and Roman recognition of local property regimes.
This article provides an overview of the literary, legal and documentary evidence of the period of the Late Republic and the Principate on the composition and mandate of judicial advisers of the Roman governors of the province, to the institutionalization and the bureaucratization of their role in the third century BC as well As the officials in Rome, governors retain during this period considerable freedom in choosing their advisers. This freedom, however, was limited by the Convention, which required the Council to invite other Roman officials in the province and representatives of the local elite, as well as the reduction of the usual number of Council members in comparison with the Republican period, to about 12 members. This limited the ability of the Governor to use appointments to his Council for political purposes. The Council made it possible to involve local legal expertise, including in matters of local law, but not in all cases the legal advisers of the governors were its full members. Although our sources do not give grounds to consider that the sentence of the Governor were in all cases bound by the recommendation of the Council, some evidence speaks in favor of the assumption that in some provinces (Achaia, Asia, Bithynia) in the period between Principate of Augustus and Trajan, the Council could be replaced in the criminal trial the permanent judicial commissions (quaestiones) on the Roman model, directly attested in edicts August of Cyrenaica.В данной статье дается обзор литературных, юридических и документальных свидетельств периода Поздней Республики и Принципата о составе и полномочиях судебных советников римских наместников провинции, до институционализации и бюрократизации их роли в III в. н. э. Как и должностные лица в самом Риме, наместники сохраняют в этот период значительную свободу в выборе своих советников. Эта свобода, однако, была ограничена конвенцией, требовавшей приглашать в совет других представителей римской власти в провинции и представителей местной элиты, а также сокращением обычной численности совета в сравнении с республиканским периодом, до примерно 12 членов. Это ограничивало возможности наместника использовать назначения в свой совет в политических целях. Совет давал возможность привлекать местную юридическую экспертизу, в т. ч. в вопросах местного права, однако не во всех случаях юридические консультанты наместников были его полноправными членами. Хотя наши источники не дают оснований считать, что приговор наместника был во всех случаях связан рекомендацией совета, ряд свидетельств говорит в пользу предположения, что в ряде провинций (Ахайя, Азия, Вифиния) в период между принципатами Августа и Траяна совет мог заменяться в уголовном судопроизводстве постоянными судебными комиссиями (quaestiones) по римскому образцу, прямо засвидетельствованными в эдиктах Августа из Киренаики.
This chapter deals with the impact of Roman legal institutions and political realities of Roman dominance on legal institutions in the Greek world, and with developments of Greek law within the imperial framework from the fall of Corinth to its last traces in late imperial legislation. It addresses in particular the specific characteristics of sources for Greek law in the Roman period, conflicts of jurisdiction between Greekpoleisand imperial authorities, the law of personal status in the new imperial context and new developments in the law of property and obligation. The concluding sections deals with the demise of Greek law in late antiquity and its afterlife in late imperial legislation.
Les dispositions de la lex Rupilia – telles qu’elles sont décrites par Cicéron (Verr. , II, 2, 32) – concernant les cas de litige entre les citoyens de différentes communautés siciliennes, n’étaient ni applicables aux résidents de Sicile qui n’étaient citoyens d’aucune ville sicilienne, ni aux litiges impliquant des Siciliens résidant dans une autre province ou en Italie. Ceci différencie cette loi des dispositions judiciaires des provinces hellénophones romaines qui, du moins dans les communautés privilégiées, entérinaient la juridiction civile sur les résidents étrangers et protégeaient les citoyens d’une communauté particulière, quelle que fût leur résidence dans l’empire romain. Si ces privilèges étaient invoqués par les résidents étrangers en Sicile, cela pouvait contredire et – en raison de l’utilisation du pouvoir discrétionnaire du gouverneur dans de tels cas – miner les iura des Siciliens garantis par la lex Rupilia.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.