The Roman Law course will be carried out through the analysis and discussion of specific cases. In particular, problems arising from each case will be treated in a diachronic comparative perspective, making comparisons between the approach adopted by Roman jurists and the contemporary legal regime, with specific regard to the Italian and other European legal systems.
The first part of the course will be focused to an in-depth study of the casuistic method, in relation with the analysis of the role of the “regula iuris” held in the Roman jurisprudence, which followed the development of the Roman legal system up to the post-classical period. With specific regard to the evolution of the sources of Roman law, the study will take a close look at the main stages of history of jurisprudence.
The second part will be focused to the study of specific problems of the contractual area: specially well be treated the creation of legal protection of the buyer and the leaser for the defects f the thing, through the analysis of jurisprudential solutions about concret casuistic.
The first part of the course will be focused to an in-depth study of the casuistic method, in relation with the analysis of the role of the “regula iuris” held in the Roman jurisprudence, which followed the development of the Roman legal system up to the post-classical period. With specific regard to the evolution of the sources of Roman law, the study will take a close look at the main stages of history of jurisprudence.
The second part will be focused to the study of specific problems of the contractual area: specially well be treated the creation of legal protection of the buyer and the leaser for the defects f the thing, through the analysis of jurisprudential solutions about concret casuistic.
scheda docente
materiale didattico
2) G. DIÓSDI, Ownership in Preclassical and Classical Roman Law, Budapest 1971, pp. 121-127; 131-148; 166-179;
3) M. KASER, The Concept of Roman Ownership, in «Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg. Journal of Contemporary Roman-Dutch Law», 27 (1964), 5-19;
4) D. LIEBS, Biographical Matters about Gaius, in U. BABUSIAUX – D. MANTOVANI (a cura di), Le Istituzioni di Gaio: avventure di un bestseller. Trasmissione, uso e trasformazione del testo, Pavia 2020, pp. 3-28.
5) D. PUGSLEY, Gaius or Sextus Pomponius, in «RIDA», 61 (1994), pp. 353-367;
6) T. HONORÉ, Gaius. A Biography, Oxford 1962, 97-116;
7) P. STEIN, The Development of the Notion of ‘naturalis ratio’, in A. WATSON (ed.) Daube Noster. Essays in Legal History for David Daube, Edimburgh 1974, pp. 305-316;
8) E. LEVY, Natural law in the Roman period, in Natural Law Institute Proceedings, II, Notre Dame 1949, pp. 43-72;
9) P. VANDER WAERDT, Philosophical Influence on Roman Jurisprudence? The Case of Stoicism and Natural Law, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.36.7, Berlin – New York 1994, pp. 4851-4900.
Programma
Il corso esamina la genesi e la reciproca interferenza dei concetti di ‘natura’, ‘ragione’ e ‘proprietà’ nel pensiero giuridico di Gaio, con particolare riguardo alla classificazione dei modi di acquisto della proprietà, che il giurista romano – forse recependo nelle Institutiones (2,65) una suggestione della filosofia aristotelica – distingue in ‘civili’ e ‘naturali’: i primi basati sul ‘diritto civile’ (ius civile), quale ‘diritto proprio dei cittadini romani’ (ius proprium civitatis), i secondi fondati sulla ‘ragione naturale’ (naturalis ratio), sinonimo di ‘diritto naturale’ (ius naturale). Nel Digesto di Giustiniano (D. 41,1 de adquirendo rerum dominio), la classificazione gaiana appare riproposta con notevoli variazioni: tratta dai Libri rerum cottidianarum sive aureorum, essa omette ogni riferimento al ius naturale e propone soluzioni talvolta divergenti dai passi paralleli delle Institutiones. Frutto di un possibile ripensamento gaiano in tema di proprietà o rifacimento postclassico, le Res cottidianae testimoniano, comunque, che i giuristi romani, quando trattavano dell’acquisto del dominio, non distinguevano tecnicamente gli acquisti originari dai derivativi.Testi Adottati
1) E. POSTE, ‘Gai Institutiones’ or Institutes of Roman Law by Gaius, Oxford 1904, pp. 133-168;2) G. DIÓSDI, Ownership in Preclassical and Classical Roman Law, Budapest 1971, pp. 121-127; 131-148; 166-179;
3) M. KASER, The Concept of Roman Ownership, in «Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg. Journal of Contemporary Roman-Dutch Law», 27 (1964), 5-19;
4) D. LIEBS, Biographical Matters about Gaius, in U. BABUSIAUX – D. MANTOVANI (a cura di), Le Istituzioni di Gaio: avventure di un bestseller. Trasmissione, uso e trasformazione del testo, Pavia 2020, pp. 3-28.
5) D. PUGSLEY, Gaius or Sextus Pomponius, in «RIDA», 61 (1994), pp. 353-367;
6) T. HONORÉ, Gaius. A Biography, Oxford 1962, 97-116;
7) P. STEIN, The Development of the Notion of ‘naturalis ratio’, in A. WATSON (ed.) Daube Noster. Essays in Legal History for David Daube, Edimburgh 1974, pp. 305-316;
8) E. LEVY, Natural law in the Roman period, in Natural Law Institute Proceedings, II, Notre Dame 1949, pp. 43-72;
9) P. VANDER WAERDT, Philosophical Influence on Roman Jurisprudence? The Case of Stoicism and Natural Law, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.36.7, Berlin – New York 1994, pp. 4851-4900.
Modalità Frequenza
La frequenza del corso è facoltativa; essa è tuttavia consigliataModalità Valutazione
Prova scritta