We are now pleased to present its fruits in the form of this publication. By all accounts, the conference was a great success. All but one were from European universities, a reflection of the diversity of interest in the subjects under discussion. I invited a dozen speakers who had published substantially on related subjects and so were recognized authorities in this field. First, how should we now understand the relationship between Roman legal rules when considered as intellectual achievements in themselves and these same rules when considered as historical artifacts? The tension between these two ways of approaching the subject, which might be summarized as a distinction between taking law as law and law as history, has resonated for decades now, especially in Europe.3 Second, how should that understanding affect the way we teach and write about Roman law? To address these issues, I organized a two-day conference, held in March 2008 at the American Academy in Rome.
#Teoria da actio nata full
To a certain extent, this transformation parallels developments in other areas of legal history, but it has also arisen, in no small part, thanks to an important series of reforms in European university systems.1 These changes, the full implications of which are still far from clear, are bound to have a lasting impact on the entire field, so much so that its future as a scholarly discipline has already been the subject of lively debate.2 → Two questions are raised by this transformation in our understanding. As a field of study, it shows an increasing affinity to social history. Many now agree that Roman law should not be isolated from the historical context in which its norms were generated that is, they accept the need for “historicizing” Roman law rather than treating it solely as an intellectually autonomous achievement. MCGINN In recent years, the study and teaching of Roman law have undergone fundamental transformation. CHAPTER 1 A Conference on Roman Law The Future of Obligations THOMAS A.
0 kommentar(er)
