Reflections on legal taxonomy: the example of iusiurandum
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26485/SPE/2021/120/6Keywords:
taxonomy, necessary oath, Roman lawAbstract
Background: This article presents a study on the relationship between taxonomy, used in law textbooks for easier assimilation, and the legal structure of the institutions, based on the particular case of the so-called necessary oath (iusiurandum necessarium) in Roman law, which is presented in sources in a particularly unsystematic and confusing way. The reason for these reflections is determined by the difficulties of understanding the necessary oath that one finds when beginning their studies according to the criteria of doctrinal distinction between the necessary and voluntary oaths.
Research propose: The purpose of this article is to determine the relationship between law and taxonomy, and answer the question whether taxonomy serves the purposes of research and application of law or, on the contrary, it is cultivated by the mere scientific inertia coming from the natural sciences. It is a question of gaining a better understanding of the sensitivity of classical jurisprudence, as well as the order of Corpus Iuris Civilis.
Methods: The starting point of the article constitute citing different doctrinal opinions concerning the criteria of distinction between the necessary and voluntary oaths in ancient Rome. They are analyzed in the light of the jurisprudential sources, in order to verify their validity. The method is based on the exegetical analysis of these sources.
Conclusions: The classification of legal knowledge must be based on both social and legal realities reflected in written laws, regardless of whether they are fitted into easier-to-understand categories.
Downloads
References
Amirante L., Il giuramento prestato prima della litis contestatio nelle legis actiones e nelle formulae, Napoli 1954.
Bertolini C., Il giuramento nel diritto privato romano, Studia Iuridica 13, Roma 1967.
Biondi B., Il giuramento decisorio nel processo civile romano, Roma 1970.
Biondi B., Obbieto e metodi della sciencia giuridica, Scritti Ferrini, Milano 1946.
Cuena F., Derecho y Sistema, Jueces para la Democracia 1994/22, pp. 29–53.
Debray L., Contribution àl’étude du serment nécessaire, Paris 1908.
De Castro-Camero R., Soluciones “in iure” a una controversia patrimonial: transacción, juramento y confesión, Sevilla 2006.
De Miguel R., De Marqués de Morante, Nuevo diccionario latino-español etimológico, Leipzig 1867.
Demelius G., Schiedseid und Beweiseid im römischen Civilprozesse, Leipzig 1887.
D’ors A., Valiño, E., El problema de la «actio ex iure iurando», Estudios de derecho romano: homenaje al profesor Don Carlos Sanchez del Rio y Peguero, Zaragoza 1967, pp. 181–191.
Gaudemet J., Tentaives de systématisation du droit àRome, INDEX 1987, nr 15, pp. 11–28.
Ioachimovici V.E., Le iusiurandum necessarium a l´époque classique du droit romain, Paris 1912.
Kirchmann J.H., La jurisprudencia no es ciencia, Madrid 1961.
Karlowa O., Römische Rechtsgeschichte, 2, Lipsiae 1901.
Lenel O., Essai de reconstitution de l’Édit perpétuel, I, Paris 1901.
Lenel O., Palingenesia Iuris Civilis, I, Graz 1960.
Lenel O., Palingenesia Iuris Civilis, II, Graz 1960.
Lèvy-Strauss H., La pensèe sauvage, Paris 1962.
Münks A., Vom Parteieid zur Parteivernehmung in der Geschichte des Zivilprozesses, Köln 1992.
Schulz, F., Principios del Derecho Romano, Madrid 1990.
Viehweg T., Tópica y Jurisprudencia, Madrid 1986.
Villanueva Martínez A., Capacidad en el juramento necesario, Revista jurídica Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 2020/42, pp. 81–104.
Villanueva Martínez A., Diversas equiparaciones del juramento necesario en las fuentes, Revista Internacional de Derecho Romano (RIDROM) 2021/26, pp. 384–418.
Wacke A., Actio rerum amotarum, Graz 1963.
Wieacker F., Fundamentos de la formación del sistema en la jurisprudencia romana, Barcelona 1991.
Windscheid B., Diritto delle Pandette, v. II, p. II, Torino 1904.
Wolf H.J., Roman Law, An Historical Introduction, Kansas City 1976.
