Esta revista mantiene un embargo de 1 año respecto a la edición en papel.

Xavier D'Ors e-mail(Inicie sesión)

Contenido principal del artículo


Xavier D'Ors e-mail(Inicie sesión)


Professor Labruna, starting from the fact that there was no sanction against violence in the ancient Roman law, believes that those interdicts which make no mention of «vis» were the oldest. As the author of this paper shows, those interdicts have no reason for a mention of «vis», because they didn't prohibit any activity against someone who wished to use public places, but rather some kind of unlawful activity in the places themselves (ne quid in loco sacro fiat; ne quid in loco public fiat; ne quid in via publica itinereve publico fiat; ne quid in flumine publico ripave eius fiat, quo peius navigetur; and ne quid in flumine publico inve ripa eius fiat, qua aliter aqua fluat). As the author says, «vis» can only be exercised on persons, not on things. Therefore Labruna's observations are not a valid argument for the greater antiquity of those interdicts coming from the lack of mention of «vis» in their texts. The author gives an Interpretation of connected jurisprudence (D. 43, 6, 1 pr.; 43, 8, 2 pr. and 2, 20; 43, 12, 1 pr.; and 43, 13, 1 pr.), from his own point of view as explained in previous papers.

Palabras clave


Search GoogleScholar


Detalles del artículo

Cuestiones interdisciplinares