Iusta causa traditionis. Narava pravne podlage izročitve v luči antinomije Iul. D. 41, 1, 36 in Ulp. D. 12, 1, 18

Abstract

Pojmovanje pravne podlage izročitve (iusta causa traditionis) je bilo od nekdaj eno najspomejših vprašanj v romanistiki. V Digeste so bili vneseni nasprotujoči si odlomki, Justinijanovi kompilatorji pa se tudi v Institucijah niso nedvoumno opredelili o tem, ali tradicija kot temeljni razpolagalni pravni posel za svojo učinkovitost predpostavlja veljavno pravno podlago. Kljub danes prevladujočemu mnenju, da je bila zasnova rimske tradicije tako v klasičnem kot Justinijanovem obdobju kavzalna, ni jasno, v čem je bila narava zatrjevane kavzalnosti. Eno najspornejših mest ostaja antinomija med Julijanovim odlomkom D. 41, 1, 36, kjer se zdi, da eden največjih rimskih juristov zagovarja abstraktno tradicijo, in kavzalno navdahnjenim Ulpijanovim odlomkom D. 12, 1, 18. Avtor predstavi in kritično ovrednoti najnovejše poglede na razumevanje razmerja med obema odlomkoma ter sklene, da poskusi njune harmonizacije niso smiselni, Julijanovo stališče, ki ne trpi posploševanja, pa pripiše juristovi značilni argumentacijski samoniklosti.

Alternate abstract:

The notion of a just cause of traditio (iusta causa traditionis) has always been one of the most controversial issues of the Romanist science. The Digest contains several conflicting passages from Roman legal literature. Even the commission of Justinian's compilers did little in Justinian's Institutiones to harmonise the ambiguities on one of the core issues of civil law, namely whether delivery (traditio) as a fundamental legal transaction requires a valid legal basis for its effectiveness. According to the currently prevailing opinion, the traditio of classical as well as Justinian's era was a causal transaction. The precise nature of this causality, however, remains obscure. The article focuses on the well-known antinomy between Julian's passage D. 41, 1, 36, which presumably defends the abstract conception of traditio, and Ulpian's apparently causal passage D. 12, 1, 18. The author provides an outline and a critique of some recent interpretations of the relationship between the antinomic passages suggesting that any attempts at harmonisation are misguided. Julian's position seems to reflect his distinctive argumentative ingenuity and ought not to be generalised.