Sara Longo

El ‘Naturale’ debitum clásico y las obligationes naturales de Justiniano: una comparación inevitable

Introduction

El ‘naturale’ debitum clásico y las obligationes naturales de justiniano: una comparación inevitable. Compara el 'Naturale' debitum clásico y las obligationes naturales de Justiniano, analizando su evolución y su impacto en la obligación natural moderna del art. 2034 C.C.

Abstract

Al realizar un eficaz análisis sintético sobre el proceso de evolución/involución de la naturalis obligatio, se atiende, por un lado, a las necesidades – alimentadas también por una preexistente intervención normativa iure honorario – que impulsaron a la jurisprudencia a elaborar el concepto de ‘naturalis obligatio’, por otra parte a los múltiples y diversos factores que ‘desvirtuaron’ el denominador común de las obligaciones naturales clásicas, para dar vida en el derecho justiniano a una ampliación funcional y un tanto heterogénea de la categoría de las obligationes naturales; así se sentarán las bases de la figura moderna de la obligación natural configurada por el art. 2034 código civil.

Review

This article, titled "El ‘Naturale’ debitum clásico y las obligationes naturales de Justiniano: una comparación inevitable," proposes a meticulous and critical examination of the evolution of the *naturalis obligatio* concept within Roman law. The author sets out to perform a "synthetic analysis" that explores both the development and the perceived "involution" of this fundamental legal category. The stated objective is to meticulously compare the classical understanding of the *naturale debitum* with its later iteration as *obligationes naturales* in Justinianic law, a comparison deemed "inevitable" by the title itself, suggesting a deep-seated historical and conceptual interplay that demands scholarly scrutiny. The abstract outlines a clear and analytical trajectory for this examination. Firstly, it intends to delve into the socio-legal necessities and the influence of pre-existing *iure honorario* norms that propelled Roman jurisprudence to formulate the classical notion of *naturalis obligatio*. This promises an exploration of the foundational principles and the practical considerations underpinning its initial development. Secondly, the article will critically investigate the "multiple and diverse factors" that purportedly "distorted" the common denominator of classical natural obligations, leading to what the abstract describes as a "functional and somewhat heterogeneous amplification" of the category in Justinianic law. This indicates a nuanced and potentially critical perspective on how the concept transformed, moving away from its classical purity towards a broader, perhaps less coherent, application under Justinian. Ultimately, the work aims to bridge this historical analysis with contemporary legal thought, asserting that the evolution traced lays the groundwork for the modern figure of the natural obligation, specifically referencing Article 2034 of the Civil Code. This connection underscores the enduring legacy of Roman legal principles and their formative impact on current civil law systems. The article appears to offer a valuable contribution to Roman law scholarship, not only for its historical reconstruction but also for its critical assessment of doctrinal shifts and its relevance for understanding the historical roots of modern legal concepts. Scholars of Roman law, comparative law, and legal history will find this analysis particularly insightful for its detailed comparative approach and its effort to contextualize the development of a pivotal legal institution.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.