Винятки з принципу «servi res sunt» в праві Стародавнього Риму

It is indicated that the slave system was characteristic of many ancient civilizations in different parts of our planet, but it reached its greatest flourishing in the ancient world in the states of Ancient Greece and Rome. The article is devoted to the analysis of the legal status of slaves in Ancient Rome through the study of exceptions to the principle of “servi res sunt”. It is noted that the basis of the legal personality of an individual in a slave society was freedom. Slaves did not have it, as a result of which the principle of “slaves are things” was developed in the law of Ancient Rome. The actual position of a slave could fluctuate for the worse or for the better, depending on the realities that developed in a particular period, but the principle of “servi res sunt” was unchanged. It is noted that despite such a lawless position of slaves, their human nature did not allow them to comprehensively implement the norms of the institution of slavery in accordance with the principle of “servi res sunt”. Legal norms appeared that did not correspond to the mentioned principle, did not develop it consistently, but, on the contrary, created certain exceptions, which indicates the dual, contradictory nature of the norms of the institution of slavery. The number of such norms grew and became most pronounced during the period of the empire, when the institution of slavery began to decline and the Christian faith spread. Cases of the subjectivity of a slave in the economic, procedural and personal spheres are studied. The greatest attention is paid to legal acts that a slave could perform in the interests of his owner and the legal nature of such acts is described. The dependent legal capacity of a slave is noted when he performs transactions on behalf of his owner (ex persona domini). The subjectivity of slaves who were given relative economic independence is analyzed (in particular, slaves who were given peculia, made business agents, managers of commercial enterprises, ship captains, etc.). It is noted that in order to develop the economic freedom of a slave, the praetors developed norms directed against the subjectivity of slaves. A comparison is made of civil obligations that arose from the behavior of a slave in the interests of the slave owner with natural obligations. Other areas of manifestation of the slave’s subjectivity are investigated.