Roman jurists understood natural law as being an objectively existing system of law defining the just and the right, while simultaneously holding that it lacked direct practical relevance in the day-to-day application of law. It is important to distinguish between two similar systems of supernatural law -between the rules of ius naturale and the rules of fas. In comparison, ius naturale (at least according to the stoic notion) was held to have universal and intrinsic applicability as well as validity,11 while fas constituted the religious law of Rome, having no claims to universal applicability, and was a source of law similar in applicability and validity to that of national law, ius proprium.12 According “Naturrecht als fundamentales, der besonderen Natur und Existenz des Menschen inhärentes Recht liegt letztlich jedem weltanschaulich oder ethisch fundierten und nicht rein positivistischen Recht zugrunde. Mit dem Anspruch, aus der Trieb- oder Vernunftsphäre des Menschen unabänderbare und zeitlose Grundsätze abzuleiten, stellt es deshalb auch ein zeitloses Problem des Rechts dar.”10 p a r t v i i 566 Ius Naturale: The Metaphysical Notion of Law and Legal Science chap te r 1 1. 1 ant iqui ty: the e ra of roman law 10 Schlosser, Grundzüge der Neueren Privatrechtsgeschichte: Ein Studienbuch, p. 75. 11 E.g.,Verdross, Abendl. Rechtsph., pp. 46-49. 12 Cf. Ulpianus’ distinction betweenius naturale andius gentium, according to which the former is universal law and the latter the specific law restricted to a certain state, ius proprium.Waldstein,“Naturrecht bei den klassischen römischen Juristen,” in Das Naturrechtsdenken heute und morgen: Gedächtnisschrift für René Marcic, p. 242. See also Buckland, Roman Private Law, pp. 14 and 27-28; Wieacker, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, pp. 275-276.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=