Способы преодоления фрагментации международного права в деятельности римского Сената и народного собрания в V–III веках до н. э.

Abstract

The article deals with the problem of fragmentation of international law on the example of the collision of jurisdictions of two main courts that operated in the field of international disputes in Rome of V–III centuries BC: the court of the Senate and the court of the people. Starting from the characteristics of the judicial functions of the Senate and the people of Polybius, the author distinguishes three periods of confrontation between the courts of the Senate and people in V–III centuries BC. The first period, from the beginning to the middle of V century BC, characterized by the fact that the patrician Senate did not recognize the authority of the court of the people. However, the case 446– 442 BC showed that the Senate court finally recognized the supremacy of the people's court. The second period, from the middle of the V to the beginning of the III centuries BC, represented by the cases of 446 and 391 BC, is characterized by the dominance of the people's court, which, however, in comparison with the senatorial court showed its low professional qualities: ignorance of international law and arbitration and making decisions based on their own interests, ignoring the legitimate interests of other peoples, neglect of the professional knowledge of the fathers-senators. The third period, from the middle of the III century BC to the last quarter of the II century BC, represented by the case of 204 BC, shows that the court of the people finally recognized the authority and professionalism of the senatorial jurisdiction in international law, which allowed Polybius to speak about the non-interference of the people in the judicial affairs of the Senate. However, the Senate case of 204 BC is one of the first examples of the prosecution of Roman magistrates brought to trial on charges of Roman-allied city-States. In conclusion, the author considers Cicero's recommendations for overcoming fragmentation in the activities of the two courts. As regards Senators, he advised them to maintain high moral and professional level, and the people's suffrage in tribunal he advises to rely on the opinion of optimaton, the most authoritative from the point of view of morals and professional qualities.