Roman Arbitration in the Greek Oikumene in the Third–Second Century BCE: Some Observations
Roman Arbitration in the Greek Oikumene in the Third–Second Century BCE: Some Observations

Summary/Abstract: Rome’s expansion in the Hellenistic world had an impact on the use of various instrumentsof diplomacy by the Romans, including arbitration, commonly used by and popular amongthe Greeks. The Romans did not have the desire to become arbitrators of the Greek world, but itwas important to them to take advantage of the situation they encountered there and to achievetheir goals. The Greeks, who had been used to employing various, more or less sophisticated,diplomatic instruments, saw the Roman Republic, a new player in their world, in the same wayas the other large and mighty powers which could be appealed to as arbitrators. Rome did notbecome an arbitrator in Greek matters of its own will, but due to the fact that the Greek worlditself appointed it to this role when it replaced the Hellenistic monarchies. The Romans becameinvolved in solving disputes in the Greek world only when they had to. Despite being offered thisrole, the Senate had no intention of being an “arbitration court” for the confl icted Greek states.Roman arbitrators acted on the basis of the authority given to them by the Senate (senatus consulta),which fi rst became familiar with the cause of the dispute. Disputes were usually solved byRoman offi cials (proconsul, governor) or specially delegated legates and decemviri with preparedinstructions which gave them the authority to solve the matter on the spot and to enforce the decisionsthey made. The procedure applied both to the Greek world and to the western part of theMediterranean Sea, where Rome held power (North Africa, Italy). However, what differentiatedthe arbitration in Italy and the western part of Rome’s dominion from the one in the Greek worldwas the Republic appointing other Greek states (poleis or leagues) to arbitrate on its behalf. Whendeciding to arbitrate, the Romans were usually not interested in the history of the dispute, butsolved the disagreement or confl ict on the basis of the status quo, without going into the details ofwho had been right previously. This was different from the rules of arbitration in the Greek world,where earlier mediation was taken into consideration. Perhaps this was a result of the differencebetween the Roman and the Greek worlds in terms of property right. The Roman law of propertyhad an important distinction between legal ownership of a thing (dominium or proprietas), calledproperty right, and the actual possession of a thing (possessio). For the Republic, this approachmade it easier to side with their allies participating in a dispute, even if they were wrong. Thisattitude mainly protected the interests of the allied state, unless it was benefi cial to Rome to actagainst them.

• Details
• Contents