•  
  •  
 

Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica

Author ORCID Identifier

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6968-3979 Massa Manuela

Abstract

This contribution centers on the notions of property and nuda potestas in Reinach’s philosophy of law. I aim to demonstrate how both terms ground an important part of Reinach’s understanding of a priori condition for civil rights. Consequently, I assess the principle of property with a comparison to Luis de Molina, since he shows in his De Iustitia et Iure how dominium and rights justify some forms of property (lay and ecclesiastical) and political power (Molina 1659, disp2 n1; Kaufmann 2014, 129). Hence, the right of the person is discussed by following the potestas. In Die apriorischen Grundlagen des bürgerlichen Rechtes, Reinach implicitly refers to the nuda potestas, which is a kind of power that can be applied only formally and not in fact to something else and for that reason, it can only be caught a priori, since acts are performed by another person within it. This is the reason why the rights of a person can be divided between more people, and it is at first just a kind of property, which can be exercised upon the individual. Consequently, I divide my contribution as follows. First, in considering the social act, I show how its characteristics of Anspruch and Verbindlichkeit result from the commitment that human beings make to one another. In doing this, I discuss the particular condition of slavery through which it is possible to find the property and the nuda potestas since there is no enjoyment of the good to which it refers. Second, I apply both concepts by showing a parallel with Luis de Molina. This comes about in consideration of the case of dominium, in which absolute rights can be ascribed to their relative claim. Third and finally, I offer a critique of Reinach, in which I show how absolute rights and relative claims cannot be assimilated.

Keywords

dominium, nuda potestas, property, law, slavery

References

Brunner, Melanie. 2014. “Pope John XXII and the michaelists the scriptural title of evangelical poverty in quia vir reprobus”. Church History and Religious Culture 94(2): 197–226.

Burkhardt, Armin. 1987. “Verpflichtung und Verbindlichkeit. Ethische Aspekte in der Rechtsphilosophie Adolf Reinachs”. In Speech Act and Sachverhalt. 155–174. Edited by Kevin Mulligan. Dordrecht: Springer.

Byrd, B. Sharon. Joachim Hruschka. 2006. “The Natural Law Duty to Recognize Private Property Ownership: Kant’s Theory of Property in His Doctrine of Right”. The University of Toronto Law Journal 56(2): 217–282.

Calcagno, Antonio. 2016. “A place for the role of community in the structure of the state: Edith Stein and Edmund Husserl”. Continental Philosophy Review 49(4): 403–416.

Calcagno, Antonio. Ed. 2018. Gerda Walther’s Phenomenology of Sociality, Psychology, and Religion. Vol. 2. Women in the History of Philosophy and Sciences. New York: Springer.

Carron, Delphine. 2018. “Dominium in Ptolemy of Lucca’s De regime Principum (c. 1301–1302)”. In Von Natur und Herrschaft: ‘Natura’ und ‘Dominium’ in der politischen Theorie des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts. Edited by Matthias Lutz Bachmann, Delphine Carron, Anselm Spindler, Marco Toste. Frankfurt–New York: Campus Verlag.

DuBois, James M. 2002. “Adolf Reinach: Metaethics and the philosophy of law”. In Phenomenological approaches to moral philosophy. 327–346. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.

Duxbur, Neil. 1991. “The Legal Philosophy of Adolf Reinach”. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie/Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 77(3): 314–347.

Falcioni, Daniela. 2002. “Immanuel Kant und Adolf Reinach: Zwei Linien des Widerstandes im Vergleich”. Kant Studien 93(3): 351–370.

Ferrer, Urbano. 2015. “Los múltiple a priori de los actos sociales en Adolf Reinach”. Tópicos, Revista De Filosofía 49: 209–230.

Flikschuh, Katrin. Lea Ypi. 2014. Kant and colonialism: Historical and critical perspectives. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.

González-Di Pierro, Eduardo. 2016. “The influence of Adolf Reinach on Edith Stein’s concept of the state: Similarities and differences”. In Edith Stein: Women, Social-Political Philosophy, Theology, Metaphysics and Public History: New Approaches and Applications. 93–105. Edited by Antonio Calgagno. Cham: Springer.

Grotius, Hugo. 2012. On the Law of War and Peace. Edited by Stephen C. Neff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harding, Andrew. Esin Örücü. Eds. 2002. Comparative law in the 21st century. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

Husserl, Edmund. Manuscript A I 3.

Husserl, Gerhart. 1944. “Global War and the Law of Nations”. Virginia Law Review 30(4): 543–602.

Jörs, Paul. Leopold Wenger. 1927. Römisches Recht: Geschichte und System des römischen Privatrechts. Abriss des römischen Zivilprozessrechts. Enzyklopädie der Rechts- und Staatswissenschaft. Abteilung Rechtswissenschaft 2–3. Berlin: Springer.

Kant, Immanuel. 1887. The philosophy of law: an exposition of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence as the science of right. Translated by W. Hastie. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark

Kant, Immanuel. 1991. The metaphysics of morals. Translated by Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge University Press.

Kaufmann, Matthias. 2005. “Das Recht auf Eigentum im Mittelalter”. In Was ist Eigentum? Philosophische Eigentumstheorien von Platon bis Habermas. Edited by Andreas Eckl, Bernd Ludwig. München: C.H. Beck.

Kaufmann, Matthias. 2013. “Subjektive Rechte bei Luis de Molina”. In Contending for law: arguments about the foundation of law from Vitoria to Suárez. 291–311. Edited by Kirstin Bunge, Andreas Wagner. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.

Kaufmann, Matthias. 2016. “Giambattista Vicos Umgang mit dem Begriff des dominium”. Laboratorio Dell’ISPF 13.

Molina, Lodovici. 1602. De iustitia et iure tomi duo. Moguntiae: Excudebat Balthasarus Lippius, sumptibus Arnoldi Mylij.

Paulson, Stanley L. 1987. “Demystifying Reinach’s legal theory”. In Speech Act and Sachverhalt. 133–154. Edited by Kevin Mulligan. Dordrecht: Springer.

Planitz, Hans. 1949. Grundzüge des deutschen Privatrechts. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Reinach, Adolf. 1905. Über den Ursachenbegriff im geltenden Strafrecht. Leipzig: Verlag von Johann Ambrosius Barth.

Reinach, Adolf. 1983. The Apriori Foundations of the Civil Law. Translated by John F. Crosby. Aletheia 3: 1–142.

Salice, Alessandro. 2008. “Obbligazione e pretesa in Adolf Reinach: Due relazioni sociali”. Rivista Di Estetica 39: 225–240.

Salice, Alessandro. Hans B. Schmid. Eds. 2016. Social Reality – The Phenomenological Approach. In The Phenomenological Approach to Social Reality. History, Concepts, Problems. 1–14. Cham: Springer.

Simmermacher, Danaë. 2018. Eigentum als ein subjektives Recht bei Luis de Molina (1535–1600): Dominium und Sklaverei in De Iustitia et Iure. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Smith, James. 2017. Wert, Rechtheit und Gut: Adolf Reinach’s Contribution to Early Phenomenological Ethics. Nordhausen: Traugott Bautz.

Stella, Giuliana. 1990. I giuristi di Husserl: L’interpretazione fenomenologica del diritto. Milano: Giuffrè.

Tellkamp, Joerg Allejandro. 2014. “Rights and dominium”. In A Companion to Luis de Molina. Edited by Alexander Aichele, Mathias Kaufmann. 123–153. Leiden–Boston: Brill.

Walther, Gerda. 1922. Ein Beitrag zur Ontologie der sozialen Gemeinschaft. Halle: Max Niemeyer.

Zelaniec, Wojciech. 1992. “Fathers, kings, and promises: Husserl and Reinach on the a priori”. Husserl Studies 9(3): 147–177.

First Page

75

Last Page

89

Language

eng

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.