Birks 'Interpretation Of Dominium'

3 Birks’ interpretation of dominium Birks relies on three attributes to interpret dominium; namely, differentiation, singularity, and exclusivity. Birks opines differentiation: Roman ownership was perfectly differentiated from other forms of superiority relating to ownership, such as the power of the paterfamilias over his wife and children. One of the earliest examples of dominium provided for under Roman law was the dominium held by the paterfamilias over his household. Table IV of the Laws of the Twelve Tables (450 BCE), (“the Twelve Tables”) provided that the paterfamilias could exercise control over his family, including the power of life and death. Birks opines singularity, dominium was selectively a unique form of entitlement

One would be incorrect to state that most of the material world could be owned, given, that there were limitations on what objects could be owned. –This is one of the factors that limits the absoluteness character of dominium. Dominium could only be held over corporeal things, i.e. things capable of being owned privately and not over stolen things. Public things, which were all corporeal things, could not be owned privately. There were several categories of public things, including, res communes, which were things common to all and everyone had the right to enjoy them, but they could not be owned privately, examples include the air one breathes, and the sea. Res publicae were things that belonged to the State, such as, public roads, bridges, harbours, and certain provincial land. Res univeritas were things that belonged to a certain city and for the use and enjoyment of its inhabitants only, examples include theatres, racecourses, and buildings. Res nullius included things that belonged to no one, such as, religious things. In Italy, one could only obtain dominium for land, not for land in other provinces, unless they held the same status as land would have in