A Critique of the jusnaturalist notion of marriage - a view from Italian legal practice

  • Aleksandra Prelevic Palladino Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu
Keywords: modern marriage, new function of marriage, privileged emotional relationship, jusnaturalism, concept of marriage, concept of marriage in Italy, real marriage, family and marriage, marriage as a value in itself, functional methodology, value neutrality

Abstract


This paper attempts to answer the following research question: What is modern marriage? I combine the critical analysis of the jusnaturalist view, more precisely the notion of marriage in the work of Robert George, with a conceptual analysis of marriage in the process of its transformation. In order to do this I examine the case of Italy, a society with a traditional, Catholic jusnaturalist conception of marriage, which enables testing the jusnaturalist view of marriage and pointing out what makes it dysfunctional in practice. Then, I examine how well-founded are the constituent components of the notion of "real marriage" both in the context of modern marriage and within George's conception of marriage itself. The paper’s central argument is that marriage is a legal institution in the process of redefining that involves an expansion of participants and a redistribution of hitherto known functions of marriage. It’s the author’s standpoint that there is a methodological possibility to functionally yet neutrally explain the nature of law, and so the institution of marriage. Thus I arrive at the new function of modern marriage and bring a value-neutral definition of modern marriage based on the idea of ​​a privileged emotional relationship.

References

1. Alsayed, A. (2016). Neurophysiology of Emotions (Human vs. Animals), Preuzeto 21. 09. 2020. sa: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/neurophysiology-emotions-human-vs-animals-dr-anthony-alsayed
2. Brake, E. (2010). Minimal Marriage: What Political Liberalism Implies for Marriage Law. Ethics 120(2), 332-337.
3. Campanini, G. (1977). Matrimonio e famiglia nella riflessione contemporanea. Roma: Città Nuova Editrice.
4. Concas, A. (2019). Separazione e assegnazione della casa coniugale, Preuzeto 21. 09. 2020. sa: https://www.diritto.it/separazione-e-assegnazione-della-casa-coniugale/
5. Cotta, S. (1985). Sacramentalità e realtà esistenziale del matrimonio, Famiglia, diritto e diritto di famiglia ; Studi raccolti (ed. Francesco d'Agostino), Milano: Le Edizioni Universitarie Editoriale Jaca Book.
6. Cuper, A. (1991). Culture: The Anthropologists Account. Citirano prema: Nelken, D. (2004). Using the Concept of Legal Culture, Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy Vol. 29, 1-28.
7. D’Agostino F. (1985). Famiglia, diritto e diritto di famiglia (Studi raccolti). Milano: Le Edizioni Universitarie Editoriale Jaca Book, 10.
8. Dajović, G. (2015). Ogled o metajurisprudenciji. Beograd: Izdavački centar Pravnog fakulteta.
9. DeQuo. (2019). Divorzio in Italia: Procedura, Tempi e Costi; Guida 2020. Dostupno na: https://www.dequo.it/articoli/divorzio-guida
10. Diamond, S. (1971). The Rule of Law versus the Order of Custom. Social Research 38(1), 42-72. Citirano prema: Galligan, D., Kurkchiyan, M. (2003). Law and Informal Practices: The Post-Communist Experience, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Ehrenberg, K M. (2009). Deffending the Possibility of a Neutral Functional Theory of Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 29(1), 91-113.
12. Epstein, R., Pandit, M., Thakar, M (2013). How Love Emerges in Arranged Marriages: Two Cross-cultural Studies, Journal of Comparative Family Studies 44(3), 341-360.
13. Fassò, G. (2018). Storia della filosofia del diritto: Ottocento e Novecento, Bari: Editori Laterza.
14. Friedman, L. (2001). Some Comments on Cotterrell and Legal Transplants, Adapting Legal Cultures, (Eds. Nelken, D., Feest, J.), Oxford: Hart Publishing.
15. Girgis, S., George, R., Anderson, R (2010). What is Marriage? Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 34(1), 245-287.
16. Hasanbegović, J. (2019). Akademske slobode i ljudsko dostojanstvo: Neobičan slučaj homofobičnosti Džona Finisa, Dostupno na: https://anali.rs/xml/201-/2019c/2019-3c/Anali_2019-3c-417-1546-1-pb.pdf
17. ISTAT Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. (2019). Report: Matrimoni e Unioni Civili; Anno 2018, Preuzeto 21. 09. 2020. sa: https://www.istat.it/it/files/2019/11/Report_Matrimoni_Unioni_Civili_2018.pdf
18. Jovanović, M A. (2019). The Nature of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Kaufmann, A. (1957). Naturrecht und Geschichtlichkeit. Tübingen. Citirano prema: Fassò, G. (2018). Storia della filosofia del diritto: Ottocento e Novecento, Bari: Editori Laterza.
20. Kur’an, sura: En-Nisa’.
21. Lindzey, G., (1967). Some remarks concerning incest, the incest taboo, and psychoanalytic theory, American psychologist 22(12), 1051-1059. Citirano prema: Fox, R. (1994). Incesto. Preuzeto 21. 09. 2020. sa: http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/incesto_%28Enciclopedia-delle-scienze-sociali%29/
22. Milić, A. (2007). Sociologija porodice, kritika i izazovi. Beograd: Čigoja štampa.
23. Nelken, D., Feest, J. (2001). Adapting Legal Cultures, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
24. Radbruh, G. (1998). Filozofija prava. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
25. Papa Leone XIII. (1884). Lettera Enciclica Humanum Genus: Condanna del relativismo filosofico e morale della massoneria. Dostupno na: http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18840420_humanum-genus.html
26. Palazzini, P. (1952). Indissolubilità del matrimonio, Roma: Studium imprim. Citirano prema: Piola, A. (1967). Fondamento costituzionale dell'indissolubilità del matrimonio, Studi di onore di Antonio Segni (AA.VV.), Milano: Dott. A. Giuffrè – Editore, Volume 4, 75-90.
27. Piola, A. (1967). Fondamento costituzionale dell'indissolubilità del matrimonio, Studi di onore di Antonio Segni (AA.VV.), Milano: Dott. A. Giuffrè – Editore, Volume 4.
28. Raz, Dž. (2007). Moralnost slobode, Zagreb: Kruzak.
29. Raz, Dž. (2005). Etika u javnom domenu: Ogledi iz moralnosti prava i politike, Podgorica: CID.
30. Remove John Finnis from Oxford; Clarify University Policy on Discriminatory Professors, Dostupno na: https://www.change.org/p/oxford-university-remove-john-finnis-from-oxford-clarify-university-policy-on-discriminatory-professors
31. Starkweather, K E., Hames, R. (2012). A Survey of Non-Classical Polyandry, Human Nature, An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective 23(2), 149-172.
32. Sullivan, L H. (1896). The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered, The Public Papers (ed. Twombly, R.). Chicago – London: University of Chicago Press (1988) 103–13, 111. Citirano prema: Ehrenberg, 101.
33. Vujadinović, D. (2006). Politička filozofija Ronalda Dvorkina. Beograd: Službeni glasnik.
Published
2021/03/26
Section
Pregledni rad