Roman arbitration in the Greek oikumene in the third-second century BCE : some observations

Rome’s expansion in the Hellenistic world had an impact on the use of various instruments of diplomacy by the Romans, including arbitration, commonly used by and popular among the Greeks. The Romans did not have the desire to become arbitrators of the Greek world, but it was important to them to take advantage of the situation they encountered there and to achieve their 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 way as the other large and mighty powers which could be appealed to as arbitrators. Rome did not become an arbitrator in Greek matters of its own will, but due to the fact that the Greek world itself appointed it to this role when it replaced the Hellenistic monarchies. The Romans became involved in solving disputes in the Greek world only when they had to. Despite being offered this role, 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 by Roman offi cials (proconsul, governor) or specially delegated legates and decemviri with prepared instructions which gave them the authority to solve the matter on the spot and to enforce the decisions they made. The procedure applied both to the Greek world and to the western part of the Mediterranean Sea, where Rome held power (North Africa, Italy). However, what differentiated the arbitration in Italy and the western part of Rome’s dominion from the one in the Greek world was the Republic appointing other Greek states (poleis or leagues) to arbitrate on its behalf. When deciding to arbitrate, the Romans were usually not interested in the history of the dispute, but solved the disagreement or confl ict on the basis of the status quo, without going into the details of who 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 difference between the Roman and the Greek worlds in terms of property right. The Roman law of property had an important distinction between legal ownership of a thing (dominium or proprietas), called property right, and the actual possession of a thing (possessio). For the Republic, this approach made it easier to side with their allies participating in a dispute, even if they were wrong. This attitude mainly protected the interests of the allied state, unless it was benefi cial to Rome to act against them