Anna Taitslin
Academic Qualifications
Doctor of Philosophy, the University of Tasmania, 15 of December 2004 (thesis: “Intellectualism versus
Voluntarism, and the Development of Natural Law from Zeno to Grotius”)
Doctor of Philosophy (“Candidate of Economic Sciences” KT No 002801), the Institute of Economics of
the Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, 1994
Juris Doctor, University of Canberra, 27 September 2011
Academic position
Convenor of Introduction to Roman Law (LAWS4277), the Australian National University
Publications
Book
Taitslin, A, Controversies in Natural Law from Zeno to Grotius. Two competing ideas in the history of
Natural Law: law as human reason versus law as God’s command, VDM Verlag Dr. Mūller, Saarbrūcken,
2010; ISBN 978-3-639-23185-4
Book chapters:





Taitslin, A, “Possession and Ownership in the Civil Law and at Common Law in a
Historical Perspective”, eds. Aniceto.Masferrer, Olivier Moreteau and Kjell Modeer in:
Comparative Legal History, Research Handbooks in Comparative Law series, Edward Elgar
Publishing, 2016 (forthcoming)
Taitslin A, “The ius commune and the Roman law legacy: mos gallicus versus usus modernus
pandectarum?”, in: Comparative Law and ... / Le droit comparé et ..., Olivier Moreteau (ed),
Presses Universitaires Aix-Marseille (2014) 203-212.
Taitslin A., “The Competing Sources of Aquinas’ Natural Law: Aristotle, Roman Law and the Early
Christian Fathers”, in The Treads of Natural Law. Unravelling a Philosophical Tradition, ed.
Francisco José Contreras (Series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, Vol.
22), Springer Verlag, 2013, 47-63, ISBN 978-94-007-5655-7.
Masferrer, A., Taitslin, A., “The ill-fated union: Constitutional entrenchment of rights and the will
theory from Rousseau to Waldron”, in: Legal Doctrines of The Rule of Law and The Legal State,
eds. Barenboim, P.,Hickey,J.,Silkenat,J.R., Springer Verlag, 2014, 105-128, ISBN 978-3-31905585-5 (e-book) .
Masferrer, A., Taitslin, A., “Obrechennyi soiuz: Konstitutsionnoe zakreplenie prav i volevaia
teoria ot Russeau do Waldron”, (Russian Translation) in: Doktriny pravogogo gosudarstva i
verchovenstvo prava v sovrmennom mire, eds. V.D. Zor’kin & P.D. Barenboim, Lum &
Iustitsinform, Moscow, 2013, 178-212, ISBN 978-5-906072-05-4.

Raff, M, Taitslin, A, “Socialist Civil Law in Comparative Perspective – Looking Back to the
Twentieth Century”, ed. William B. Simons, The East European Face of Law and Society: Values
and Practices, Law in Eastern Europe series, ed. William Simons, Martius Nijhoff Publishers,
2014, 251-306, ISBN 978-90-04-28522-4 (e-book)
Journal articles:




Taitslin, A. “Debates on the commune on the eve of peasant emancipation: long shadow of
Russian paternalism”, Review of Central and East European Law 40 (2015) 143-188.
Taitslin, A., “Is ‘Liberty’ a Right?”, Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 39 (2014) 66-86.
Taitslin, A., “The Fortune of ‘Possession’ and ‘Ownership’ in Roman Law and in Russian Law”
(Sud’ba vladenia i sobstvennosti v Rimskom i Russkom prave), Part One (Possession & ownership
in Roman Law) [in Russian], IVS ANTIQVVM II (XXX) Moscoviae MMXIV (2014), 156-174; Part
Two (Possession in Russian Law) [in Russian] IVS ANTIQVVM I (XXXI) Moscoviae MMXV (2015),
181-208.
Raff, M, Taitslin, A, “Private Law in the Shadow of Public Law – A Legacy of 20th Century Marxism
and the Soviet Legal Model”, Archiv für Rechts-und Sozialphilosophie-Beiheft II (2011) 157-188.
ABSTRACT From ubi remedium ibi ius to ubi ius ibi remedium: who is to blame? Gaius, Donellus?
The paper looks at two different visions of law: as defined by either available remedies (such as ancient
legis actiones) or recognised rights.
Gaius’ Institutes (the major influence on Justinian’s Institutes) might provide for the starting point for
the rights vision. After all, Gaius had defined ‘incorporeal things’ as ‘rights’ encompassing servitudes,
inheritances and obligations. Still he never defined property as ‘right’ but rather counter-distinguished it
to ‘rights’. Besides, he muddled his exposition, most obviously, with respect to inheritances. Crucially,
Gaius also assigned an independent place to the law of actions. He might though link actions
predominately to obligations.
The paper argues that the ius commune (mos italicus) invention of divided/split ownership (on the basis
of Roman anomalous cases of split possession) cleared the way for the new vision of ownership as right.
Donellus had seen that ‘split’ ownership was the corruption of the Roman law notion but not that
ownership in Roman law was neither incorporeal thing nor right. Donellus may already envision law as a
system of rights. The paper explores the link between remedies and rights from the Donellus
perspective [and beyond].