1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. The Family in Archaic Rome and under the Kanun. – 4. The Role of Family Justice (Domestic Courts). – 5. Procedures before Domestic Courts in Ancient Rome and under Albanian Customary Law. – 6. Conclusions.
Background: This paper examines the similarities and differences between the institution of the family in ancient Roman law and Albanian customary law, known as the Kanun of Lekë Dukagjini. The analysis focuses on the role of the pater familias, first within the agnatic family and later within the cognatic family, as well as on the role of the head of the household or village elder under the Kanun. These figures reveal not formal institutional equivalence, but meaningful functional parallels in the organization of domestic authority, responsibilities, and the exercise of paternal power over persons classified in Roman law as alieni iuris. Since antiquity, the Kanun has been preserved as an important historical, moral, and legal expression of Albanian customary order. It regulated relations between individuals, including family relations, by treating the family as the foundation of social organization. In both traditions, the household served as an important normative space in which authority, discipline, and internal order were maintained. The topic is also relevant to contemporary legal scholarship because it contributes to debates on legal pluralism, informal justice, and the historical foundations of non-state normative orders.
Method: The methodology of this scientific study is based on a broad range of legal, historical, and doctrinal sources. It draws on primary materials such as the Law of the Twelve Tables, the Digest of Justinian, the Kanun of Lekë Dukagjini, and related historical texts, as well as modern scholarship on Roman law, customary law, and comparative legal history. The methods employed include legal, historical, analytical, and comparative approaches.
Results and Conclusions: The study shows that Roman law and Albanian customary law did not produce identical institutions or equivalent legal doctrines. However, they reveal limited yet significant functional parallels in the organization of household authority, family discipline, and domestic justice. The comparison is strongest at the level of legal and social function rather than formal institutional identity. In this way, the article offers a more precise comparative account of how pre-modern legal orders structured authority, belonging, and internal regulation within the family.