Oversight Board and its Legitimacy: Genesis of Self-Regulation from Roman Jurisdiction

Abstract

The general objective is to investigate what contributions the Roman jurisdictional paradigm, in a pre-state period - a historical moment in which judgments were made by lay judges, without any legal training, whom Roman citizens appointed - can provide to the Oversight Board, which reviews decisions on content suspended or removed from the digital platforms Facebook, Instagram and Thread. As the very concept of a nation-state only emerged at the end of the Middle Ages, the republican organization of the Romans was founded based on society and not through a legal entity. Thus, we sought to understand how conflicts were resolved by a jurisdiction in the ancient Roman city in a pragmatic, creative way and with all legal rigor. Based on these findings, the research problem lies in the following question: What contributions can the Roman jurisdictional paradigm make to the Oversight Board? As the dogmatic basis of modern law, the lack of previous experience of a corporate body that escapes the public-private binomial opens up space for the issue to be addressed through a legal paradigm that legitimizes its self-regulation. With this in mind, the theoretical framework adopted was the Roman republican conception of jurisdiction, built on "society" and not the "state legal entity." The work was developed using a deductive approach, a monographic procedural method, and the technique of documentary bibliographical research through a review of specialized literature. A comparison was made between the old and contemporary legal paradigms using the counterpoint method. Due to the unprecedented nature of the topic, the results show 12 contributions to the better functioning of the Oversight Board. In the end, it is concluded that the paradigm of Roman jurisdiction - the genesis of modern law - legitimizes the work of the Oversight Board to resolve conflicts through self-regulation