82 MARK wOOLMER
trade partners in order to protect the interests of their respective mercantile
communities. In tandem with this, domestic policy should create a system that
ensured that property rights were enforced and that granted merchants access
to judicial institutions and processes if disputes occurred. The creation of legal
institutions and political agreements that offered security and protection to
merchants and their goods should thus be interpreted as measures designed to
encourage and facilitate trade. During the fifth century BCE, symbola (perma-
nent bilateral treaty relationships) were created to regulate litigation between
nationals of different states providing each party with a level of protection
that was similar to asylia. As outlined by Gauthier, the purpose of symbola was
to allow citizens of one city to gain access to justice in another.^66 Thus, for
instance, Athens opened its courts to citizens of other states, and vice versa;
because of the reciprocal nature of these agreements, judgments obtained in
one city were also enforced in the other.^67 Gauthier and Ziegler consider the
emergence of symbola agreements in the fifth century BCE as an indication
that the Athenians were conscious of the need to accommodate and to regu-
late the thriving markets of Athens.^68 A further privilege, granted en masse to
the citizens of Phaselis, was the right to appear before the Athenian Polemarch,
a move that seems to have been intended to expedite the settlement of dis-
putes arising from commercial activities.^69 Finally, foreign merchants also had
recourse to seek judgment from two groups of magistrates – the xenodikai and
the nautodikai. However, the lack of evidence pertaining to the role and duties
of these officials make it impossible to ascertain under what circumstances
such appeals could be made.^70
That the Athenians recognized the importance of coherent and clearly
defined judicial institutions for regulating and accommodating commerce is
also apparent from the introduction of the dikai emporikai in the fourth century.
In essence, the dikai emporikai were commercial suits in Athens that involved
maritime imports and exports. Although it is difficult to identify the precise
social status of the individuals involved in such cases, it appears that a com-
mercial occupation was sufficient to bring about legal proceedings, even over-
riding ethnic origins and social status.^71 There are believed to have been a
number of requirements for a case to be considered as a dike emporike: first, the
dispute had to be commercial in nature; second, it had to involve the trans-
portation of goods to or from Athens, and, finally, there had to be some kind
of formal obligation.^72 Special provisions were available for assuring a defen-
dant’s appearance at the ensuing trial, and uniquely strong measures would be
taken to enforce the judgment of the maritime tribunals: for instance, those
convicted in maritime suits were to be detained in prison until they had paid
any penalty decided upon by the court (Dem. 31.1). The aim of this provision
was not just to ensure that contracts were respected but to also ensure that no