Le contrôle de constitutionnalité, dont la magistrature parlementaire de l’Ancien Régime revendiquait le plein droit, n’était pas fondé uniquement sur les lois fondamentales du royaume, mais sur l’ensemble des principes (« les maximes ») tirés de la « Tradition ». Cette dernière était composée en premier lieu par le droit divin et le droit naturel, c’est-à-dire par des systèmes juridiques qui nécessitaient, tous les deux, une interprétation juridictionnelle ‘sapientiale’. Cette activité interprétative était ‘révélatrice’ d’un corpus de valeurs métaphysiques à laquelle (...) seule la Scientia Juris des magistrats pouvait puiser. Mais dans la sphère de la Tradition juridique rentraient aussi le « dépôt légal », c’est-à-dire l’ensemble de toutes les lois, même des lois ainsi dites « ordinaires », c’est-à-dire celles qui avaient été produites par la simple manifestation de volonté souveraine d’un roi prédécesseur « car tel avait été son plaisir » (moderne formulation du brocarde de droit romain : « quidquid principi placuit legis habet vigorem »). Ainsi la juridiction parlementaire donnait lieu à un jugement de constitutionnalité qui était normalement exercé de manière très flexible par le corps de la magistrature, dépendant des circonstances et des intérêts politiques momentanés des situations juridiques qu’elle voulait protéger. La hiérarchie des normes était ainsi un formidable instrument de protection de cet ordre juridique dont les legum doctores se sentaient les tuteurs. Elle était, donc, directement liée au gouvernement politique des juges. (shrink)

El derecho natural spinozista es el concepto central que articula este estudio. Y en relación con el derecho natural trataremos de explicar otros conceptos fundamentales de la filosofía de Spinoza: el común decreto, las supremas potestades y la salvación del pueblo o concordia. Los elementos a analizar son, pues, la materia, la forma, los agentes y los fines. El autor de este artículo parte de un presupuesto simple: el derecho natural representa el aspecto material del pensamiento de Spinoza. Ahora bien, (...) así como el derecho natural nos debe dar razón de la materialidad en la filosofía de Spinoza, lo que él llama el común decreto nos puede ayudar a describir el aspecto formal. Por otro lado, lo que Spinoza denomina las supremas potestades nos pueden servir para descubrir el plano de los agentes. Y, por último, la salvación del pueblo puede ser la referencia oportuna a la hora de ordenar el plano de los fines en la filosofía de Spinoza. (shrink)

Normal 0 21 false false false PT-BR X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Le concept de loi socratique a depuis toujours été l´objet decontroverses, principalement en raison des tentatives pour expliquerson attitude lors de son jugement, son emprisonnementet son exécution. Toute la difficulté de concilier entreeux les différents textes sur la philosophie et la vie de Socrate,naturellement ressort à propos des circonstances de sa condamnationet de sa mort. Si, dans l´état actuel de notre documentation,il paraît impossible d´apporter une solution définitive,néanmoins une possibilité d´en (...) atténuer les contradictions résidedans l´examen du fonctionnement de la méthode socratiqueà partir de ses fondements: le dialogue comme moyend´un accord, non seulement entre les citoyens d´Athènes,mais entre ceux-ci et le propre ordre universel, lequel se dessineda la recherche humaine de la justice et du bien commun. (shrink)

What is commonly called a right has since about 1980 increasingly come to be called a subjective right. In this paper the origin and rise of this solecism is investigated. Its use can result in a lack of clarity and even confusion. Some aspects of rights-concepts and their history are also discussed. A brief postscript introduces Leibniz's Razor.

Starting from the classical distinctions proposed by Thomas Aquinas, we examine how the discovery of the New World and the Spanish Conquest led Francisco de...

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: os princípios do Direito Político e a História.

Este artigo procura examinar a avaliação de Rawls acerca de alguns aspectos da filosofia política de Hegel. Rawls interpreta Hegel como um liberal de mente moderadamente reformista, e seu liberalismo é um importante exemplar na história do liberalismo da liberdade. Pretendemos, primeiramente, examinar o estatuto do liberalismo de Hegel, particularmente a questão da liberdade individual. Em segundo lugar, apresentamos alguns aspectos do entendimento de Rawls acerca deste liberalismo. A plausibilidade da filosofia política de Hegel é questionada, quando Rawls analisa a (...) sua possível contribuição à luz do liberalismo político. PALAVRAS-CHAVE – Liberalismo. Liberdade. Liberalismo politico. Hegelianismo. ABSTRACT This article seeks to examine Ralws’s evaluation about some features of Hegel’s political philosophy. Rawls interprets Hegel as a liberal, with a moderately reforming mind, and his liberalism is an important exemplar in the history of liberalism of freedom. We intend, first, to examine Hegel’s liberalism statute, particularly the individual freedom issue. Second, we present some aspects of Rawls’s understanding about this liberalism. Hegel’s political philosophy plausibility is questioned, when Rawls analyses his possible contribution in the light of political liberalism. KEY WORDS – Liberalism. Freedom. Political liberalism. Hegelianism. (shrink)

The rise of the idea of the Anthropocene is promoting multiple reflections on its meaning. As we consider entering this new geological epoch, we realize the pervasiveness of humankind’s deconstruction and reconstruction of the Earth, in both geophysical and discursive terms. As the body of the Earth is marked and reshaped, so is its idea. From a hostile territory to be subjugated and exploited through sovereign commands, the Earth is now reframed as a vulnerable domain in need of protection. The (...) mode of sovereignty, which has accompanied human and legal history and practice during modernity and its project of mastery, is no longer useful. Humanity’s control of the Earth is being reimagined and reconfigured along biopolitical coordinates of thought and action. Biopolitics shifts the focus of power, changes its modalities of interventions, and rearticulates its legitimacy on the idea of taking responsibility for the Earth, for nature. A biopolitical re-orientation of law captures the fundamental aim of caring for nature, of fostering its vital possibilities and of enhancing its productive potential. Yet, biopolitics engulfs nature in its entirety under its framework of control, where protection and subjugation, vulnerability and productivity, life and death are constantly entangled in a reciprocal and inevitable relation of indistinguishability. Sovereignty becomes thus a key modality of biopolitical intervention, when nature is recalcitrant, wild, spontaneous, unpredictable, violent, dangerous. Biopolitics, thus, remains caught in an undecidable dilemma, where in order to protect the Earth, it must subjugate it; to save it, it must condemn it. In this respect, biopolitics remains utterly modern, or as argued by Roberto Esposito, modernity has always been biopolitical, insofar as modernity has emerged as a framework for the protection of life against life’s own excesses. But how can we escape the biopolitical reframing and enframing of the Earth and its total subsumption under its matrix of control? How can we rethink the encounter between law and nature without remaining entangled in the aporetic dilemma of biopolitics? An aesthetics of wonder may offer a way. (shrink)

The principle of self-determination, as commonly intended, is based on a formal and individualistic view of liberty rights. This perspective, however, is inconsistent with the needs of a community, and particularly with the necessity to promote a relatively stable social order, and an integration between subjects. I propose a different perspective that takes into account the relationships rather than the individual. In particular, I will try to demonstrate 1) that any community implement a specific social order, that is a complex (...) of practices; 2) that any social practices express specific values; 3) that these values are the result of historical and cultural circumstances; 4) that they are subject to an ongoing public debate, and finally 5) that only if the individual praxis is consistent with these values can it lead to recognition of rights. In that perspective does not exist a general liberty to determine itself, outside of a specific relational situation. It could only be affirmed that one has a practical liberty to do and to act as it wants, but its rights depend on relationships in which the person is engaged. (shrink)

ABSTRACTConfucianism tends to play only a marginal role in current theorizing about justice, which is a global pursuit dominated by Western theory and its strong tendency to assume that justice refers to some substantive conception of distributive, socioeconomic justice. This article examines and compares reconstructions of Confucian justice by Joseph Chan, May Sim, and Fan Ruiping. Each reconstruction makes reference to both classical and modern Western justice theory and thus each involves a comparative approach; indeed, each reconstruction seeks ultimately, in (...) its own distinctive fashion, to present a version of Confucian justice that is comparable with modern Western justice theory. In this article we assess, critically and comparatively, the tertium comparationis and the arguments in each reconstruction. While our analysis does not wholly endorse any of the reconstructions, it shows that there is a richness and vitality to Confucian justice theory that merits proper consideration in justice theory co... (shrink)

Resumen Kierkegaard, en su Diario, ha dado un juicio filosófico favorable sobre los actos con los que Lutero ha iniciado la Reforma, pues con estos ha afirmado la autoridad de competencia del individuo que es un prius respecto al Estado y a la Iglesia. Por otro lado, Kierkegaard ha señalado que estos actos han sido viciados por razones filosóficas que han llevado no sólo a la formación de la Iglesia de Estado, sino a la del Estado-Iglesia. Primeramente, se trata de (...) razones de carácter político-filosóficas: una concepción del Poder confusa, una desvalorización del individuo a favor de la comunidad y del Estado, una perspectiva equivocada de la felicidad-salvación del hombre. Además, Kierkegaard ha señalado razones estrictamente filosóficas que han llevado al Estado-Iglesia: una equivocada concepción del ser y una errónea visión de lo que es la razón y el conocimiento. Estas razones, positivas y negativas, señalan cuestiones aún no resueltas en nuestros tiempos.Kierkegaard in his Diary has ¿ven a favorable philosophical judgment on the facts with which Luther has initiated the Reforma, for with these has affirmed the compeUnce authoritj of the individual who is a prius with respect to the State and the Church. On the other hand, Kierkegaard has pointed out that these acts have been vitiated by philosop bical reasons that have led not onlj to the formation of the Church of State, but to that of the Church-State. Firstlj, these are politicalphilosophical reasons: a confused conception of power, a devaluation of the individual in favor of the community and the state, a mistaken perspective of man's happiness and salvation. In addition, Kierkegaard has pointed out strictlj philosoph-ical reasons that have led the Church State: a mistaken conception of being and an erroneous visión of what is reason and knowledge. These reasons, positive and negative, point to issues not jet resolved in our times. (shrink)

Problem setting. The problem is to investigate how the French legal philosopher Michel Villey understood the exigency of “dialectics” in our understanding of legal philosophy and of legal doctrine, as well as in judicial activities. In the article we stressed that Villey used this exigency of “dialectics” on one side in a heuristic and practical setting of judicial activity in reference to language, and on the other, imposed the character “dialectics” as a philosophical emblem reserved to a specific philosophical tradition. (...) As to the latter, Michel Villey used the exigency of “dialectics” to justify the conception of a natural law largely based on Aristotle and Saint-Thomas' philosophies and their legacies. The interrogation as to the “dialectic exigency” is thus simultaneously a legitimisation of how this conception of natural law comes to life, how it is functioning and what is the fondationalistic reasoning justifying it. The researcher, however, raises the question of whether we can understand this exigency otherwise, and more rightfully as just embedded in practical language analysis and in situated judicial communication. He answers this positively in showing that language is dialectics when understood as dialogue and sharing communicatively the world by means of language. He so turns the tables on Villey and this form of natural law theory in showing that if this is the case, then practical language understanding wholly takes care of the dialectic exigency. The researcher takes the stand for a legal philosophy which is neither positivist nor iusnatural if not simply modern and centred on the grammar of practical language. Recent research and publication analysis. The legal philosophy of Michel Villey has had a great influence around the world, especially in Catholic country or in Catholic settings. The number of translations of his articles and books around the world is impressive and remarkable! Since his death in 1988, we have seen an avalanche of studies and essays about the legal philosophy, the iusnatural conception of law, legal history, all embedded in M. Villey’s writing or taking a stand against it. The writings related to Michel Villey are growing, in his home country and in other countries. Two outstanding works have been entirely devoted to his philosophy: Renato Rabbi-Baldi Cabanillas, La filosofia juridica de Michel Villey [In Spanish], and Stéphane Bauzon, Le métier de juriste. Du droit politique selon Michel Villey [In French] Québec, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, coll. Diké, 2002. The present study is entirely topical as to the way Michel Villey found his legal philosophy. Paper objective. To investigate, research and elucidate the meaning of the exigency of “dialectics” in the writings of French legal philosopher Michel Villey. Simultaneously, to give an alternative version and understanding of how this exigency can help us better understand how we write the philosophy of law or legal dogmatic. (shrink)

The principle of self-determination, as commonly established, is based on a formal and individualistic view of liberty rights. This perspective, however, is inconsistent with the needs of a community and particularly with the necessity to promote integration between subjects and a relatively stable social order. I propose a different perspective, the one that not only takes into account individuals but also relationships. In particular, what I propose is: 1) that any community is aware of a specific social order, which consists (...) of a set of practices, 2) that these practices express specific values, 3) that these values are the result of historical and cultural circumstances, 4) that they are subject to a permanent public debate, and finally 5) that the individual praxis can lead to recognition of rights only if it is consistent with these values. In this perspective there is no general liberty for self-determination of the subject outside specific relationships. It only could be stated that one has a practical liberty (not a right) to do and behave as one wants, but one's rights depend on the relationships in which the person is engaged. El principio de auto- determinación, como comúnmente se pretende, se plantea sobre una visión formal e individualista de los derechos de libertad. Esta perspectiva, sin embargo, es incompatible con las necesidades de una comunidad, y en particular con la necesidad de promover un orden social estable, y una integración entre los sujetos. Yo propongo una perspectiva diferente, que tenga en cuenta las relaciones y no solo los individuos. En particular, lo que argumento es que 1) cualquier comunidad se da cuenta de un determinado orden social, que es un conjunto de prácticas; 2) que estas prácticas expresan valores específicos; 3) que están sujetos a un debate público permanente y, finalmente, 5) que solo si la praxis individual es consistente con estos valores puede llevar al reconocimiento de los derechos. En esa perspectiva, no existe una libertad general para que un sujeto pueda auto-determinarse, sin considerar una relación específica. Solo se podría afirmar que uno tiene una libertad concreta (y no un derecho) de hacer y de actuar como quiera, pero los derechos dependen de las relaciones en las que participa la persona. (shrink)