Archivi categoria: Economia

State, sovereignty, law and economics
in the era of globalization

 

 

 

Taken from my lectures as a Teaching Fellow in International Law, these reflections highlight how State sovereignty and International Law are profoundly influenced by globalization, economic integration and digital technologies, raising fundamental questions about global governance, State autonomy and the adaptation of legal structures to new economic and technological realities.

 

Part VIII

To conclude

 

Globalization and technological advancement have stripped States of significant portions of sovereignty, undermining their ability to independently exercise legislative power, a fundamental aspect in tax regulation. Cyberspace eradicates physical barriers, making borders permeable and creating spaces unregulated by any State authority, floating between the territorial realities defined by countries. This gives rise to de-territorialised digital environments, characterized by a widespread lack of physical tax identity and the virtualization of tax bases, escaping traditional tax logic. In this context, profits generated beyond national borders become nearly unreachable for State taxes. Thus, the internet is configured as a lawless territory, where State sovereignty seems to lose its grip, leaving room for a new order to be built. While the State attempts to maintain control over the remnants of sovereignty eroded by the digital, projecting them onto static taxpayers, mobile incomes, and capitals benefit from the elimination of geographical distances thanks to technology, moving silently and without leaving tangible traces.
The advent of the internet has posed new challenges to State taxation, pushing towards an adaptation of sovereignty principles to the dynamics of e-commerce. Internationally, efforts have been made to create a uniform legal framework that balances the fiscal needs of States with the development of digital commerce, through international cooperation and the renegotiation of traditional tax principles.
The issue of regulating the web legally calls for a radical change in perspective, rising above the earthly and traditional conceptions of law and its violation. Globalization challenges the linearity of legal thought, inviting a vertical reflection that can accommodate the complexities of the digital world. In this scenario, the law takes on a new dimension, seeking to give shape and limits to transgression, distinguishing itself from a purely moral approach and trying to establish a balance between the fluidity of digital relations and the need for a legal order that can regulate them effectively.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

State, sovereignty, law and economics
in the era of globalization

 

 

 

Taken from my lectures as a Teaching Fellow in International Law, these reflections highlight how State sovereignty and International Law are profoundly influenced by globalization, economic integration and digital technologies, raising fundamental questions about global governance, State autonomy and the adaptation of legal structures to new economic and technological realities.

 

Part VII

International Law and Tax Law

 

 

The process of conflict mediation emerges as a daunting challenge at the nexus of law and politics, embarking on a journey through duality and transformation. This text is imbued with deep reflections on the genesis of legal systems: every stable structure springs from chaos, perpetually sailing on the turbulent waters of uncertainty and potential dissolution. The figure of Janus, the Roman god with two faces looking towards both past and future, symbolizes this endless transition between creation and destruction, order and chaos, the internal and the external. Law, akin to Janus, embraces this essential duality, delving into the dynamics of construction and deconstruction, and contrasting warfare with peace, justice with force, State with territory, and politics with economy. “Janus in the mirror” mirrors the complex self-examination of law, challenging static perception and inviting to a fourfold reflection. This duality extends to the sovereignty of States, transformed and expanded beyond national boundaries by technology, suggesting a new understanding of space and territoriality in the digital age. The relationship between “de-nomosized” spaces and those to be “re-nomosized” reveals an ongoing dialogue between past and future, highlighting the need for a balance between tradition and innovation in law.
The sovereignty of a State, characterized by its capacity to autonomously regulate other wills within a given territory, is confronted with the challenges of globalization and power sharing. Legislation, inherently linked to State sovereignty, becomes a battleground between traditional exercises of power and the pressures of globalization, which reshape the coordinates of political and legal space. The progressive erosion of State sovereignty, catalysed by global interconnectedness and supranational dynamics, questions the very foundations of State power. In this context, new forms of cooperation and governance emerge, requiring a rethinking of traditional norms and principles in favour of a more inclusive and multilateral approach, reflecting the complexity of international and transnational relationships in an interconnected world.
The concept of fiscal sovereignty, understood as the State’s capacity to levy taxes within its territorial borders and as an expression of independence in international relations, reflects the complexity of global economic dynamics. The distinction between the power of taxation tied to territory and the transnational nature of investments raises fundamental questions about the regulation and application of fiscal laws. With the expansion of international trade, there is a highlighted need to adapt fiscal regulations to the realities of a globalized economy, recognizing both the territorial limits of the State and its ability to influence economic situations beyond its borders. This debate on the extraterritorial character of tax discipline underscores the importance of finding a balance between national sovereignty and international cooperation in the era of globalization.
The context of international law is characterized by its intricate web of rules, distinguished by the diversity of their sources and a substantive consistency in their aims. This framework reflects the sovereignty of each nation, seen as an autonomous and sovereign entity, particularly in the context of tax legislation, where the principle of exclusive territorial jurisdiction prevails.
Despite this, there is no unified body of laws governing international tax matters between States. Instead, tax law and international law merge to facilitate the harmonious coexistence of States, considered equal in their right to exercise sovereignty and in maintaining their supreme authority. This integration is based on international cooperation to resolve disputes between different tax jurisdictions, driven by global interaction and economic relations.
Thus, the concept of international tax law relies on conventions against double taxation in the absence of direct tax imposition. This branch of law, unlike private international law, does not aim to resolve discrepancies between laws but rather to manage conflicts between different fiscal claims. International tax treaties seek to limit the legislative power of States to mitigate instances of double taxation, with each State agreeing to relinquish a portion of its taxation right in favour of the other, based on principles of reciprocity and mutually agreed arrangements.
On the other hand, supranational tax law is distinguished by being issued by entities that override States, such as international organizations with their own legal personality, significantly broadening the scope of application compared to convention-based tax law. While the latter focuses primarily on preventing double taxation, supranational law can directly regulate the substance of tax laws, deeply influencing national legislations.
A prime example is the tax law of the European Union, which highlights the EU’s supremacy over its member States and whose impact on national laws is widely recognized. However, this does not necessarily imply a divergence between international tax law and EU law. Community law integrates into national legal systems through a process of adoption based on the founding treaties of the EU, thus highlighting its uniqueness and its particular effect on national legal systems, while remaining part of the broader context of international tax law.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

State, sovereignty, law and economics
in the era of globalization

 

 

 

Taken from my lectures as a Teaching Fellow in International Law, these reflections highlight how State sovereignty and International Law are profoundly influenced by globalization, economic integration and digital technologies, raising fundamental questions about global governance, State autonomy and the adaptation of legal structures to new economic and technological realities.

 

Part VI

On Hegel again

 

The market narrative transforms into a tale of synchronism, capturing the temporal reality of individuals and propelling them into an electronic and offshore dimension where spatial and State boundaries dissolve. This process occurs in a context where anchorage becomes purely formal on a legal level and deeply meaningful economically. At the heart of market dynamics lies its very essence, outlined by a sphere where competition and the repetition of competitive challenges find their place. However, the existence of the market presupposes a legal and institutional framework, manifested through a set of laws, regulations, principles, and practices, thus inviting the State to participate, in a relationship where the market law becomes a matter for the State, sometimes in competition with other State entities.
In the global context, the uninterrupted presence of financial technology dominates, opening doors to new possibilities. The modern lex mercatorum operates in a globally undifferentiated and spatially de-qualified market, but still characterized by the political division into different States, aiming to overcome legal discontinuities and regulate uniformly the spatial deformity of territories, reconciling the needs of the stateless mercantile society with those of national States.
This situation introduces a dilemma between universality and multiplicity, renewing the concept of nomos, which no longer identifies with the unification of law and territory, but reflects the interdependence and independence of actors from the State, highlighting a permanent friction between States and markets. Consequently, the law finds itself weakened between the limited territoriality of norms and the universality of economic relations, challenging the old narratives of State.
This new dynamic sets Earth and Sea as symbols of the different potentialities of existence and contrasting scenarios of human history, where the Earth is seen as the mother of law and the Sea as a domain free from juridical and spatial boundaries, symbolizing infinite freedom.
Finally, the ancient act of land occupation, nomos, clashes with the universalism of economic exchanges, leading to the necessity of a new legal category that can rationalize the chaotic space of globalization. This need leads to the conception of a law that transcends terrestrial constraints, offering new perspectives to regulate the vast and indeterminate space of major economic exchanges, with technology emerging as a regulating principle. In this scenario, the law adapts to regulate the digital and transnational economy, challenging the traditional opposition between territorial law and global economy.
The rhetorical figure of the owl associated with Minerva is often invoked to attribute to Hegel and his philosophical thought a belated, almost posthumous role: that of intervening in reality only to confirm and ratify events that have already occurred. In this interpretation, Hegel’s philosophy would be reduced to an ideology that retroactively legitimizes what has already happened, thus representing a historical narrative written by the victors, emerging at twilight similarly to the appearance of an owl.
However, Hegel’s assertion that “what is real is rational, and what is rational is real” invites us to view the present through a conceptual lens, allowing the intellect to become an active agent in shaping reality. Consequently, the symbolism of the owl should not be interpreted as mere legitimization of the existing state of affairs, but rather as a call for thought to embark on a gradual and profound process of understanding, in order to mould the future. The task of conceptual elaboration thus proves essential for mediating and resolving conflicts, organizing them into a dynamic unity that, despite its cohesion, does not erase the distinctive peculiarities of each position.
Hegel thus emerges as the architect of thoughtful mediation, strongly opposing any attempt at immediate or superficial solutions. He criticizes the pursuit of intuitive and spontaneous genius, as well as rejects any form of mystical ecstasy or charisma, abhorring the presumption of those who claim to be direct spokespersons of divinity or interpreters of the absolute through altered states of consciousness. Dialectics, for Hegel, is precisely that method of thought capable of organizing and synthesizing conflict through careful and gradual elaboration, merging universality with the vital needs of every single component.

 

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

Discorso sull’origine e i fondamenti della diseguaglianza
tra gli uomini
di Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Un terreno recintato e la società civile

 

 

 

 

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, nel suo Discorso sull’origine e i fondamenti della diseguaglianza tra gli uomini, pubblicato nel 1755, esamina le radici profonde e le conseguenze della diseguaglianza umana, presentando una critica serrata alle società moderne, basate sulle istituzioni e sulla proprietà privata. Quest’opera si distingue quale uno dei testi fondamentali nella storia della filosofia politica e sociale, proponendo una riflessione profonda che interpella ancora oggi il lettore su temi di bruciante attualità.
Il Discorso è stato scritto in un’epoca di grande fermento intellettuale, il cosiddetto “secolo dei Lumi”, durante il quale in Europa si principiò a mettere in discussione le strutture tradizionali del sapere e del potere. Rousseau si inserisce in questo dibattito con una posizione originale e spesso in contrasto con altri pensatori illuministi, come Voltaire e Diderot, critici nei suoi confronti. Il suo pensiero si fa portavoce di un ritorno alla natura e alla semplicità originaria dell’uomo, concetti che prefigurano i temi romantici e rivoluzionari successivi.
Il trattato è diviso in due parti principali. Nella prima, è descritto lo stato di natura dell’uomo, un periodo ideale in cui gli individui vivevano isolati, pacifici e in armonia con la natura, liberi da bisogni artificiali e dalla corruzione morale. Questa condizione utopica è segnata da una perfetta eguaglianza tra gli uomini, in netto contrasto con lo stato attuale. Nella seconda parte, è analizzato come l’umanità sia passata da questo stato di natura a quello di società civile. “Il primo uomo che, avendo recinto un terreno, ebbe l’idea di proclamare questo è mio, e trovò altri così ingenui da credergli, costui è stato il vero fondatore della società civile. Quanti delitti, quante guerre, quanti assassinii, quante miserie, quanti orrori avrebbe risparmiato al genere umano colui che, strappando i pali o colmando il fosso, avesse gridato ai suoi simili: «Guardatevi dall’ascoltare questo impostore; se dimenticherete che i frutti sono di tutti e che la terra non è di nessuno, sarete perduti!»”, scrive Rousseau, ponendo l’accento sul ruolo della proprietà privata come origine principale delle diseguaglianze: con l’accumulo e la delimitazione della proprietà, si sviluppano invidia, competizione e, di conseguenza, il governo e le leggi come mezzi di protezione delle ricchezze acquisite. Questa transizione segna per Rousseau la perdita dell’originaria libertà e uguaglianza, dando vita a un’infelicità diffusa e a conflitti continui.
Uno dei pilastri filosofici del Discorso è proprio la riflessione su come la proprietà privata sia la radice delle diseguaglianze. Rousseau sostiene che, con la sua introduzione, gli esseri umani siano diventati competitivi, gelosi e aggressivi. Questa idea ha influenzato le successive teorie filosofiche e politiche, ponendo le basi per le discussioni moderne sul capitalismo e sul comunismo.


Rousseau, poi, esamina la relazione tra libertà individuale e accettazione del potere politico, interrogandosi sulla legittimità delle istituzioni che privano l’individuo della libertà a favore dell’ordine sociale. Questo dibattito, tra l’altro, è fondamentale nella storia della filosofia politica e continua a influenzare il pensiero liberale e democratico.
Il filosofo ginevrino è chiaro nel distinguere le diseguaglianze naturali (di forza o intelligenza) da quelle sociali, che derivano da convenzioni umane, come la legge e la proprietà. La sua opera spinge anche a riflettere su come le strutture sociali modellino e, talvolta, distorcano le relazioni umane.
Sebbene Rousseau sia stato un filosofo dell’Illuminismo, molte sue idee conducono una critica radicale del concetto di progresso tecnologico e culturale che altri suoi contemporanei celebravano. Infatti, vede proprio nel progresso la causa di nuove diseguaglianze e dipendenze, una visione che prefigura le moderne critiche al neoliberismo e alla globalizzazione. La sua visione di un’armonia perduta tra l’uomo e la natura è diventata un riferimento per i movimenti ecologisti, mentre la sua critica delle diseguaglianze alimenta il dibattito sulla redistribuzione delle risorse e sulla giustizia economica.
L’analisi di Rousseau, quindi, invita a una riflessione critica sulle basi stesse delle nostre società moderne. Egli suggerisce che le diseguaglianze non siano un inevitabile prodotto naturale ma il risultato di scelte politiche e sociali, spesso radicate in istituzioni ingiuste. La sua critica alla proprietà privata e il suo ideale di un ritorno a uno stato più naturale e egualitario continuano a influenzare le discussioni contemporanee su giustizia sociale, diritti umani e ambientalismo.
Nel Discorso, Rousseau non solo traccia un ritratto critico dell’evoluzione sociale dell’umanità ma pone anche le fondamenta per una filosofia della libertà e dell’eguaglianza. Le sue considerazioni filosofiche e sociali continuano a essere di straordinaria attualità, sfidando le nostre concezioni di giustizia, potere e umanità. La sua opera, quindi, rimane una lettura essenziale per chiunque sia interessato a comprendere le radici filosofiche delle diseguaglianze sociali ed economiche.
La capacità di Rousseau di connettere la filosofia con le questioni sociali concrete rende il suo lavoro immortale, provocatorio e profondamente umano, offrendo spunti di riflessione validi ancora oggi, in un’epoca in cui le diseguaglianze continuano a essere al centro del dibattito politico e sociale globale.

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

La filosofia inglese e le sue leggi “concrete”

 

Perché gli inglesi hanno dominato il mondo per almeno quattro secoli

 

di

Riccardo Piroddi

 

 

Gli inglesi, per quel che concerne la storia del pensiero, si sono distinti dagli altri popoli europei, antichi e moderni, a causa di quella impronta, ad essi del tutto peculiare, tendenzialmente antimetafisica ed essenzialmente pragmatica. A scorrere rapidamente quella storia, infatti, ciò può essere facilmente notato: quando il Medioevo volgeva ormai al termine, mentre nelle scuole del resto d’Europa i dotti erano ancora impelagati nelle dispute scolastiche sulle prove dell’esistenza di Dio, sugli universali, sulla Trinità e sui quodlibeta, Roger Bacon, filosofo, scienziato e mago, il doctor mirabilis (dottore dei miracoli), fondava la gnoseologia empirica, secondo la quale l’esperienza sia il vero e unico mezzo per acquisire conoscenza del mondo. Tre erano, secondo il filosofo, i modi con cui l’uomo potesse comprendere la verità: con la conoscenza interna, data da Dio tramite l’illuminazione; con la ragione, la quale, però, non è bastevole, e, infine, con l’esperienza sensibile, ovvero tramite i cinque sensi, il non plus ultra di cui esso possa disporre e che gli consente di avvicinarsi alla reale conoscenza delle cose. Il frate francescano William of Ockham, il doctor invincibilis (dottore invincibile), con il suo famosissimo rasoio, semplificò al massimo la spiegazione dei fenomeni, mostrando l’inutilità di moltiplicare le cause e di introdurre enti al di là della fisica: “Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora” (è inutile fare con più, ciò che si può fare con meno). Francis Bacon, il filosofo dell’adagio “Sapere è potere”, padre della rivoluzione scientifica e del metodo scientifico nell’osservazione e nello studio dei fenomeni attraverso l’induzione, meglio definita e rinnovata rispetto a quella aristotelica, fu avversatore dei pregiudizi, da lui chiamati idola (idoli o immagini), che impedivano la reale conoscenza e intelligenza della natura, e fu ispiratore di un’altra grande mente inglese, Isaac Newton, lo scienziato-osservatore empirico per eccellenza. Thomas Hobbes diede spiegazione a tutti gli aspetti della realtà col suo materialismo meccanicistico, annullando la res cogitans (sostanza pensante) di Cartesio e il suo ambiguo rapporto con la res extensa (sostanza materiale), retroterra sul quale basò la sua concezione della natura umana, della condizione di guerra di tutti contro tutti (l’homo homini lupus), del patto di unione e del patto di società, dai quali sarebbero poi nati, rispettivamente, la civiltà e, attraverso la rinuncia da parte di ogni uomo al suo diritto su tutto e la cessione di questo al sovrano, lo Stato, il Leviathan (Leviatano). John Locke, l’empirista, l’autore di An essay concerning human under standing (Saggio sull’intelletto umano), sosteneva che tutta la conoscenza umana derivasse dai sensi. Indagò le idee e i processi conoscitivi della mente, criticando l’innatismo cartesiano e leibniziano e, tra l’altro, fu strenuo propugnatore del liberalismo politico e della tolleranza religiosa. David Hume, l’estremo dell’empirismo inglese, asseriva, come Locke, che la conoscenza non fosse innata, ma scaturisse dall’esperienza. Egli negò sia la sostanza materiale che quella spirituale, tutto riducendo a sensazione e stato di coscienza. Demolì il concetto di causa, ritenendolo mero costume della mente, suscitato dall’abitudine, e postulò, quali conoscenze universali e necessarie, soltanto quelle della geometria, dell’algebra e dell’aritmetica. Adam Smith, filosofo ed economista, teorizzò l’idea che la concorrenza tra vari produttori e consumatori avrebbe generato la migliore distribuzione possibile di beni e servizi, poiché avrebbe incoraggiato gli individui a specializzarsi e migliorare il loro capitale, in modo da produrre più valore con lo stesso lavoro. E, infine, l’Utilitarismo di Jeremy Bentham e John Stuart Mill prima, con tutte le implicazioni morali (o moralmente inglesi), legate ai concetti di “utile” e di “felicità“, e quello di Henry Sidgwick, poi, col suo edonismo etico, mediante il quale aggiunse importanti precisazioni ai concetti dell’utilitarismo classico. Queste riflessioni filosofiche hanno certo corrispettivo pratico allorquando si osservano attentamente tutte le sfaccettature dell’English way of life e dei princìpi che, ancora oggi, lo animano. Il motivo per cui gli inglesi, fino a circa settant’anni fa, hanno realmente dominato il mondo (basti pensare al British Empire e al Commonwealth), ha le proprie basi nel pragmatismo che, dal 1200 in poi, ha caratterizzato le sue classi intellettuali e, di riflesso, quelle deputate all’azione. Un popolo non condizionato dalla religione, come lo sono stati, dal Medioevo alle soglie dell’età contemporanea, la maggior parte dei Paesi cattolici europei, libero di sottomettere altre genti, che non ha combattuto in nome di Dio ma degli uomini, era destinato ad avere il ruolo che ha avuto e che ancora ha. Del resto, negli stessi anni in cui un bardo venuto dalle Midlands incantava gli spettatori del Globe Theatre a Londra, mettendo in scena l’amore tra Romeo e Giulietta, la filosofia dell’essere e del non essere e la gelosia di Otello, la regina Elisabetta I nominava baronetto il più astuto e lesto pirata della storia: sir Francis Drake!

 

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

 

Pubblicato l’1 aprile 2017 su La Lumaca

 

Lascia una risposta

State, sovereignty, law and economics
in the era of globalization

 

 

 

Taken from my lectures as a Teaching Fellow in International Law, these reflections highlight how State sovereignty and International Law are profoundly influenced by globalization, economic integration and digital technologies, raising fundamental questions about global governance, State autonomy and the adaptation of legal structures to new economic and technological realities.

 

Part IV

Hegel’s political legacy

 

The titanic struggle between the Lord and the Servant, interpreted through the Marxist lens, highlights the parallel between the feudal lord and the capitalist master. Just as the feudal lord appropriates the products of the Servant’s labour by consuming them directly, the capitalist master strips away the material labour of the worker, converting it into the abstract form of surplus value, the source of his profit. Consequently, the entrepreneur emerges as the adversary of community fabric and its ethical closeness, introducing the cold distance of the abstraction of exchange value.
This analysis overlooks the fact that every trend toward a new feudalism, observable in every projection that privileges the tangible in an era dominated by the abstract, is inherently anachronistic. It presupposes a return to borders in a boundless age, to land in the epoch of space, reinstating demarcations in a universe devoid of constant reference points.
The contemporary reaction to globalization, which inclines towards the recovery of national and community identity, the rediscovery of ethical authenticity devoid of external comparisons, the valorisation of the tangible devoid of commercial exchanges, and of relations devoid of political commitment, reflects a strong political inclination. In this context of total mobilization, the opposition to globalism does not offer a path to emancipation but rather anticipates the birth of new dominators who, exploiting abstraction, leave the current and future Servants to fight for a soil and an existence unalienated: 1) a soil made unproductive not by domination, but by the obsolescence of a thought that seeks legitimacy exclusively in the land; 2) an aspiration to non-alienation that, at the heart of the system, highlights a theft, the alienation of real labour for the gain of capital.
The challenge of globalization cannot be addressed by simply opposing and attempting to reverse positions in the name of values, since even values fit into the logic of the same domain being critiqued. Capitalism is based not so much on the exchange value and the importance of the consumer but on the remuneration of risk and the capacity for entrepreneurial initiative.
The real dynamic between State and market lies in the mutuality of services, a relationship that encompasses the economic, legal, and relational. Contrary to the isolation of the subject theorized by neoclassical economics, the actors in the enterprise are those who enter into a relationship of mutual openness in the market. And on this particular point, the philosophical debate on the relationship between Lord and Servant has much more to explore.
The renewal of the Hegelian conflict between the dominant and the subaltern manifests in the contrast between mobile and globalized individuals and those static, confined to a State or territory. On one side are the Lords who can choose the legal conditions most advantageous to them, on the other are the Servants, anchored to a territory, who therefore suffer increased taxation by impoverished States.
Hegel had already interpreted this conflict as a confrontation between the abstract and the tangible: the Lord, having at his disposal money and language, dispenses with the concreteness of things, substituting them with symbols, just as money does. Instead, the Servant, devoid of substance, possesses only a language and a dialect, incapable of communicating on a universal scale. While the Servants remain anonymous and without public recognition, the Lord, not even needing a surname, is universally recognized.
Money and language emerge from the willingness to risk physical presence, including one’s life. This courage characterizes the entrepreneurial bourgeoisie, admired by Hegel, who celebrates the maritime peoples pioneering in risky trade, such as the Dutch, the English, and the future nation of the United States of America, born from a sea journey. Hegel also admires the Revolution for its capacity to form a state of Servants emancipated from feudal subjection through enterprise rather than arms, introducing intelligence (Geist) into the traditional economy, tied to the land and agriculture. The State thus becomes an expression of this intelligence, overcoming the individualism of particular interests.
Hegel’s reflection on politics and law, filtered through Marxism, identifies the Lord as the master of capital and the Servant as the worker, reduced to a new serf by economic exploitation. However, according to Hegel, emancipation does not occur by replacing the Servant with the Master, a move that historically has generated new Masters, but by breaking the determinism of Marxism through the unpredictability of entrepreneurial initiative. In this perspective, the market reveals itself not as a mere arena of exploitation but as a space where the abstraction of finance can expand the entrepreneurial capacities and social wealth, overcoming the predation of the globalized economy.
Finally, globalization should not be seen merely as a predatory dynamic but rather as the stage on which such a dynamic unfolds, serving as the means through which the predatory action manifests and nourishes itself. The war of techno-finance is not fought through traditional conflicts between States but rather through strategies that exploit States for personal advantages, operations that go beyond traditional territorial boundaries, acting in a parallel cybernetic dimension, without the need for physical movements or advanced armaments.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

State, sovereignty, law and economics
in the era of globalization

 

 

Taken from my lectures as a Teaching Fellow in International Law, these reflections highlight how State sovereignty and International Law are profoundly influenced by globalization, economic integration and digital technologies, raising fundamental questions about global governance, State autonomy and the adaptation of legal structures to new economic and technological realities.

 

Part III

Globalization and political power

 

The economic globalization has fundamentally redefined the relationship with State-imposed regulations, turning it fluid, unstable, and continuously evolving. The contraction of space and time, driven by technological progress, culminates in the obliteration of physical distances; an emblematic phenomenon of our digital age. Technology, by erasing geographical boundaries, ushers in a new global order, a boundaryless mosaic where time seems to condense into an ethereal instant and physical reality transforms into a digital domain, dissolving matter into a virtual ether. The current era witnesses the merging of the real and the virtual into a singular, indistinguishable reality that is simultaneously dual-faced, surpassing the traditional dichotomy. This fusion marks the end of the national borders era, propelling us into a homogenized global dimension, where unified space heralds an era of universal time.
In the realm of transnational dynamics, an identity emerges that is hybrid, devoid of territorial roots, challenging conventional social and political categories, transforming the legal framework in response to the demands of a global market. In this context, transnational corporations sketch a new order – a “nomos” – that navigates between the local and the global, between the aspirations of a borderless market and the constraints of nation-States, reflecting the complexity of an interconnected world.

The re-evaluation of the State in the global age reveals a radical transformation: the State, traditionally a pillar of authority, power, and decision-making, confronts the pervasiveness of the global economy and the thinning of its sovereignty. Digital technologies and the Internet rewrite the geopolitical rules, eroding the territorial foundations of State sovereignty and promoting an economy’s de-territorialization that transcends national borders, ushering in an era of interconnected global markets elusive to definite localization.
Against this backdrop, new geometries of power and law emerge, where the virtual reality of the economy and the tangible reality of law intertwine, outlining a landscape where transnational dynamics redefine the relationship between State and market. Economic globalization challenges State supremacy, giving rise to an era of reversals: the market assumes a position of dominance over the State, redefining traditional hierarchies and marking a profound discontinuity between the national dimensions of law and the transnational dimensions of the economy.
In this fluid and dynamic context, transnational corporations emerge as new protagonists, shaping legal and economic spaces according to logics independent of State sovereignty. The transnational economic reality and national law coexist in constant tension, reflecting the complexity of a world where old certainties are questioned, and new forms of dominance and resistance emerge. In such a landscape, a new binary order of dominators and dominated manifests, a dichotomy reflecting the inherent inequalities of the globalization era, where technology and finance rewrite the rules of the game, relegating many to the margins of a system that privileges a few chosen ones.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

State, sovereignty, law and economics
in the era of globalization

 

 

Taken from my lectures as a Teachinig Fellow in International Law at Università degli Studi “Link”, these reflections highlight how State sovereignty and International Law are profoundly influenced by globalization, economic integration and digital technologies, raising fundamental questions about global governance, State autonomy and the adaptation of legal structures to new economic and technological realities.

 

Part II

International Law and economics

 

 

The periodic transformation of Private International Law invariably prompts questions regarding the existence of a public international organization endowed with the authority to promulgate regulations and ensure their adherence and implementation. The safeguarding of interests that transcend those of individual States was addressed through the establishment of the League of Nations and subsequently the United Nations. These entities mandated States to relinquish their right to engage in war and to uphold the fundamental rights delineated in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The concept of sovereign power as a market regulator diminished and ultimately vanished with the emergence of the European Community, which redefined national States from absolute sovereigns to associative sovereigns, thereby rendering the notion of sovereignty fluid and incompatible with rigid definitions.
The ascendancy of the concept of “supranationality” signifies a departure from the traditional notion of sovereignty, the decline of the conventional State model, and a redefinition of power, which is no longer confined to the territory under the sovereignty of individual States. By ceding portions of their power to supranational bodies and institutions, national States adopt a supplementary role, becoming components of a system characterized by layered sovereignties and integral to a global interaction framework where sovereignty is systematically dispersed and subject to the compelled abdication of increasing segments of authority.
Globalization is typified by the progressive self-regulation of the economy, asserting its independence from the State, which assumes an increasingly peripheral role. National sovereignty wanes as economic and social interactions become de-territorialized, accentuating the importance of transnational economic regulation and the centralization of global political decision-making. The market, evolving into an independent legal regime along with the lex mercatoria, reshapes global economic regulations, underscoring the adaptability and flexibility of transnational economic law.
Transnational corporations, unshackled from territorial constraints, represent a novel form of global sovereignty, orchestrating their operations according to the demands of the global market without specific allegiance to any State. This evolution signifies a pivotal shift in the State’s role in favour of market dynamics propelled by transnational enterprises, which emerge as central pillars of the global economy, influencing economies and markets through their investment decisions.
Within the European Union, the interplay between interdependence and the collision of sovereignties is especially salient, given its distinctive historical, cultural, and institutional attributes. European integration epitomizes a vital model for global cooperation. Nonetheless, the global financial crisis, epitomized by the sovereign debt and financial institutions crisis in Europe that commenced in 2008, has significantly impacted this integration process. Economic adversities may foster divergent dynamics: they may necessitate expanded collaboration, yet simultaneously encourage trends towards protectionism, hostility, and the resurgence of nationalism and populism. However, not all conflicts or procedural delays within international or supranational decision-making frameworks yield negative outcomes. In certain instances, the mutual dependency between States and communal entities may even intensify. The Economic and Monetary Union, for example, rests on four principal strategic pillars for the future: 1) harmonization of financial and banking oversight systems; 2) implementation of coordinated or unified strategies for taxation, joint budget management, and public debt mutualization; 3) centralization of directives for economic policy and national structural reforms; 4) introduction of new frameworks and structures to enhance the democratic legitimacy of EU and Eurozone central authorities. Nevertheless, the path toward European integration can be fraught with conflicts, where central powers, although legitimized and shaped by the national interests of dominant nations, tend to constrain national sovereignties, with various implications for community identity. At times, the integration process may appear uncertain, hesitant, and at times inefficient, influenced also by actors representing specific interests, potentially in conflict with collective ones. The ideal objective would be to channel sovereign tensions into a catalyst for augmented cooperation.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

State, sovereignty, law and economics
in the era of globalization

 

 

Taken from my lectures as a Teachinig Fellow in International Law at Università degli Studi “Link”, these reflections highlight how State sovereignty and International Law are profoundly influenced by globalization, economic integration and digital technologies, raising fundamental questions about global governance, State autonomy and the adaptation of legal structures to new economic and technological realities.

 

Part I

The role played by States within the international community

 

In the tapestry of the international arena, the dual concept of “sovereignty and independence” emerges as a foundational dyad, defining the essence and the prerogatives that are inherent to the identity of modern States. These attributes have persisted with remarkable consistency across the centuries, asserting themselves with renewed vigor in the current era of globalization.
From the inception of institutionalized international law with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, each State is recognized as sovereign – acknowledged as supreme and unanswerable to any superior authority – and is endowed with the exclusive jurisdiction over its territory, embodying the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs by other States. Within this framework, the individual is subsumed under the State, considered part of its sovereign domain.
The legal scaffolding of sovereignty in international law highlights the State’s inalienable right over its territory, establishing a singular authority over its inhabitants. This authority encompasses the exclusive right to govern and the capacity to enforce its will through coercive means if necessary, precluding any external encroachments on its autonomy.
Sovereignty, thus, is a principle that delineates identity and difference, straddling the realms of the transcendental and the empirical. It encapsulates the State’s autonomy, its inherent capacity to govern free from external subjugation, and positions the State as both subject and object within the domain of cognizance.
The essence of sovereignty is encapsulated in the ius imperii, the fundamental authority to command and govern, an authority that originates from the State itself and does not owe its legitimacy to any higher power. This original power establishes the geographical bounds of sovereignty, contained within the territorial limits where the State’s authority is exercised.
This construct of sovereignty fosters a relationship of coordination among States, a dynamic interplay replacing the hierarchical notions of subordination and superordination, reflecting a polycentric legal universe where the sovereignty of one State is balanced against that of another.
The evolution of the nation-State is rooted in the principle of sovereignty, an originality that confers upon States the legitimacy to wield authoritative powers independently. This sovereignty is manifested both internally, as the supreme authority over all domiciled entities, and externally, marking the state’s equal standing among its international peers.
The emergence of international and supranational entities has nuanced the concept of sovereignty, catalyzing a redefinition of State powers and their domains of influence. This recalibration acknowledges that certain communal interests are better served beyond the confines of national boundaries.
The acknowledgment and respect for State sovereignty remain pivotal in the ethos of the international community. The principle of effectiveness underscores the State’s presence and authority within the international milieu, predicated on its tangible establishment and dissolution.
The contemporary discourse on sovereignty navigates the tensions between the vertical legitimacy and horizontal legality, reflecting on Hegel’s dialectic of the universal and the particular. This interplay underscores the dual nature of sovereignty as both a transcendental order and a contractual horizontal pact among equals.
The narrative of sovereignty and its evolution reflects a dynamic shift towards recognizing the importance of a public international organization capable of legislating and enforcing global norms. This shift, exemplified by the establishment of the League of Nations and the UN, marks a transition from the traditional paradigms of sovereign power towards a more integrated and cooperative international order.
In conclusion, the dialogue on sovereignty and its transformation in the context of globalization and supranational governance underscores the intricate balance between maintaining State autonomy and embracing the collective governance of shared global challenges. This ongoing evolution reflects the adaptive nature of sovereignty in the face of changing international dynamics, heralding new forms of governance that navigate between the traditional sovereign State and emerging global governance structures.

 

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

L’ideologia tedesca di Karl Marx e Friedrich Engels

Materialismo storico, struttura, sovrastruttura e comunismo

 

 

 

 

L’ideologia tedesca di Karl Marx, scritta con Friedrich Engels tra il novembre del 1846 e l’agosto del 1846, è un’opera fondamentale nel corpus teorico marxista, essenziale per comprendere l’evoluzione del pensiero del filosofo di Treviri, che lo conduce a una visione più strutturata del materialismo storico. Rimasta pressoché inedita durante la vita degli autori, fu pubblicata postuma solo nel 1932.
Marx ed Engels prendono le distanze dall’idealismo hegeliano, criticandolo aspramente e opponendogli un materialismo radicale, che individua nelle condizioni materiali di esistenza la base delle strutture sociali e delle sovrastrutture ideologiche. Marx formula uno dei concetti chiave del suo pensiero: l’idea che non sia la coscienza degli uomini a determinare il loro essere, ma, al contrario, il loro essere sociale a determinare la coscienza. Il filosofo critica la dialettica hegeliana della storia, proponendo una visione materialistica secondo cui sono i conflitti tra classi sociali, basati su rapporti di produzione materiali, a guidare il progresso storico. Questo sposta l’attenzione dalle idee e dalla mente umana alle reali condizioni economiche e sociali. Hegel è accusato di aver sovvertito il rapporto tra essere e coscienza, conferendo a quest’ultima un primato che nella realtà non possiede. Secondo Marx, Hegel si trova intrappolato in un circolo vizioso di astrazioni, che allontanano la filosofia dalla realtà materiale e concreta delle condizioni umane. Di qui, l’approdo al materialismo storico.
Marx ed Engels argomentano che la base economica di una società –le forze produttive e i rapporti di produzione (la struttura) – condizioni le istituzioni sociali, politiche e ideologiche (la sovrastruttura). Questa teoria implica che qualsiasi cambiamento significativo nelle condizioni materiali porta a cambiamenti nella cultura e nell’organizzazione politica della società. Le forze produttive includono la tecnologia, le capacità lavorative e il know-how tecnico disponibili in una società, mentre i rapporti di produzione rappresentano le relazioni sociali ed economiche che si muovono attorno alla produzione (ad esempio, le classi di proprietari e di lavoratori). Il progresso delle forze produttive, poi, entra inevitabilmente in conflitto con i rapporti di produzione esistenti, un fenomeno che può portare a tensioni sociali e a rivoluzioni. L’approccio dialettico, ereditato da Hegel ma trasformato in una chiave materialistica, è essenziale nel materialismo storico. Marx adotta una visione della storia che contempla lo sviluppo sociale come risultato di contraddizioni interne e conflitti tra classi opposte, conflitti che non sono anomalie ma motore essenziale del cambiamento storico. A differenza di Hegel, per cui le idee (tesi) evolvono attraverso contraddizioni interne (antitesi) fino a risolversi in una forma superiore (sintesi), Marx vede i cambiamenti materiali ed economici come i veri driver del progresso storico. Questo implica che la coscienza e le idee degli uomini siano in gran parte il prodotto delle loro condizioni materiali di vita. Filosoficamente, il materialismo storico non si limita a una mera interpretazione della storia, ma serve anche come una guida per l’azione. Il riconoscimento delle condizioni materiali base dei conflitti sociali giustifica la lotta politica e la rivoluzione quali mezzi legittimi per risolvere queste contraddizioni.


Nell’opera, i due autori delineano altresì le fondamenta teoriche del comunismo, che poi svilupperanno ulteriormente nelle loro opere successive, culminando ne Il Capitale. Il comunismo è qui presentato sia come teoria politica od obiettivo da raggiungere che risultato inevitabile del collasso del capitalismo, guidato dalle sue stesse contraddizioni interne e dallo sviluppo delle forze produttive. Il capitalismo aliena l’uomo dalla sua essenza, dal suo lavoro e dai suoi simili. Il comunismo mira a superare questa alienazione, restituendo all’individuo un senso di appartenenza e di realizzazione tramite il lavoro. Il comunismo è così descritto come la fase della storia umana che segue la distruzione della borghesia e dei suoi rapporti di produzione. Marx ed Engels intendono la storia come una serie di fasi economiche, ognuna delle quali si evolve a causa delle contraddizioni interne e si conclude con la rivoluzione sociale. Il comunismo, quindi, costituisce l’ultima fase di questo processo storico. Nella società comunista le classi sociali sono abolite e non essendoci più distinzione tra proletariato e borghesia, si elimina la base dei conflitti di classe. La proprietà privata dei mezzi di produzione è rimpiazzata dalla proprietà collettiva. Ciò cambia radicalmente l’economia e la struttura della società, rendendo possibile una distribuzione equa delle risorse. Invece di essere guidata dal profitto, la produzione è organizzata per soddisfare i bisogni reali delle persone. Ciò dovrebbe garantire che nessuno soffra di povertà o mancanza di risorse essenziali. Marx ed Engels prevedono anche che lo Stato, considerato strumento per l’oppressione di una classe su un’altra, diventi superfluo in una società senza classi e, pertanto, si dissolverà gradualmente. L’utopia comunista, come presentata ne L’ideologia tedesca, è la risposta ai problemi generati dal capitalismo, inclusi sfruttamento, disuguaglianza e alienazione; tuttavia, l’applicazione pratica di questi principi nel XX secolo, attraverso regimi che si sono dichiarati comunisti, ha spesso portato a risultati molto diversi (e drammatici) dalle teorie originali di Marx ed Engels, suscitando critiche e dibattiti continui sull’applicabilità e sulla validità del comunismo come modello socio-economico.
L’ideologia tedesca è un testo cruciale per comprendere le radici del marxismo e la formazione intellettuale di Marx ed Engels. Nonostante la sua complessità e il contesto polemico in cui è stato scritto, offre spunti di riflessione ancora attuali sul rapporto tra economia, società e politica. La critica diretta a figure del tempo e la profondità, spesso violenta, dell’analisi rendono questo lavoro un pilastro della filosofia politica ed economica moderna.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta