Discusiones

Introduction to a Debate on Legal Subjects and the New Others, as a Legal and Philosophical Problem

Marianela Galanzino — 2024-02-19

This article attempts to address the discussion around Valeria Berros’s text “When the obvious ceases to be obvious: new subjects and others in contemporary law”. I will start by outlining the main arguments

proposed by the author and continue to point out reflections raised by the growing importance of some of the debates aroused in the discussion and I will refer to their repercussions, which clearly exceed the field of law. I also will bring a narrative which may provide an argumentative umbrella to draw the map that links the elements brought by the commentators, Lisbôa and Drivet, related not only to the central text but also among them.

When the Obvious Ceases to be Obvious: New Subjects and Others in Contemporary Law

María Valeria Berros — 2024-02-19

This paper aims to present some processes that challenge contemporary law. In particular, we focus on the new subjects of law and on the elasticity of the concept of the other that integrates the harm principle. In the first section, we analyze the arguments surrounding the innovations on

legal subjectivities and others. In the second part, we point out some challenges that arise in incipient processes of climate litigation in Argentina in which this type of concept appears. Finally, we illustrate the issue based on two ongoing legal proceedings before different Argentine courts, emphasizing the main lines of argument used for the presentation of the conflicts

Keep Dreaming while Seeing the Obvious: Others and New Subjects and People from the Latin American Perspective

Natalia Souza Lisboa — 2024-02-19

Based on the text When the obvious stops being obvious: new sub- jects and others on the contemporary right, by Valeria Berros, this text aims to carry out a debate and a critical construction based on the arguments

presented. With this objective in mind, a proposal was made from dreams and possible futures, focusing on new and other subjects and people. This in the context of the new Latin American constitutionalism, analyzing some judicial cases on nature as a new subject. Finally, it concludes by questioning the law and its obvious concepts, recognizing the limitations of the categories and their universalizations.

Dismantling the abyss between Subject and Nature. On the denaturing misdirection of subjectivity

Leandro Drivet — 2024-02-19

In this work we reflect on some assumptions underlying the concept of subject that informs modern law, a category that, following Valeria Berros, we judge to be in crisis. A critique of Philippe Descola’s interpretation of the La Plata Museum of Natural Sciences, and the Freudian notion of the biological wound of human narcissism, lead us to point out the anti-materialist features of the metaphysics of modern subjectivity, which continue to this day. Then, concentrating on the notion of “human dignity”, we analyze the denial of nature that the conception of the subject entails in German idealism. Finally, we propose to think about ways of recognizing the rights of nature beyond the category of subject, although without abandoning its current potential or renouncing the project of its expansion, based on the idea of respect and an expanded communicative ethic.

Histories and Futures for Rethinking Subjects of Rights and Others

María Valeria Berros — 2024-02-19

This paper discusses the comments received from two colleagues who agreed to reflect on the article in which I put forward some ideas on new subjects and new others in contemporary law. On the one hand, Leandro Drivet who in his article entitled “ Dismantle the abyss between Subject and Nature. On the denaturing misdirection of subjectivity” reviews the assumptions underlying the concept of the subject that informs modern law. On the other hand, the article by Natália de Souza Lisbôa entitled “Keep dreaming while seeing the obvious: others and new subjects and people from the Latin American perspective” focuses on the need to create and expand possible futures through the recognition of new and other subjects and persons from the prism of the so-called new Latin American constitutionalism.

Dusting Off: A Critical Balance of the Discussion between Nino and Carrió on the Constituent Power

Jorge Baquerizo — 2024-02-19

The main objective of this paper is to examine and debate the ideas of Carlos S. Nino on the concept of “constituent power”, derived from his discussion of an excellent monograph written by Genaro Carrió on the same topic. In this sense, I will try to show that Nino’s approaches can also be criticized (and not necessarily in favor of Carrió’s initial approach), which, in any case, does not take away from Nino the merit of having contributed with important reflections on this subject. This critical balance, in which I analyze several conceptual aspects commonly involved in Latin American constituent moments, is carried out 30 years after Nino’s disappearance, 40 years after his discussion with Carrió, 50 years after the publication of the (already classic) monograph written by Carrió, and 80 years after Nino’s birth

Solidarity, of What and among Whom? Regarding the Debate on the Justification of Taxation and Public Spending

Andrés Blanco — 2024-02-19

Debates on the foundations of taxation, addressed in a past issue of Discusiones, normally focus in strictly normative aspects thereof, but some premises deriving from the neoclassical theory are usually taken uncritically in regards to material features of taxes. In particular, debates often assume that taxes are a previous condition of public spending. However, other theoretical frameworks differ from the neoclassical theory, such as postkeynesianism, propose that taxes are not a previous requirement of public spending, but a tool to control the monetary mass, thus disappearing or mitigating the weight of the factual reasons to support taxation in general. Public spending, considered solely, takes a central role in structuring a solidarity purpose of public finance. Redistribution through taxes is factually feasible within a postkeynesian theoretical framework, but that depends on two theoretical factors that the normative purposes on taxes often ignore: the tax shifting and the tax incidence. If such factors are taken into account, the foundation of one or more taxes does not stem from their external legal structure, but from the feature of not having an incidence on low income people. Strictly speaking, the debate on “tax justice” should be only a part of a broader debate on the “public finance justice”.

Director's Notice

Federico Arena — 2024-02-19

Ernesto Garzón Valdés (1927-2023). Some memories

Paolo Comanducci — 2024-02-19