ÍNDICE Prefacio. Pensamientos sobre la violencia. Un libro como un bricolage. Ana Belén Blanco – María Soledad Sánchez | 9 Prólogo. La violencia como “objeto”. Una Aproximación Teórica. Sergio Tonkonoff | 19 I. Violencia, mito y religión. Rubén Dri | 35 II. Violencia, religión y mesianismo: reflexiones desde la filosofía judía. Emmanuel Taub | 53 III. Religión y violencia. Una mirada desde lo implícito y lo relacional. Gustavo A. Ludueña | 65 IV. Escrito en el cuerpo: la pregunta por la (...) violencia en algunas ficciones contemporáneas. VII. Política y Violencia: Una Introducción. Miguel Ángel Rossi | 129 VIII. Reflexiones sobre la violencia (y la política). Ezequiel Ipar | 147 IX. Variables de la violencia generalizada: real de la época. Carlos Gustavo Motta | 159 X. La función de la cópula Y en el título “violencia y espectáculo”. Daniel Mundo | 169 XI. Muerte, violencia y prohibición: ¿vínculo histórico o constitutivo? Martina Lassalle | 179 XII. Criminalización, Juventud y Delito. Algunas consideraciones teórico-metodológicas. Sergio Tonkonoff | 205 XIII. Activismo de los derechos humanos, tribunales y policías. Sofía Tiscornia | 233 El Docke. Ensayo fotográfico. Henrik Malmström | 247. (shrink)

After the question “how could Hobbes write the natural law, if it is nowritten law?” I’ll try to approach the relationship between natural and civil law after the instauration of the commonwealth. In this sense, I’ll pay attention to the hobbesian distinction among “written law” and “written register” of law and a few consequences after this distinction. For example, if, how Hobbes says, the correct interpretation of natural law doesn’t depend on philosophers, but only on the authority of commonwealth, would (...) include itself the legitimation of the formulation of the natural laws? The paradox of the first question seems to be important, however, negligenced from hobbesian critical literature. Its intent is to investigate this negligence into better understanding his philosophical postulate, that includes important points like the “silence of law”, the right of self-defense, foro interno and foro externo, State and government. (shrink)

The present article inquires into the uses of Medea’s tragedy as a representation of political sedition in the XVII century, especially in Hobbes’ works who introduces the myth with few variations three times in his work. We are interested in the semantic shifts in the use of a tragedy that, for multiple reasons –to which we will later return– works as an epochal catalyzer of the political and moral dangers with which regicide is symbolically burdened. This constant role, identifiable in (...) the versions of Euripides, Seneca, and Corneille, combines differently -through history- the pairing of seduction and sedition that we try to reconstruct as a convergent element of the tragic vision of politics that runs through Hobbes work. Finally, we explore how classic tragedy is used by Bramhall in his debate with Hobbes, highlighting the connection between tragic and heretical readings of the philosopher. (shrink)

In the international sphere, sovereignty and fundamental rights are often at odds, giving these rights little space for action and, in general, only after crisis has led to tragedy, and tragedy to disgrace. International Law, on the other hand, consistently succumbs to forms of domination and power, and its scope of action is often limited to certain codifications which are frequently suspended by political exception. Sixteenth century Dominican theologian, Francisco de Vitoria, established the principles for a Law of the people, (...) based on secular civil power that, while still exercising internal sovereignty, could defend and privilege the “rights of all men” over the exercise of power and private interest. This article focuses on this dispute to show Vitoria’s position, who long preceded the great declarations of human rights of the 18 th century, presenting an original doctrine within the framework of an emerging globalization and based on the defense of fundamental rights. (shrink)

In the following article we will discuss the methodology and presentation of arguments to prescribe a theory of better governance exposed by two eminent thinkers of politics as they were James Harrington and Thomas Hobbes. Then, we contrast the theoretical development of both authors under the conceptions of political philosophy and political science exposed by Giovanni Sartori and Norberto Bobbio. We conclude with a critique of a seated prejudice in some academic circles of political science.

This work intends to demonstrate the existence of limits that hinder the absolute authority of the sovereign in Hobbes’s political theory. Particularly, I will try to identify the concept of honor as the paradigm of this limitation. The field of the manifestations of worth — it will be argued — operates within a logic that runs parallel to that of the State. Moreover, it engenders authorities with high degree of autonomy. To be sure, the sovereign power can intervene in this (...) field by means of persuasion and coercion, but it will never be able to erase the resistances and limitations imposed by signs of honor. (shrink)

This study aims to present a new interpretation about the controversy in the Hobbesian reception about its affiliation to the natural law or the positive law. According to Norberto Bobbio, these positions are mutually exclusive. In the first place, we will present the textual passages that enable Hobbes to be considered, on the one hand, as a supporter of iusnaturalism in accordance with the paradigmatic readings of Howard Warrender and Norberto Bobbio and, on the other, or of iuspositivism, according to (...) the readings of Simone Goyard- Fabre and Jean Hampton. In the second, we will demonstrate our interpretation that accommodates both points of view, from a historical rescue of the antiphontean antilogy, considering the textual ambivalence as a Hobbesian philosophical character. (shrink)

We can speak of a “natural law model” regarding the origin and the foundation of the State and of political society since Hobbes, as a model in which its production is considered through one or more conventions, that is, through one or more voluntary and intentional acts of individuals interested in leaving the state of nature, to avoid the condition of “war”. In the present work, Hobbes’ ideas on education are set forth, reflected in the Leviathan and its relation with (...) the text of the national law 1420, which had as its fundamental mission to provide the necessary legal framework to train citizens, with the objective to achieve an integration of the heterogeneous population residing in the territory. The education according to the mentioned law and in coincidence with Hobbes, should respond to a state interventionist model. (shrink)

In this work I argue an interpretation on Thomas Hobbes’s thought and its relation with international law. Several scholars argue that Hobbes reject the international law. Nevertheless, I will prove that it is possible to find a legal theory on international law in his works, if it takes to account the historical context and the peculiarities of global order in the Modern Age. In this way it is possible to understand why Carl Schmitt said that Hobbes was one of the (...) founders of Ius Publicum Europaeum, sentence that the German jurist did not prove. My aim is to locate Thomas Hobbes into the History of Legal International Ideas. (shrink)