The purpose of this paper is to analyze some of the philosophical problems that derived of the Spanish conquest of America in the perspective of the Spanish Dominican Francisco de Vitoria. Specifically this paper will try to prove that Vitoria considered the Indian commonwealths in the New World, or least some of them, as genuine political entities with the same rights to exercise dominium of their lands and goods as their Europeans counterparts. To justify this, it will be necessary (...) to analyzed key concepts in Vitoria’s thought such as dominium, natural law, and the origins of the civil society. Nevertheless, at the end, it will be examined in which ways Vitoria considers Indian commonwealths inferior to the Europeans, in order to justify the Spanish conquista of the New World. (shrink)

Gaëlle Demelemestre | : On présente généralement Francisco de Vitoria, Domingo de Soto et Domingo Bañez comme des auteurs de la Seconde Scolastique, et plus précisément de sa première vague. Il est de ce fait supposé que leurs positions intellectuelles sont suffisamment similaires pour que l’on puisse les traiter ensemble, et qu’elles soient exposées et complétées les unes par les autres. Des personnalités d’une telle envergure peuvent-elles cependant réellement avoir fondu leurs objet et visée propres en une thèse commune qu’elles (...) auraient perpétuée? C’est la question que nous nous poserons en comparant précisément la façon dont ils comprennent les notions de dominium et de ius. | : Francisco de Vitoria, Domingo de Soto and Domingo Bañez are generally presented as authors of the Second Scholastic, and more precisely of his first wave. It is thereby assumed that their intellectual positions are sufficiently similar to be treated together, and exposed and completed the one by the others. However, such personalities could they really have flow together their own object and aim in one same position that they have perpetuated? That’s the question we will ask in comparing precisely their meaning of the notions of dominium and ius. (shrink)

:This essay explores the meaning and normative significance of Locke’s depiction of individuals as proprietors of their own person. I begin by reconsidering the long-standing puzzle concerning Locke’s simultaneous endorsement of divine proprietorship and self-ownership. Befuddlement vanishes, I contend, once we reject concurrent ownership in the same object: while God fully owns our lives, humans are initially sole proprietors of their own person. Locke employs two conceptions of “personhood”: as expressing legal independence vis-à-vis humans and moral accountability vis-à-vis God. Humans (...) own their person in the first sense. As original proprietors of their own person, individuals are entitled to subject themselves to self-chosen authorities, thereby incurring obligations of obedience. But they may not choose just any authority. Divine ownership of human life delimits personal self-ownership by restricting the ways in which humans can dispose of their persons: we cannot possibly consensually subject ourselves to absolute and arbitrary power. Locke’s rights-forfeiture theory for crime makes slavery and despotism nonetheless potentially rightful conditions. I argue that, paradoxically, divine dominium of human life underpins both the impermissibility of voluntary enslavement and the justifiability of penal slavery. My analysis helps explain why modern Lockean theories of self-ownership that reject Locke’s theological premises have adopted an ambiguous stance toward despotic rule. (shrink)

This article intends to argue that Francisco de Vitoria’s conception of the Spanish Conquest of America is based upon notions that stem from various sources of the 14th and 15th Century. One of his most important source is the Opus septipertitum de contractibus, written by the German theologian Conradus Summenhart, whom Vitoria quotes frequently. By comparing both thinkers it can be shown that Vitoria’s basic terminology concerning rights and dominion is in greatly indebted to Summenhart’s account.

Slavery has long stood as a mirror image to the conception of a free person in republican theory. This essay contends that slavery deserves this central status in a theory of freedom, but a more thorough examination of slavery in theory and in practice will reveal additional insights about freedom previously unacknowledged by republicans. Slavery combines imperium and dominium in a way that both destroys freedom today and diminishes opportunities to achieve freedom tomorrow. Dominium and imperium working together (...) are a greater affront to freedom than either working alone. However, an examination of slavery in practice, focusing on the experiences of American slaves, demonstrates that republicanisms’ acknowledged strategies for freedom-seeking, acquiring insulation from domination through law and through norms, do not encompass the full range of options. Slaves also seek freedom through physical absence, economic activity, and culture. The account of slavery and freedom developed here suggests republican accounts of freedom should either give up their focus on thresholds of freedom, or consider the possibility of a plural conception of freedom that extends beyond just freedom as non-domination to include freedom as collective world-making, or both. (shrink)

El presente trabajo es un intento por mostrar que la distinción filosófica entre “ser racional” y “uso de razón” subyace a la posición de Francisco de Vitoria y ofrece el fundamento de legitimidad de su desarrollo político-jurídico. El examen filológico de los textos de las Relectiones y el análisis filosóficoconceptual contextualizado han permitido reconstruir argumentos antropológico-filosóficos, epistemológicos y éticos y explicitar, así, un concepto universal de ser humano que, a su vez, se ha revelado como fundamento de un concepto universal (...) de derecho que concierne a todo ser humano, gracias al cual la propuesta vitoriana alcanzaría aceptación y repercusión global. (shrink)

Les travaux des exégètes français sur la tradition du droit naturel ont été largement ignorés par les scientifiques anglo-saxons jusqu’à une date très récente. Cependant, depuis une vingtaine d’années, la tendance accrue à la juridicisation des droits de la personne a conduit les juristes anglophones à s’interroger sur leur statut, leur réalité et leur signification, questions jusqu’alors assez peu pertinentes dans la tradition de la common law. Il n’est donc pas surprenant d’avoir vu émerger outre-mer des recherches approfondies sur certains (...) concepts-clé des grands interprètes français des idées juridiques, concernant en particulier la théorie thomasienne du droit classique et la thèse selon laquelle le nominalisme occamien est à l’origine de la notion de droit subjectif. Le présent article entend montrer comment la marque française s’est imprimée dans ces nouveaux travaux, à la fois en ouvrant des perspectives qui n’auraient jamais été explorées sans elle, et en nourrissant de ce fait une critique informée et stimulante de ses thèses majeures. (shrink)

The text aims to explore legal and moral aspects of torture. Under the legal aspect the text compares three definitions of torture: UN definition, Brazilian definition, and Spanish definition. In this regard, neither the UN formulation nor the Brazilian formulation are ideal, because the Brazilian legal definition restricts the element of action by the part of the perpetrator of torture, and the UN convention restricts the effect on the victim, given that pain or suffering should be severe. The hypothesis is (...) that a better proposal could be linked to the Spanish Penal Code, which in its art. 174 defines torture as the submission of someone “to conditions or procedures that, due to their nature, duration or other circumstances, involve physical or mental suffering, the suppression or decrease of their faculties of knowledge, discernment or decision, or that otherwise undermine their moral integrity”. Concerning the moral meaning of the repulse to torture it is intended to defend the paradigmatic character of the human right to not be tortured in at least two respects. The first aspect refers to its universalizing vocation in the full sense, since it can be extended to all sentient beings. In this regard, the prohibition of torture goes beyond the dominium of personality to advance in the direction of a domain of suffering not determined by the mask of personality. The second aspect is that the prohibition stands for an absolute right with no exceptions, precisely because of its deeper moral content.Keywords:radical evil, torture, perpetrator. (shrink)

This essay argues that the neo-Roman republican principle of "non-domination," as developed in the recent work of Philip Pettit, cannot serve as a single overarching political ideal, because it responds to only one of two important dimensions of concern about human agency. Through critical engagements with several aspects of Pettit's work, ranging from his philosophical account of freedom as "discursive control" to his appropriation of the distinction between dominium and imperium, the essay argues that the idea of domination, which (...) responds to concerns about "control," needs to be supplemented by the idea of usurpation, which responds to questions about "involvement"; and it shows how attention to both domination and usurpation (and to the interaction between them) can shed light on such phenomena as imperialism, slavery, and democracy. (shrink)

O direito público contemporâneo é pensado a partir do tratamento impessoal dos cidadãos por autoridades e funcionários que agem dentro da moldura jurídica que delimita sua competência e orienta a sua ação ao interesse público. Se a soberania for compreendida a partir do instituto da propriedade (dominium), a relação entre o Estado e o cidadão acaba por espelhar a forma da relação entre senhor e escravo, em que os súditos se encontram submetidos à vontade privada do soberano. Uma tal (...) modalidade patrimonial de Estado mostra-se incompatível com a caracterização do direito público moderno. Neste artigo, identificamos na obra de Jean Bodin o contraste entre, de um lado, o caráter público do exercício da soberania nos regimes legítimos e, de outro, a natureza patrimonial dos regimes despótico e tirânico. No pensamento de Thomas Hobbes, observamos a evolução de uma concepção meramente patrimonial da soberania presente em Elements of law e De cive para uma distinção formal entre a vontade privada e a vontade pública do soberano no Leviathan. Nossa conclusão é que ambos os autores acabam por fornecer, cada um à sua maneira, um aparato conceitual apto para lidar com as características do Estado moderno acima apontadas, cuja repercussão pode ser notada na Filosofia Política dos séculos subsequentes. (shrink)

This article, drawing on Marsilius of Padua's Defensor Pacis, discusses Marsilius's theory of dominium, situating that theory within the context of the debate with Pope John XXII and William of Ockham. The author also reintroduces the long unsettled question of the extent of Marsilius's legal knowledge and training. The article closes by calling for a more sustained investigation of Marsilius's knowledge of Roman law, and of his relation to the poverty controversy and especially Ockham.

In 12th-Century France, political Augustinianism inherited from Gregory and Isidore was based on the absolute supremacy of spiritual power over temporal power in the name of the absolute primacy of grace over fallen nature. This could easily solve the question of what should true dominium be in a society based on Christian values. Just rule was connected with a ruler who was sanctioned by the Church: the king of France, defender of the Pax Dei. The Siege of Germigny shows (...) how cynical realpolitik finds philosophical justification in political Augustinianism. (shrink)

The portrayal of the enslaved woman Fotis in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses exposes the intersection of gender, sexuality, and slavery. Apuleius’ novel allows a window into interactions beyond the relationship of slaveholder and the enslaved person over whom s/he claimed dominium. Centering Fotis in Apuleius’ narrative shows how a discourse of slavery worked: an enslaved woman is made present as a body that may be sexualized and surrounded with fantasies of sex and violence. The sexual episodes of Lucius and Fotis reveal (...) an aesthetic, facilitated by the system of slavery, of consuming bodies, watching bodies consumed by violence, and framing effacement and degradation as romance, an operation of power at the core of chattel slavery. (shrink)

This article addresses the modern concept of sovereignty as a multivocal and conflictual semantic field, arguing for the necessity to trace its genealogy based on the structural tensions that haunt its logical framework – as well as its representations – rather than on a linear historiographic reconstruction. In particular, the scrutiny I propose aims to examine a series of exchanges that have been characterizing this concept since the beginning: the global and the European, the maritime and the territorial, the colony (...) and the state, the imperial and the proprietary. The problematic balance between ‘imperium’ and ‘dominium’ is indeed assumed here as the turning point of the rise of a sovereign power that appears to be originally rooted in the very production and governance of the global space, thus giving up all possible Eurocentric narratives of modernity. To illustrate my argument, I focus on the frontispieces to three of Thomas Hobbes’s most important books, that is, his translation of Thucydides’ Peloponnesian Wars, De Cive and Leviathan. A thorough analysis of these images enables us to understand how these lines of force traverse the very heart of modern European political concepts, along with the mirroring effects that constantly bounce their normative construction of subjectivity back and forth from the periphery to the centre and, ultimately, from the market to the state. (shrink)

This article addresses the modern concept of sovereignty as a multivocal and conflictual semantic field, arguing for the necessity to trace its genealogy based on the structural tensions that haunt its logical framework – as well as its representations – rather than on a linear historiographic reconstruction. In particular, the scrutiny I propose aims to examine a series of exchanges that have been characterizing this concept since the beginning: the global and the European, the maritime and the territorial, the colony (...) and the state, the imperial and the proprietary. The problematic balance between ‘imperium’ and ‘dominium’ is indeed assumed here as the turning point of the rise of a sovereign power that appears to be originally rooted in the very production and governance of the global space, thus giving up all possible Eurocentric narratives of modernity. To illustrate my argument, I focus on the frontispieces to three of Thomas Hobbes’s most important books, that is, his translation of Thucydides’ Peloponnesian Wars, De Cive and Leviathan. A thorough analysis of these images enables us to understand how these lines of force traverse the very heart of modern European political concepts, along with the mirroring effects that constantly bounce their normative construction of subjectivity back and forth from the periphery to the centre and, ultimately, from the market to the state. (shrink)

Commercial republicanism is the idea that a properly-structured commercial society can serve the republican end of minimizing the domination of citizens by states (imperium) and of citizens by other citizens (dominium). Much has been written about this idea in the last half-century, including analyses of individual commercial republicans (e.g., Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant) as well as discussions of national traditions of the same (e.g., in America, Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Italy). In this chapter, I review five kinds (...) of arguments that have been historically offered for how commercial society so understood advances the republican ideal of non-domination: first, by simply realizing non-dominating relationships in the marketplace itself (Instantiation); second, by encouraging the growth of a wide middle class that can offer a counterweight to other, dominating classes (Internal Check-and-Balance); third, by increasing the wealth and power of republics vis-à-vis other, dominating states in the international arena (External Check-and-Balance); fourth, by helpfully nurturing bourgeois-civic virtues in republican citizens (Cultivating Virtue); and finally, by transforming dangerous passions into more readily regulable, even socially beneficial material interests (Sublimating Vice). I end the chapter by briefly considering commercial republicanism’s prospects as a continuing research program. (shrink)

This article addresses the modern concept of sovereignty as a multivocal and conflictual semantic field, arguing for the necessity to trace its genealogy based on the structural tensions that haunt its logical framework – as well as its representations – rather than on a linear historiographic reconstruction. In particular, the scrutiny I propose aims to examine a series of exchanges that have been characterizing this concept since the beginning: the global and the European, the maritime and the territorial, the colony (...) and the state, the imperial and the proprietary. The problematic balance between ‘imperium’ and ‘dominium’ is indeed assumed here as the turning point of the rise of a sovereign power that appears to be originally rooted in the very production and governance of the global space, thus giving up all possible Eurocentric narratives of modernity. To illustrate my argument, I focus on the frontispieces to three of Thomas Hobbes’s most important books, that is, his translation of Thucydides’ Peloponnesian Wars, De Cive and Leviathan. A thorough analysis of these images enables us to understand how these lines of force traverse the very heart of modern European political concepts, along with the mirroring effects that constantly bounce their normative construction of subjectivity back and forth from the periphery to the centre and, ultimately, from the market to the state. (shrink)

According to the Thomistic tradition, the Principle of Totality (TPoT) articulates a secondary principle of natural law which guides the exercise of human ownership or dominium over creation. In its general signification, TPoT is a principle of distributive justice determining the right ordering of wholes to their parts. In the medical field it is traditionally understood as entailing an absolute prohibition of bodily mutilation as irrational and immoral, and an imperfect obligation to use the parts of one’s body for (...) the perfection of the bodily whole. TPoT is thus a key element of the system of principles within which an individual exercises her right to life: it helps specify the nature, scope and limits of those actions by which an agent permissibly acts in order to preserve her life. While the Thomistic tradition and the Catholic Church have drawn clear conclusions from the principle regarding, e.g., direct sterilization and non-therapeutic experimentation on human subjects, less attention has been given to the implications of TPoT for non-therapeutic procedures that may positively impact biological functioning or supra-biological goals–that is, for human “enhancement.” We will explore the degree to which TPoT non-univocally guides our use of both artifacts and bodies. We will argue that a careful analysis of these distinct kinds of totalities suggests that the application of TPoT to artifacts and bodies is strongly isomorphic, which is what tempts advocates of the Principle of Autonomy to invalidly infer the absolute dominium of the individual over her body. The inference is invalid because this isomorphism also includes a principle of intrinsic value whose function is to resist the instrumentalization of both artifacts and bodies in some contexts; we are not even related to artifacts as advocates of absolute autonomy believe we are, let alone to our bodies. Rather, the limits of human dominium are determined by the nature and finalities, inherent or acquired, of the objects in question, and it will be argued that articulating these limits raises important, understudied, and fascinating questions about the permissibility of various kinds of human enhancement. (shrink)

Las nociones de dominio y derecho natural durante el siglo XVI las desarrollaron distintamente Vitoriay De la Veracruz. El tránsito se vio influenciado por Sto. Tomás de Aquino, Escoto y cierto nominalismomoderado. En el segundo, el tema de la variabilidad de las potencias racionales, fundamentalmentede la voluntad, era más fuerte que el tema vitoriano de la autoridad por encima de la deliberaciónpersonal y del preconocimiento moral. Lejos de una interpretación fijista y relativista de ley natural, esteautor siguió una vía media (...) apoyándose en el acto prudencial. El axioma que subyace en la argumentaciónes «evitar caer en la servidumbre», es decir, el dominio del obrar humano que compete a la causa intrínsecade la naturaleza racional.This article studies Francisco de Vitoria´s relectio De Indis and Alonso de la Veracruz´s SpeculumConiugiorum relectio proving important differences on either texts. Both authors disert on dominium andnatural rights, but Vitoria recognizes a more important influence of the authority and external causes onmoral acts whereas de la Veracruz gives all the importance to intrinsic principles of human decisions. Aspeargues that these differences are due to two different elements involved on Alonso´s arguments: his directcontact within american indians, while Vitoria never came to America and didn´t experienced the encounter of «the others», and, a more profound philosophical influence from Escoto and moderate nominalist Jean Charlier Gerson. (shrink)

Neste artigo, fundamentado nos principais escritos de Guilherme de Ockham, O. Min. (c. 1285�1347), analisamos sua concepção a respeito das origens dos poderes imperial e secular. Ancorado no versículo paulino omnis potestas a Deo, mas ampliado, sed per homines e, igualmente, nas ideias dos confrades que o antecederam, os quais relacionaram entre si os conceitos proprietas e dominium, com vista a explicar as origens humanas dos mesmos, de um lado, ele rebate tanto a teoria hierocrata quanto a de Marsílio (...) de Pádua, relativas ao tema em exame e, de outro, oferece sua contribuição ao mesmo, mediante a qual, nem o Império nem os Estados estão completamente subordinados à Igreja, nem esta está submissa ao poder terreno, porque, quanto às origens de ambos, a Igreja tem uma procedência divina e os Estados e o Império têm imediatamente uma origem humana e, ainda, porque nas esferas respectivas de atuação, os poderes espiritual e secular independem um do outro. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Giles of Rome on Political AuthorityGraham McAleerDabo tibi regem in furore meo“I will give you a king in my rage” 1It is a commonplace among historians of medieval political theory that two great systems of thought dominate the period. Augustine’s City of God held the field until Thomas Aquinas absorbed Aristotle’s political thought largely culled from the latter’s Politics and Nicomachean Ethics. Aquinas stands as a watershed, a moment (...) when both sources meet and a synthesis is worked out in which Augustine loses ground to Aristotle. Indeed, Augustine’s thought loses such a hold on the political theory of the age that R. A. Markus has spoken of a “comfortable obliviousness” in the minds of theorists subsequent to Aquinas that “a profound cleavage” had been wrought by Thomas in the tradition of Christian political thought. 2 Ptolemy of Lucca and Giles of Rome, both of whom were students of Thomas, are picked out by Markus as typical of those theorists who are oblivious to the definitive break that Aquinas makes with Augustine.Although modern commentators of medieval political theory speak of an Augustinian tradition after Aquinas they are only referring to a series of thinkers who defended papal authority over and above monarchical authority. This tradition is said to be Augustinian because the thinkers defending papal authority, who included Giles, James of Viterbo and Augustinus Triumphus, were members of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine. Nevertheless, these Augustinians are said to have absorbed Thomas’s Aristotelianism: convinced by his argument that since coercive power is intrinsic to political authority and since political authority is natural to the human condition, it must have been the case that coercive power existed in the state of innocence. These Augustinians, [End Page 21] modern scholarship maintains, did not then defend Augustine’s thesis that coercive political authority is unnatural to human society and was only introduced (albeit necessarily) into post-lapsarian society so that the worst excesses of our sinful condition might be controlled. Markus is by no means alone in identifying Giles as a follower of Thomas whose theory of dominium marks a radical break with Augustine. 3 Recently, J. M. Blythe has cited Markus when concurring with him that Giles simply adopts Thomas’s position which, as he puts it, “was to become ubiquitous in late medieval political discourse.” 4Perhaps this consensus has its origin in a most peculiar fact about twentieth-century scholarship on Giles’s political thought: none of it is based on a wide reading of his philosophical and theological corpus. Admittedly, an extensive reading of Giles is a daunting task. The editors-in-chief of the project to provide critical editions of Giles’s works catalogue sixty-seven titles and this vast array of writings match those of the other “greats” of the period in their scope, variety, complexity, and influence. 5 The hope of this essay is to show that a reading of Giles’s Sentences-commentary reveals him to be far more Augustinian than previously acknowledged this century.Although it is well recognized that Giles was one of the most original and influential political theorists of the Middle Ages, the pages dedicated to his political ideas amount to a few pages here and there, and sometimes as little as a few isolated comments, in the standard works on medieval political theory. 6 Moreover, these works unanimously consider only Giles’s explicitly political works. This limitation began with Otto Gierke, who single-handedly demonstrated the depth and richness of medieval political theory. At the beginning of his classic work, Political Theory of the Middle Age, Gierke provides a fifteen-page list of sources. For Thomas’s political thought Gierke directs us not only to Thomas’s explicitly political treatises such as his commentary on Aristotle’s Politics and the opusculum, De regimine principum, but also to the Summa theologiae, Summa contra gentiles, Thomas’s Disputed and Quodlibetal questions, [End Page 22] his exposition of the Psalms, and commentaries on Paul’s Letters as well as his Sentences-commentary. Yet for Giles only his De regimine principum and De potestate ecclesiastica are cited. 7 Gierke’s selection is repeated... (shrink)

Ockham’s theory of natural rights was based on a careful definition of the basic juridical terms dominium and ius utendi, as well as on the idea of human agency and morality. By defining a right as a licit power of action in accordance with right reason (recta ratio), Ockham placed rights firmly in the agent. A right was a subjective power of action. Ockham’s theory of natural rights was influential for later natural rights theories. Its advocates included leading thinkers (...) of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, whose views on the right to life, its relation to the right to property, and the state of nature resembled those ideas already developed by Ockham approximately three hundred years earlier. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Wyclif on RightsStephen E. LaheyIn the study of medieval political philosophy the tendency has been to pay attention to thinkers who appear to have contributed to the birth of the modern. While the value in coming to understand how modern political thought developed is undeniable, this tendency is accompanied by an implicit, perhaps unintentional, devaluation of the study of that which did not contribute as obviously to modernity. In (...) the history of the idea of the natural right scholars have distinguished between the objective and the subjective right, characterizing the subjective right as what lies at the heart of the classically modern and liberal. One could get the impression that the good political philosophers, having hit upon the subjective right, dispensed with talk of the old-fashioned objective right just as people abandoned gaslight when Edison’s lightbulb went on the market. 1 But this is not what happened; not only did objective rights discourse continue into the modern period, but it was not necessarily the idiom solely of religious and political conservatives.Some late medieval philosophers, notably Marsilius of Padua, even came up with progressive and unorthodox political visions while adhering to the objective right. I will show that at least one late medieval political theory founded on the objective right, that of John Wyclif, can be argued to be as innovative in several important aspects as that of any of the better-known fourteenth-century advocates of the subjective right. To do that, I will divide this paper into three parts. In the first, I will explain the difference between objective and subjective theories of the right, making note of what we can reasonably expect from a fourteenth-century political theory in the way of toleration and briefly introducing John Wyclif’s life and works. In the second I will recount Wyclif’s view of ius, or the right, as it appears in his political writings, and in the third I will explain how this concept has a bearing on elements in his political thought that are recognizably unorthodox and even tolerant to modern, liberal eyes. Having [End Page 1] shown how Wyclif’s objective right plays out in his innovative and reformative political scheme, I hope to have helped to dispel the dogma that the only early rights theories worth studying are those that evolved into ones we use.I.a. Objective and Subjective RightsThe explicit distinction between objective and subjective rights is a new one, invented by scholars of the history of political thought to distinguish between the sense of the term ius, or right, as that which is just in accordance with a set body of law, and the sense of ius which refers to a licit power or faculty belonging to an individual in accordance with right reason. 2 The objective right is grounded in Roman law and functioned in medieval legal and political thought as it had in antiquity. Generally, an individual had a ius to act or be acted upon if that action was commensurate with the law. Among the Romans, that law was either Roman law, or it was according to objective natural law; with the introduction of Christian monotheism, the ius was “right” according to God’s law. Tuck notes that the concept of dominium had long been of a piece with objective ius and explains that dominium had usually been seen as a species of objective ius. If someone has just dominium over something, it is because their relation of dominium is “(what is) right,” ius, in accord with justice, iustitia. He argues that when dominium, which he understands to mean “property,” is equated with ius, “right,” the foundation is laid for a possessive (subjective) right. 3 While this is problematic on several counts, not the least of which is the restriction of dominium to the ownership of property, it illustrates the relatedness of the two concepts ius and dominium. 4As juristic sophistication grew in the twelfth century, it became useful to distinguish between ius in re, “right in a thing,” and ius ad rem, “right to a thing.” If someone has a ius in re, they can use the thing and/or exercise dominium... (shrink)

This paper is concerned with the position of a Roman paterfamilias with respect to his family's property in the period of the Republic. Rights over property are in Roman law strictly dominium and not potestas; but to understand the role of a family system in a society one must analyse how its property is managed and passed on.

Sixteenth-century Spanish thought is constitutive of an established, though insufficiently studied, tradition of European political theorizing. As against the politics of Machiavellism, the Spanish tradition argued in favor of an ethical perspective on statecraft. As an introduction to the subject, this article addresses key concepts set forth by the Dominican theologian-jurist Francisco de Vitoria regarding the natural foundations and teleology of the state and its coercive power. Terms such as "natural law", "dominium", and "perfect community" describe the Thomistic basis (...) of his political philosophy and illustrate the moral significance and legitimate basis of political society in early modern Spanish politico-theological thought. El pensamiento español del siglo XVI constituye una tradición establecida de teorización política europea poco estudiada en los círculos académicos angloparlantes. En contraste con el maquiavelismo, la tradición española argumentó a favor de una perspectiva ética en torno al arte de gobernar. Como introducción a dicha temática, se abordan los conceptos clave establecidos por Francisco de Vitoria res-pecto de los fundamentos naturales y la teleología del Estado y su poder coercitivo. Conceptos tales como "ley natural", "dominio" y "comunidad perfecta" describen la base tomista de su filosofía política e ilustran el significado moral y fundamento legítimo de la sociedad política en el pensamiento político-teológico de la época. (shrink)

Focus of this article is Bernard's definitions and ideas surrounding power (potestas). The first section will outline terminology drawing a distinction between Bernard 's use of the terms potestas and auctoritas. Auctoritas is used less frequently by Bernard and is limited to descriptions of eccíesiastical matters; it is not predicated to the functions of a secular ruler whether king or emperor Conversely, potestas has a wide variety of uses and applications including descriptions of the power of God, the secular power (...) and the ecclesiastical power which is defined as potestas ligandi et solvendi. Given its range of meanings and uses, potestas is not a technical term for Bernard. Rather potestas is a biblical term of which the frequency and prevalence in the text of the Vulgate certainly influenced Bernard. Since Bernard uses potestas in both ecclesiastical and secular descriptions, other terms are helpful in drawing distinctions between the two spheres, e.g. ministerium and dominium, which as contrasting terms provide a point of entry into this discussion. (shrink)

Philip Pettit jest jednym z czołowych filozoficznych kodyfikatorów (neo-)republikańskiej koncepcji wolności i rządu, który kieruje się ideałem nie-dominacji (imperium i dominium). Jednocześnie jest autorem wielu ważnych prac z obszaru filozofii nauk społecznych (kwestia wyjaśniania i interpretacji), etyki (konsekwencjalizm), ontologii społecznej (jak istnieją grupy społeczne) oraz filozofii umysłu (jak funkcjonuje podmiot intencjonalny). W świetle krytyk i polemik, jakie pojawiły się ze strony nowej „fali republikańskiej”, by określić tym mianem zwolenników populistycznego republikanizmu (John P. McCormick i inni), którzy oskarżają przedstawicieli wcześniejszej (...) generacji tradycji republikańskiej, takich jak Johh G.A. Pocock, Quentin Skinner, a zwłaszcza właśnie Philip Pettit, o arystokratyczne „odchylenie” (jedynie klasy wyższe i elity korzystają na projekcie depolityzacji republiki) istotne jest wskazanie na znaczenie dla odczytania projektu republikańskiego wypracowanych przez Pettita rozwiązań w ontologii społecznej. Autor stawia tezę, że dopiero uwzględnienie jego stanowiska w ontologii społecznej pozwala na pełne zrozumienie (co nie znaczy, że akceptację) jego propozycji w filozofii politycznej. Struktura artykułu jest następująca: (1) autor przedstawia trzy wymiary ontologii społecznej w ujęciu Pettita; (2) następnie pokazuje ich znaczenie w definiowaniu kategorii dobra wspólnego w kontekście republikańskiej wspólnoty politycznej (model condominium), (3) wskazuje na pewne paradoksy związane z realizacją republikańskiego ideału obywatelskiej kontestacji. Jednocześnie autor zwraca uwagę na ewolucję projektu republikańskiego (pewnych jego aspektów) w zależności od analogicznych ewolucji propozycji (rozwiązań) w ontologii społecznej. (shrink)

This paper approaches the ‘Drexler-Smalley’ debate on nanotechnology from a neglected angle – the common denominator of ‘the frontier’ as a metaphor for scientific exploration. For Bensaude-Vincent, the debate exemplifies the clash of ‘two cultures’ – the ‘artificialist’ and biomimetic’ schools. For us, the portrayal of nanosphere as ‘new frontier’ stymies the prospect of genuine inter-cultural debate on the direction of molecular engineering. Drawing on Brandon, the‘dominium’ impulse of European imperialism is contrasted to the ‘communitas’ tradition of Native America. (...) Proposing a single label – hybridist – for both schools, we juxtapose to this approach the holistic disposition of indigenous North American science. (shrink)

This paper approaches the ‘Drexler-Smalley’ debate on nanotechnology from a neglected angle – the common denominator of ‘the frontier’ as a metaphor for scientific exploration. For Bensaude-Vincent, the debate exemplifies the clash of ‘two cultures’ – the ‘artificialist’ and biomimetic’ schools. For us, the portrayal of nanosphere as ‘new frontier’ stymies the prospect of genuine inter-cultural debate on the direction of molecular engineering. Drawing on Brandon, the‘dominium’ impulse of European imperialism is contrasted to the ‘communitas’ tradition of Native America. (...) Proposing a single label – hybridist – for both schools, we juxtapose to this approach the holistic disposition of indigenous North American science. (shrink)

Ockham é considerado por muitos como o fundador do direito positivo, por tomar ius como uma potestas individual. Ele aprofunda sua teoria no Opus nonaginta dierum, onde rebate frase por frase uma bula do papa João XXII. Nele define o que vem a ser domínio, propriedade, direito de uso, licença de uso, uso de fato, puro uso, direito do foro, direito do céu (ius poli). Com isso, ele está dando fundamentos jurídicos e teológicos ao modo de viver sem propriedade dos (...) frades menores franciscanos. PALAVRAS-CHAVE – Pobreza. Franciscanismo. Domínio. Poder. Direito positivo. Direito. ABSTRACT Ockham is considered by many as the founder of positive right, for taking ius as an individual potestas. He advances his theory in the Opus nonaginta dierum, wherein he confronts sentence after sentence of a pope’s John XXII bula. There he defines what comes to be dominium, property, right of use, license of use, factual use, pure use, law of the forum, law of heaven (ius poli). With such a terminology, he is giving the juridical and theological foundations to the propriety-free way of live of the minor Franciscan friars. KEY WORDS – Poverty. Franciscanism. Dominium. Power. Positiv right. Right. (shrink)

The aim of the article is to analyze the double movement around the legal construct “Señor Natural” that takes place in Las Siete Partidas by Alfonso X, a key concept in the wise King’s political program. On the one hand, the concept of “Señor natural” is reworked and becomes legal, placing the king above any other order; on the other, the obligation regarding the “Señor natural” is established as the best of all “natural obligations”. All this conflates into a new (...) concept of “Señor natural” based on men and the land, which becomes a natural obligation in Partidas, a monarch’s reinforcement to exercise dominium in the totality of the kingdom. (shrink)

The paper describes the state and local parliamentary activity of Marcjan Ścibor Chełmski, one of the most interesting parliamentarians in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the 17th century. The text is based on archival research including the Parliament manuscript diaries, private correspondence describing the debates; published sources: instructions, parliamentary resolutions, memoirs; and studies of the history of parliamentarism, on top of the functioning of the political elite and the circulation of information. M.S. Chełmski came from a family with a strong tradition (...) of public service settled in the Krakow province. He began his career as a parliamentarian by being elected to the Sejm in 1613, and later sat in the Parliaments of: 1616, 1618, 1619, 1620, 1621, 1625, 1626/I, 1626/II, 1629/I, 1629/II, 1631, 1632, 1633, 1634, 1635, 1637/I, 1637/II and 1638. He was one of the MPs who usually had a strong presence in the Chamber of Deputies. During the debates he addressed the issues of noble freedom in the spirit hostile to absolutum dominium, economic issues, procedural issues, and religious freedom. The collected source material confirms Chełmski’s great public activity in Lesser Poland and the evolution of his political stance at the Sejm from an oppositionist during the reign of Sigismund III Vasa to a moderate supporter of the royal court. Sources indicate that Chełmski had a reputation as an esteemed legal expert. He held the dignity of Marshal of the Crown Tribunal. For over 30 years he was one of the most active participants of the local parliament life in the Krakow province. The evolution of Chełmski’s political stance during the reign of Władysław IV Vasa resulted in his nomination for a prestigious office of the Chamberlain of Krakow. (shrink)

This paper discusses a recent book of Maximiliane Kriechbaum, ‘Actio, ius, und dominium in den Rechtslehre des 13-14 Jahrhunderts.’ Kriechbaum maintains, contrary to the generally accepted opinion, that William of Ockham did not present any doctrine of individual subjective rights when he defined the word ius as potestas .She maintains that Ockham was rather arguing in terms of Aristotelian act and potency. The review-article criticizes this view and argues that Ockham often did use the word ius to mean a (...) rightful power, as the term is commonly used in discourse on rights. (shrink)

Dans ce livre, nous explorons la philosophie du marquis de Sade dans ses perspectives, morale, juridique, politique et sociale à travers l' enchantement des sens, du coeur et de l'esprit. Son incantation des abimes existentiels dévoile l'actualité de ses idées dans le monde d'aujourd'hui. Sade fasciné par le roi-philosophe platonicien donne sa propre version situe ce personnage dans le monde moderne. Les héros sadiens semblent se mouvoir dans l'univers de Dom Juan. Il tempère l'optimisme de la Révolution française nous offrant (...) sa propre conception de la mise à mort de Louis XVI. Tributaire sans doute des sophistes, il déconstruit le mythe du contrat social. Enfin, l'optique kaléidoscopique du marquis pour décortiquer les phénomènes du monde donne accès à des interprétations originales de grands événements qui ont marqué l'Histoire (i.e. la psychologie du bourreau des victimes juives) Par ses connaissances approfondies tant des Anciens que des Modernes, Sade concède à ses lecteurs une riche culture sur Dieu, l'individu, le peuple et ses gouvernants ainsi que le tableau de plusieurs formes de l'humanisme qui a traversé la civilisation occidentale. Sans préjugés, il fait la dissection de l'homme et des phénomènes en interférence avec la force des plaisirs qui porte tant l'habit de l'impérium que celui du dominium. (shrink)