Sistema Regional de Información
en línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina,
el Caribe, España y Portugal

Despite the vast scientific production on the subject, the notion of fundamental rights is still controversial and problematic. The a. reviews some of the main positions of the current Italian legal-philosophical debate on fundamental rights. In the first part, two very different universalistic positions are examined: the formal theory of law of Luigi Ferrajoli, of which the author shows the contradictions with respect to the premises of a value-free approach; and the ≪substantive≫ theory of law of Francesco Viola, who, claiming the double nature of fundamental rights – as legal rights and as moral rights – presupposes that rights are positivized and therefore concretized in the processes of interpretation and application of law. In the second part, the a. analyses critically two different particularistic approaches to rights: Luca Baccelli, recognizing the historical and cultural connotation of rights, finds their genesis in particular historical circumstances; while Gianluigi Palombella binds fundamental rights to their contingent institutional function. In the conclusion, the a. supports the thesis of the universality of rights as an encounter between universal and particular, developed through a multicultural dialogue that enhances differences in a broader logic.

The paper aims to support a view of human rights as essentially characterized by a basic content and in this sense focuses on the notion of basic rights. The key features associated with the notion of human rights – moral embedding and universality – should lead to regard human rights as essentially basic rights. The analysis will (i) argue for a notion of ‘basicness’ that is different from the notion occurring both within the so-called minimalist theories and the one worked out by Henry Shue; (ii) address the link between the idea of basic rights and the doctrine of the minimum core/content and (iii) criticize a deviation from the desirable path, which lies in shifting from the notion of minimum core of rights to the notion of core rights.

The aim of the article is to discuss Viola’s paper on The Future of Law in which he offers an alternative to legal positivism. In the opinion of the author, Viola’s position, which can be characterized as natural law constitutionalism, presents some analogies with postpositivism, but also some significant differences.

Assuming Juan Carlos Bayon’s thesis that the so-called ‘deep conventionalism’ is the minimum content of legal positivism, this paper argues that positivism cannot be valid, even under this ‘thin’ conception, due to the difficulties of maintaning a strong difference between correction and convention within moral constructivism, which underlies the legal theory of neoconstitutionalism.

The aim of this article is just to examine some res novae in contemporary law in order to test their potentialities and to identify bias from which the legal theory must be set free. The attention concerns human rights, the process of constitutionalization and internationalization of law, the primacy of human person and, therefore, of adjudication, legal pluralism and the evolution of the concept of legal system. What keeps together all these res novae is the relevance of practical reason in the field of legal theory

   

   

The main challenge that Law will have to face in the near future is the defense of human being against the uncontrolled power of technology in different spheres: ecology versus the becoming of a new geological age: the Anthropocene; the finances, versus speculation and taxes fraud; biolaw, versus the transhumanist challenge; the rights to privacy and no manipulation versus GAF( Google, Amazon, Facebook).