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

  

  

  

  

     

In recent years, studies of rural development have focused on the territorial dimension, with state institutions and mechanisms aimed to obtain and organize consensuses on the different policy levels (regional, national, provincial and local) promoting the idea that the territory shall be the area of interaction between public and private agents, as well as the reference point for the exercise of power. The current article seeks to analyze public policies under the premise that these constitute themselves as processes of hegemony construction. Building on contributions from critical geography and other disciplines in the social sciences, we address the emergence of family agriculture (FA) policies as a novel element of rural development in Argentina -and the region. Our insights are drawn from a case study conducted in the Benito Juárez partido (Buenos Aires province). The investigation is based on fieldwork and interviews with key informants. It will be concluded that the economic and/or political inclusion mechanisms put in place set out to produce new subjects consonant with the necessities of hegemonic actors.

Cross-border cooperation seeks to contribute towards the development of cross-border regions, being a practice enacted by specific institutions and entities. These institutions are territorial actors who have an increasingly fundamental role in the effort towards abating regional asymmetries and in territorial decisions themselves. This article focuses on a cross between the hard and soft cross-border cooperation that these institutions promote. A sketch of the cross-border institutional thickness – understood as the grouping of cross-border cooperation structures active on the border, their interactions and the resulting cooperation ambiance – is attempted. Both institutional capital as well as relational capital will be considered in three contexts: national (Iberian Raia), regional (North of Portugal – Galicia) and local (Chaves-Verín). Using quantitative and qualitative empirical data, a first conclusion is surmised: the cross-border institutional thickness in the Iberian Raia is not homogeneous across this border. Overall, it is thin but under construction. The relational aspects are harder to promote and study, and therefore lacking in attention on behalf of the academic community, but also of the actors that invest and promote cross-border cooperation.

  Resumen: El debate actual en relación con la gestación subrogada parece retomar la discusión tradicional sobre la libertad de disponer del propio cuerpo, sus posibilidades y sus límites. En un contexto de avances científicos en materia reproductiva, la exclusiva capacidad de gestación de la mujer parecen situar a ésta en el centro de un debate que discurre entre su consideración como sujeto vulnerable y su capacidad de decisión en relación con su cuerpo. En este marco, el presente trabajo tiene el objetivo de intentar analizar las premisas teóricas que permiten configurar la capacidad de decisión de la mujer en relación con las decisiones que afecten a su cuerpo y a su integridad, definiendo el umbral de autonomía que permite tomar decisiones y, después, aplicándolo a la gestación subrogada para intentar determinar si es posible que una mujer pueda decidir tener hijos para otras personas y en qué condiciones puede hacerlo. Palabras clave: Autonomía, capacidad de decisión de las mujeres, derecho de propiedad, libre disposición sobre el propio cuerpo, gestación subrogada. Abstract: The current debate about surrogate motherhood is taking up the traditional discussion about the right to the own body, its possibilities and its limits. The scientific advances about assisted reproduction and women's exclusive ability to have children place the woman at the center of a debate that runs between her consideration as a vulnerable subject and her ability to decide in relation to her own body. In this context, the present paper analyzes the theoretical premises that allow to configure the decision-making ability of women in relation to the decisions that affect their own body and their integrity, defining their threshold of autonomy, applying it to surrogate motherhood and trying to determine if it is possible that a woman decides having children for other people and how she can do it. Keywords: Autonomy, decision-making ability of women, right to property, right to the own body, surrogate motherhood.doi: https://doi.org/10.20318/eunomia.2017.3646

Resumen: La voz “ponderación”, como ocurre con muchas palabras del lenguaje usual, es ambigua, es decir, dicha voz es empleada por distintos hablantes, en distintos contextos, para referirse a distintas cosas. Ponderar puede ser entendido en algunos contextos como la acción de sopesar intereses o relaciones costo-beneficio, mientras que en otros contextos se la entiende como una estructura de interpretación de normas con carácter de principio. Es esta última acepción la que será abordada en el presente artículo. La ponderación se define como una estructura metodológica empleada para justificar una relación de prioridad condicionada entre normas con carácter de principio, esto es, normas cuyo mandato de deber ser es factible de ser cumplido en grados. Su aplicación siempre está enmarcada dentro de un caso concreto en el cual dos o más principios jurídicos entran en conflicto respecto a cuál de ellos es el que ha de ser aplicado para resolver la problemática concreta. Al ser únicamente una estructura metodológica y no un criterio material, la ponderación se limita a poner en relación los argumentos en favor y en contra de la aplicación de los principios en conflicto al caso concreto, mientras que el contenido y valor material de dichos argumentos no son aportados por la estructura de la ponderación, sino que se derivan de las circunstancias fácticas y jurídicas de cada caso. La ponderación se compone de cuatro etapas argumentativas: la ley de ponderación, la fórmula del peso, la ley de colisión y las cargas de argumentación (o prioridades prima facie). Palabras clave: Ponderación, argumentación jurídica, teoría de los principios, derechos fundamentales, interpretación constitucional, principios formales. Abstract: The term “balancing”, as it is the case of many words from the ordinary language, is an ambiguous term, i.e, this term is used by different speakers in different contexts with different meanings. Balancing could be understood in some contexts as the action of weighing interests or cost-benefits relationships, in some other contexts balancing is understood as a interpretative structure of legal principles. On this last meaning will turn the following considerations. The balancing is a methodological structure applied to justify conditional priority relations between colliding legal principles, i.e. norms whose legal command can be fulfil in grades. Applying balancing always depends on the circumstances of a case in which two or more legal principles are in conflict about which of them should be the suitable criteria to be used to solve the specific problematic of the case. The balancing must be understood just as an interpretative structure and not as a material criteria, since it is limited to put in a comparative relationship the arguments for and against the use of each the colliding legal principles involved in the case; the content and material value of these arguments are not given by the structure of the balancing but from the factual and legal circumstances of each case. The balancing consists of four argumentative stages: the law of balancing, the weight formula, the law of competing principles and the burden of argumentation (or prima facie priorities). Keywords: Balancing, legal argumentation, theory of principles, constitutional rights, constitutional interpretation, formal principles.doi: https://doi.org/10.20318/eunomia.2017.3653  

Resumen: Aunque la idea de ‘tecnocracia’ tiene raíces antiguas, su proyección en la cultura jurídica y política contemporánea posee rasgos específicos. En el marco de lo que suele conocerse como la sociedad de la información o el conocimiento, el ideal del gobierno de los expertos, es decir, de las personas más capacitadas para descubrir las soluciones “correctas”, alimenta las tensiones antiformalistas que afloran tanto en el derecho público como en el privado. Nos enfrentamos a una profunda mutación en el tipo de expectativas que juristas y legos proyectan sobre el fenómeno jurídico. En esta entrada se recogen algunos casos paradigmáticos de la evolución tecnocrática que está teniendo lugar en la cultura jurídica contemporánea, como son el debate sobre las experiencias de nueva gobernanza en el ámbito de la Unión europea (UE) y las tendencias cada vez más evidentes en el derecho mercantil transnacional, donde la eficiencia tiende a ser considerada como uno de los contenidos básicos del imperio de la ley. Palabras clave: Tecnocracia, Cultura jurídica, Filosofía de la técnica, New Governance, Soft law. Abstract: Despite its roots in classical philosophy, the idea of ‘technocracy’ has an increasing significance in contemporary legal and political culture. In the context of what is usually described as the information or knowledge society, the ideal of government by experts, who possess the relevant expertise to make the “best” choices, tends to be associated with the anti-formalistic trends that are becoming prevalent in public and private law. We are witnessing a deep transformation in the expectations that jurists and lay-people have in approaching the legal realm. This entry gathers some paradigmatic examples of the technocratic evolution of contemporary legal culture, as the new governance experiences in the European Union (EU) and the development of innovative patterns of transnational commercial law, in which efficiency is usually taken as one of the defining features of the rule of law.Keywords: Technocracy, Legal culture, Philosophy of technics, New-Governance, Soft law.doi: https://doi.org/10.20318/eunomia.2017.3647