Search

El concepto del poder y su origen han ocupado un lugar primordial en la historia del pensamiento político, los más dedicados autores han fijado su atención en la idea de poder personal y poder del grupo. Precisamente la idea de poder del grupo se traducirá luego en soberanía popular, cuando el laboratorio de la historia habrá preparado un lugar para la ficción de la concepción burguesa del poder, en cabeza del nuevo concepto de Estado (Staat). El autor revive entonces las nunca desuetas interpretaciones sobre el origen del poder, centrando su atención en los conceptos de imperium e imperator en la tradición del derecho romano público, en la búsqueda de claves interpretativas que ayuden a comprender mejor la concepción moderna del poder político, en aras de establecer si esta es una evolución natural del derecho o simplemente una propuesta política que prevaleció sobre otra. The concept of power and its origin have occupied a prominent place in the history of political thought, the most dedicated authors have focused their attention on the idea of personal power and power of the group. The idea of power of the group have a close relationship with the modern concept of popular sovereignty, when the laboratory of history has prepared a place for that fiction of the bourgeois conception of power, head of the new concept of state (Staat). The author revives old interpretations about the origin of power, focusing on the concepts of imperium and imperator in Roman Public law tradition, looking for interpretations that help us to better understand the modern conception of political power, in order to establish whether this is a natural evolution of public law or simply a political proposal prevailed over another.

O objetivo deste artigo é discutir a contribuição do pensamento eclesiástico medieval tardio para a formação do conceito de soberania. Como o Estado moderno, tal conceito tem uma gênese demorada: é parte de um processo de transformação jurídica e política, do qual resulta um novo mapeamento do poder e das lealdades na Europa. A conformação desse novo sistema de poder tem como contrapartida a constituição de uma nova ordem jurídica. Essa ordem redefine os vínculos de comando e obediência, constituindo unida des políticas como áreas de jurisdição exclusiva e estabelecendo, entre essas unidades, relações de igualdade: nenhuma se reconhece como subordinada a outra. Todas essas questões podem ser entendidas como disputas de jurisdição. Trata-se de saber quem julga e quem pune delitos civis ou violações de normas religiosas. Os poderes de legislar, de mudar a lei, de resolver como últi ma instância e de controlar o uso da violência constituem o que os autores modernos nomearam soberania. Apontar a contribuição dos chamados Papas juristas do século XIII para a formulação de alguns elementos centrais a esta definição é a tarefa a ser leva da a cabo neste estudo. The aim of this article is to discuss the contribution of the late ecclesiastical medieval thought for the construction of the concept of sovereignty. Like the modern state, this concept has a long genesis: it is part of a process of legal and political transformation, which provided a new mapping of power (relations) and loyalties in Europe. The building of this new system of power has the creation of a new legal order as its counter part. Such a new order redefines the bonds of command and obedience, constitutes political units as areas of exclusive jurisdicti on and esta blishes among the se units relations of equality: none of them understands it self as subordinate to another. All the se questions can be understood as disputes over jurisdiction: who judges and punishes civil crimes or violations of religious rules? The powers to legislate, to chan ge the law, to decide as the final instance and to control the use of the force constitute what the modern authors named sovereignty. The objective of this paper is to show the contribution of the so called lawyers popes of the thirteenth century to the development of some key elements of the notion of sovereignty. L'objec tif du présent article est de discuter la contribution de la pensée ecclésiastique du Bas Moyen-Age à la formation du concept de souveraineté. Ainsi que celui d'Etat moderne, ce concept naît d'une longue gestation: il fait partie d'un processus de transformation juridi que et politique qui aboutità une nouvelle distribution, en Europe, du pouvoir et des liens de loyauté. La conformation de ce nouveau système de pouvoir a comme contre-partie la constitution d'un nouvel ordre juridique. Cet ordre vient redéfinir les liens de commandement et d'obéissance, constitue des unités politiques en districts de juridicti on exclusive et établit, entre ces unités, des relations d'éga lité: aucune de ces unités se reconnaît comme subordonnée à une autre. Toutes ces questions peuvent être vues comme des disputes de juridiction. Il s'agit de savoir qui juge et qui punit les délits civils ou les violations des normes religieuses. Le pouvoir de légiférer, de changer la loi, de décider en dernière instance et de contrôler l'usage de la violence constituent ce que les auteurs modernes ont appelé souveraineté. Montrer la contribution des dits papes juristes du XIIIème siècle à la formulation de quelques éléments centraux de cette définition est la tâche que nous nous proposons dans cette étude.

Polazeći od uvida da taorijske rasprave o globalizaciji uglavnom zahvaćaju ili prenaglašavaju njezine pojedine dimenzije, tekst se usredotočuje na one pristupe koji pokušavaju definirati sam poredak globalizacije, ono na čemu ona počiva. Stoga je cjelokupna analiza posvećena koncepciji Antonija Negrija i Michaela Hardta, koja je izazvala posebe odjeke u teorijskim krugovima ne samo zbog Negrijeve autorske osebujnosti nego i zbog toga što je raspravu o globalizaciji pokušala dovesti na sintetičku i radikalnu razinu spoznaje. Njihova se koncepcija temelji na pojmu imperija koji se pred našim očima oblikuje i materijalizira kao poredak globalizacije. Pokazuje se što je imperij, koji su njegovi tradicionalni korijeni, po čemu se on razlikuje od klasičnog imperijalizma, što u njegovu sklopu znače pojmovi suvereniteta, biopolitike, biomoći, legitimnosti, sukoba itd. Razmatra se i pitanje alternative mperijalnom poretku, pri čemu se osobita pozornost poklanja pojmu mnoštva i njegova političkog subjektiviteta., Starting from the insight that theoretical discussions on globalization for the most part include or overstress its particular dimensions, the paper concentrates upon those approaches which attempt at defining the mere order of globalization, i.e. its fundamental presuppositions. Because of this, our whole analysis is being dedicated to the conception by Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt. This conception has evoked special reactions in theoretical circles not only because of Negri's distinctiveness as an author, but also because the conception represents an attempt to bring the discussion on globalization to a synthetic and radical level of insight. The said conception is based on the notion of empire which takes form and materializes itself as a globalization order. It has been shown what the empire is, which are its traditional roots, to what extent it differs from the classical imperialism and what are the meanings of sovreignty, biopolitics, bio–power, legitimity, conflict etc. within its framework. Discussed is also the question of a possible alternative to the imperial order, while special attention is being paid to the notion of mass and its political subjectivity., Ausgehend von der Einsicht, dass theoretische Diskussionen über die Globaisierung einige ihrer Dimensionen hauptsächlich thematisieren oder übermäßig betonen, konzentriert sich der Text auf diejenigen Zugangsweisen, die die Ordnung der Globalisierung schlechtin bzw. ihre wahren Grundlagen zu definieren versuchen. Deswegen wird die gesamte Analyse der Konzeption von Antonio Negri und Michael Hardt gewidmet, die besondere Resonanz in den theoretischen Kreisen hervorrief, und zwar nicht nur wegen Negris Vielseitigkeit als Autor, sondern auch deswegen, weil diese Konzeption die Diskussion über die Globalisierung auf eine synthetische und radikale Erkenntnisebene zurückführen wollte. Ihre Konzeption beruht auf dem Begriff des Imperiums, das sich vor unseren Augen als Globalisierungsordnung gestaltet und materialisiert. Es wird gezeigt, was das Imperium ist, welche seine traditionellen Wurzeln sind, wodurch es sich vom klassischen Imperialismus unterscheidet und was in seinem Rahmen die Begriffe wie Souverenität, Biopolitik, Bio–Macht, Lagitimität, Konflikt usw. bedeuten. Behandelt wird auch die Frage nach der Aternative zur imperialen Ordnung, wobei dem Begriff der Masse und ihrer politischen Subjektivität besondere Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt wird.