scholarly journals El derecho de resistencia en Francisco Suárez

Daímon ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 201-208
Author(s):  
Leopoldo José Prieto López

Este trabajo presenta y valora el reciente libro de Pablo Font, El derecho de resistencia civil en Francisco Suárez. Virtualidades actuales, deteniéndose especialmente en los precedentes y contexto del derecho de resistencia, las cuestiones fundamentales de la teoría política de Suárez y en los tres niveles de la doctrina suareciana del derecho de resistencia al tirano: desobediencia, deposición y occisión o tiranicidio. This paper presents and values Pablo Font's recent book, El derecho de resistencia civil en Francisco Suárez. Virtualidades actuales attending especially to the precedents and context of the right of resistance, the fundamental issues of the political theory of Suárez and the three levels of Suárez’s doctrine of the right of resistance to the tyrant: disobedience, deposition and occision or tyrannicide

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cara Nine

Do territorial rights include the right to exclude? This claim is often assumed to be true in territorial rights theory. And if this claim is justified, a state may have a prima facie right to unilaterally exclude aliens from state territory. But is this claim justifiable? I examine the version of territorial rights that has the most compelling story to support the right to exclude: territorial rights as a kind of property right, where ‘territory’ refers to the public and common spaces included in the domain of state jurisdiction. I analyse the work of A. J. Simmons, who develops the political theory of John Locke into one of the most well-articulated and defended theories of territorial rights as a kind of property right. My main argument is that Simmons’ justification for rights of exclusion, which are derived from individual rights of self-government, does not apply to many kinds of public spaces. An upshot of this analysis is that most Lockean-based theories of territorial rights will have a hard time justifying the right to exclude as a prima facie right held by states against aliens.


2010 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie E. Cooper

AbstractHistories of political theory have framed the story of the emergence of sovereign states and sovereign selves as a story about secularization—specifically, a story that equates secularization with self-deification. Thomas Hobbes's investment in modesty and humility demonstrates the need for, and the possibility of, an alternative secularization narrative. Scholars have long insisted that “vainglory” is a key term for the interpretation of Leviathan. But Hobbes's task is not complete once he has discredited vainglory. Hobbes must also envision, and cultivate, contrary virtues—and modesty is one virtue that Hobbes would cultivate. An analysis of Hobbes's attempt to redefine and rehabilitate the virtues of modesty shows that Hobbes warns against the temptation to self-deification. In Leviathan, the political task is not to enthrone humans in sovereign invulnerability, but rather to achieve the right balance between bodily security and consciousness of finitude.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document