Archivi categoria: Politica

State, sovereignty, law and economics
in the era of globalization

 

 

 

Taken from my lectures as a Teaching Fellow in International Law, these reflections highlight how State sovereignty and International Law are profoundly influenced by globalization, economic integration and digital technologies, raising fundamental questions about global governance, State autonomy and the adaptation of legal structures to new economic and technological realities.

 

Part V

Sovereignty’s contexts

 

The territorial dimension characterizes and shapes the exercise of national sovereignty, outlining its foundational principles, strategies, and actions. It establishes the contexts in which sovereignty is manifested, implemented, or denied, in relation to the territorial realms of other nations. This dynamic of inclusion and exclusion, traditionally depicted through the dichotomy of “inside” versus “outside” (“in” versus “out”), emerges as the central issue. Here, “in” represents the activation of jurisprudence while “out” symbolizes the deactivation of economic dynamics, a suspension of State supremacy in relation to that similarly exercised by another State. However, this switching state (“on/off”) presents itself as almost a given mechanic, theoretically obvious but sometimes complex in practice, with reference to specific territorial areas delineated by borders. Conversely, in the homogenizing context of globalization: 1) the perception of limit, boundary, and territorial demarcation typical of the nation-State fades away, ceasing to be a reference point; 2) the conception of space expands, encompassing the entire planet and its surface. As a result, the world globe loses the distinctive colours of nations, fading under the visual effect created by the electronic whirlwind. The uniform non-colour of the market prevails, dominating with its monochromatic financial tone, and with the dissolution of territoriality as the organizing principle of the economy, it becomes unnatural for economic activities conducted on a global scale to depend on the nation-State framework. States, with increasingly indistinct borders, find themselves in a paradoxical condition: though not openly acknowledging it, they realize they are too small and inadequate for handling global phenomena, yet at the same time too large and sometimes not suitable for addressing local issues.


Economic power, by its nature and generally, appears indifferent to the space defined by political power: the former aspires to an unlimited spatial conception, while the latter is based on the premise of a limited space within which to exert influence. This does not imply that economic development should occur in a rule-free context, but rather that it can be facilitated by supranational institutions, which promote expansion beyond traditional national borders. The legal norm, the expression of a will impervious to conflict or competition, manifests the so-called “dominion power” of the State over the territory and the tangible. The relocation of a significant portion of economic relationships into an “a-spatial domain” de facto erodes the authority of national States and limits their territorial legal capacity. This phenomenon effectively establishes the right to choose one’s own legal system. The absence of universally recognized principles lays the groundwork for the governance of globalization actors: subjects operating in abstract relations from territorial contexts, on free paths, and without tangible physicality, within spaceless networks. This “requires a new law of spaces,” a blend of interstate, abstract, and artificial normativity. This, closely allied with technical and economic artificiality, implemented through interstate agreements, capable of adapting to any spatial configuration, represents the only effective method for addressing global issues through law. Here, the focus is on artificial normativity: 1) developed at the State level but expanded and enhanced through interstate agreements; 2) predestined to chase global phenomena and borderless markets, ubiquitous in the network; 3) aimed at unleashing an action potential equivalent to the breadth of global exchanges and mediating between territoriality and spatiality on a legal plane. In this context, “what predominates are not international conventions of uniform law”; rather, “the predominant element is the international circulation of standardized contractual models,” whose function as flexible and meta-national instruments is to consolidate the unity of law within the global market’s entirety.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

Utopia di Thomas More

L’isola che non c’è

 

 

 

Utopia, pubblicata nel 1516 da Thomas More, è un’opera che non solo ha introdotto un nuovo genere letterario, quello della letteratura utopica, ma ha anche offerto uno spaccato profondo delle tensioni politiche e filosofiche del Cinquecento inglese ed europeo. Attraverso la descrizione di un’isola immaginaria e della sua società ideale, More esplora temi di giustizia sociale, organizzazione politica e morale individuale.
L’Autore scrive Utopia nel contesto dell’Inghilterra del XVI secolo, un periodo di grandi cambiamenti e di instabilità politica. L’Europa è attraversata dalle prime ondate di Riforma protestante e dalla dissoluzione dei monopoli ecclesiastici, mentre i regni si trovano a navigare le complesse dinamiche del capitalismo nascente. In questo quadro, More, uomo di legge e Lord Cancelliere sotto Enrico VIII, propone un modello di convivenza che critica tanto le monarchie assolute quanto le tensioni economiche prodotte dall’emergente mercantilismo.
Il libro è diviso in due parti: la prima contiene una critica pungente delle politiche europee dell’epoca, specialmente quelle inglesi, mentre la seconda descrive l’isola di Utopia. Questa divisione riflette la doppia visione di More che, da un lato, denuncia le ingiustizie del suo tempo e, dall’altro, propone un modello alternativo basato su principi di equità e comunanza delle risorse.
Utopia è rappresentata come una società che ha abolito la proprietà privata, dove i beni sono condivisi e l’avidità è vista come un vizio non solo morale ma anche sociale. Il lavoro è obbligatorio per tutti, garantendo che nessuno possa accumulare ricchezze a discapito di altri. More introduce anche un sistema educativo avanzato e inclusivo, mirato al miglioramento morale oltre che intellettuale.
L’opera è ricca di implicazioni filosofiche che non solo delineano una critica sociale, ma invitano anche a un esame delle basi etiche e dei principi su cui si potrebbe costruire una società ideale.
La nozione di bene comune è centrale in Utopia. More immagina una società dove la proprietà privata non esista; tutti i beni sono di proprietà comune e gestiti dallo Stato. Ciò elimina non solo la povertà, ma anche l’invidia e il crimine che, secondo l’Autore, sono spesso prodotti dalla disuguaglianza economica. Questa visione utopica riflette influenze platoniche, in particolare l’idea della proprietà comune tra i guardiani nel dialogo Repubblica. More utilizza questo modello per criticare le ingiustizie del capitalismo nascente, proponendo un’alternativa radicale che oggi potremmo associare al comunismo utopico.


Il lavoro, poi, è obbligatorio per tutti i cittadini e si basa su un’etica che valorizza il contributo individuale al bene comune. Questo non solo assicura che ogni individuo contribuisca alla società, ma promuove anche un senso di solidarietà e cooperazione. L’obbligo di lavorare riduce la dipendenza da servitù o schiavitù, concetti molto presenti nell’Europa del XVI secolo. La visione di More sul lavoro come dovere sociale e fonte di realizzazione individuale anticipa discussioni moderne sull’etica del lavoro e sul suo ruolo nell’autorealizzazione.
L’approccio di More alla legalità è notevolmente progressista. Le leggi sono poche e semplici, progettate per essere facilmente comprensibili da tutti i cittadini, evitando così la corruzione e l’abuso di potere, che spesso accompagnano sistemi legali complessi e arcuati. Inoltre, il sistema giuridico di Utopia è orientato più alla prevenzione del crimine e alla rieducazione del criminale che non al suo semplice castigo. Questa visione riformista della legge come strumento di giustizia sociale riflette le idee dell’Autore sulla moralità applicata alla legislazione, dove le pene severe sono rare e considerate contrarie all’etica della rieducazione.
More, inoltre, propone un modello di tolleranza religiosa che è eccezionale per il suo tempo. L’isola accoglie una varietà di credenze religiose e i conflitti teologici sono risolti attraverso il dialogo e la persuasione piuttosto che la coercizione. Questo pluralismo non solo critica la tendenza dell’Europa coeva di risolvere le differenze religiose attraverso la violenza, ma propone anche un modello di coesistenza pacifica che prefigura le moderne società laiche.
Le proposte di More, pertanto, sebbene idealizzate, fungono da critica alle strutture di potere del suo tempo e offrono spunti ancora rilevanti per le discussioni contemporanee su come costruire società più giuste e equilibrate. Utopia, quindi, non è solo un’opera di critica sociale, ma un manifesto filosofico che interroga i fondamenti stessi della società umana. Sebbene l’isola di Utopia possa apparire come un’ideale irraggiungibile, le questioni che solleva sono di straordinaria attualità. L’opera invita a un esame critico delle strutture di potere e delle disuguaglianze, mostrando come la letteratura possa fungere da catalizzatore per il cambiamento sociale e culturale. La visione di More non offre solo una fuga dall’iniquità, ma una mappa per una rifondazione della società basata su principi di equità e giustizia condivisa.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

State, sovereignty, law and economics
in the era of globalization

 

 

 

Taken from my lectures as a Teaching Fellow in International Law, these reflections highlight how State sovereignty and International Law are profoundly influenced by globalization, economic integration and digital technologies, raising fundamental questions about global governance, State autonomy and the adaptation of legal structures to new economic and technological realities.

 

Part IV

Hegel’s political legacy

 

The titanic struggle between the Lord and the Servant, interpreted through the Marxist lens, highlights the parallel between the feudal lord and the capitalist master. Just as the feudal lord appropriates the products of the Servant’s labour by consuming them directly, the capitalist master strips away the material labour of the worker, converting it into the abstract form of surplus value, the source of his profit. Consequently, the entrepreneur emerges as the adversary of community fabric and its ethical closeness, introducing the cold distance of the abstraction of exchange value.
This analysis overlooks the fact that every trend toward a new feudalism, observable in every projection that privileges the tangible in an era dominated by the abstract, is inherently anachronistic. It presupposes a return to borders in a boundless age, to land in the epoch of space, reinstating demarcations in a universe devoid of constant reference points.
The contemporary reaction to globalization, which inclines towards the recovery of national and community identity, the rediscovery of ethical authenticity devoid of external comparisons, the valorisation of the tangible devoid of commercial exchanges, and of relations devoid of political commitment, reflects a strong political inclination. In this context of total mobilization, the opposition to globalism does not offer a path to emancipation but rather anticipates the birth of new dominators who, exploiting abstraction, leave the current and future Servants to fight for a soil and an existence unalienated: 1) a soil made unproductive not by domination, but by the obsolescence of a thought that seeks legitimacy exclusively in the land; 2) an aspiration to non-alienation that, at the heart of the system, highlights a theft, the alienation of real labour for the gain of capital.
The challenge of globalization cannot be addressed by simply opposing and attempting to reverse positions in the name of values, since even values fit into the logic of the same domain being critiqued. Capitalism is based not so much on the exchange value and the importance of the consumer but on the remuneration of risk and the capacity for entrepreneurial initiative.
The real dynamic between State and market lies in the mutuality of services, a relationship that encompasses the economic, legal, and relational. Contrary to the isolation of the subject theorized by neoclassical economics, the actors in the enterprise are those who enter into a relationship of mutual openness in the market. And on this particular point, the philosophical debate on the relationship between Lord and Servant has much more to explore.
The renewal of the Hegelian conflict between the dominant and the subaltern manifests in the contrast between mobile and globalized individuals and those static, confined to a State or territory. On one side are the Lords who can choose the legal conditions most advantageous to them, on the other are the Servants, anchored to a territory, who therefore suffer increased taxation by impoverished States.
Hegel had already interpreted this conflict as a confrontation between the abstract and the tangible: the Lord, having at his disposal money and language, dispenses with the concreteness of things, substituting them with symbols, just as money does. Instead, the Servant, devoid of substance, possesses only a language and a dialect, incapable of communicating on a universal scale. While the Servants remain anonymous and without public recognition, the Lord, not even needing a surname, is universally recognized.
Money and language emerge from the willingness to risk physical presence, including one’s life. This courage characterizes the entrepreneurial bourgeoisie, admired by Hegel, who celebrates the maritime peoples pioneering in risky trade, such as the Dutch, the English, and the future nation of the United States of America, born from a sea journey. Hegel also admires the Revolution for its capacity to form a state of Servants emancipated from feudal subjection through enterprise rather than arms, introducing intelligence (Geist) into the traditional economy, tied to the land and agriculture. The State thus becomes an expression of this intelligence, overcoming the individualism of particular interests.
Hegel’s reflection on politics and law, filtered through Marxism, identifies the Lord as the master of capital and the Servant as the worker, reduced to a new serf by economic exploitation. However, according to Hegel, emancipation does not occur by replacing the Servant with the Master, a move that historically has generated new Masters, but by breaking the determinism of Marxism through the unpredictability of entrepreneurial initiative. In this perspective, the market reveals itself not as a mere arena of exploitation but as a space where the abstraction of finance can expand the entrepreneurial capacities and social wealth, overcoming the predation of the globalized economy.
Finally, globalization should not be seen merely as a predatory dynamic but rather as the stage on which such a dynamic unfolds, serving as the means through which the predatory action manifests and nourishes itself. The war of techno-finance is not fought through traditional conflicts between States but rather through strategies that exploit States for personal advantages, operations that go beyond traditional territorial boundaries, acting in a parallel cybernetic dimension, without the need for physical movements or advanced armaments.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

DEMOCRACY THROUGH POLITICS
A philosophical and historical inquiry

 

 

The work delves into the intricate relationship between politics, power, and democracy through an integration of political philosophy and the history of democratic thought. The text examines how various models of governance and power have shaped human societies from antiquity to the modern era, with a particular focus on the anthropological and social foundations of politics and the asymmetry of political power. Author investigates political power in relation to military power and the legitimation of political authority through laws, norms, and justice. Tracing a historical trajectory from fifth-century BC Athenian democracy to the challenges faced by democracy in the twentieth century, the book provides critical reflections on how democracy might adapt in response to the demands of a complex and rapidly changing world. The epilogue contemplates the death of Socrates as a symbol of the conflict between political power and moral integrity, linking historical-philosophical themes to the contemporary context.

Clicca qui per acquistare l’eBook

 

 

Lascia una risposta

State, sovereignty, law and economics
in the era of globalization

 

 

Taken from my lectures as a Teaching Fellow in International Law, these reflections highlight how State sovereignty and International Law are profoundly influenced by globalization, economic integration and digital technologies, raising fundamental questions about global governance, State autonomy and the adaptation of legal structures to new economic and technological realities.

 

Part III

Globalization and political power

 

The economic globalization has fundamentally redefined the relationship with State-imposed regulations, turning it fluid, unstable, and continuously evolving. The contraction of space and time, driven by technological progress, culminates in the obliteration of physical distances; an emblematic phenomenon of our digital age. Technology, by erasing geographical boundaries, ushers in a new global order, a boundaryless mosaic where time seems to condense into an ethereal instant and physical reality transforms into a digital domain, dissolving matter into a virtual ether. The current era witnesses the merging of the real and the virtual into a singular, indistinguishable reality that is simultaneously dual-faced, surpassing the traditional dichotomy. This fusion marks the end of the national borders era, propelling us into a homogenized global dimension, where unified space heralds an era of universal time.
In the realm of transnational dynamics, an identity emerges that is hybrid, devoid of territorial roots, challenging conventional social and political categories, transforming the legal framework in response to the demands of a global market. In this context, transnational corporations sketch a new order – a “nomos” – that navigates between the local and the global, between the aspirations of a borderless market and the constraints of nation-States, reflecting the complexity of an interconnected world.

The re-evaluation of the State in the global age reveals a radical transformation: the State, traditionally a pillar of authority, power, and decision-making, confronts the pervasiveness of the global economy and the thinning of its sovereignty. Digital technologies and the Internet rewrite the geopolitical rules, eroding the territorial foundations of State sovereignty and promoting an economy’s de-territorialization that transcends national borders, ushering in an era of interconnected global markets elusive to definite localization.
Against this backdrop, new geometries of power and law emerge, where the virtual reality of the economy and the tangible reality of law intertwine, outlining a landscape where transnational dynamics redefine the relationship between State and market. Economic globalization challenges State supremacy, giving rise to an era of reversals: the market assumes a position of dominance over the State, redefining traditional hierarchies and marking a profound discontinuity between the national dimensions of law and the transnational dimensions of the economy.
In this fluid and dynamic context, transnational corporations emerge as new protagonists, shaping legal and economic spaces according to logics independent of State sovereignty. The transnational economic reality and national law coexist in constant tension, reflecting the complexity of a world where old certainties are questioned, and new forms of dominance and resistance emerge. In such a landscape, a new binary order of dominators and dominated manifests, a dichotomy reflecting the inherent inequalities of the globalization era, where technology and finance rewrite the rules of the game, relegating many to the margins of a system that privileges a few chosen ones.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

State, sovereignty, law and economics
in the era of globalization

 

 

Taken from my lectures as a Teachinig Fellow in International Law at Università degli Studi “Link”, these reflections highlight how State sovereignty and International Law are profoundly influenced by globalization, economic integration and digital technologies, raising fundamental questions about global governance, State autonomy and the adaptation of legal structures to new economic and technological realities.

 

Part II

International Law and economics

 

 

The periodic transformation of Private International Law invariably prompts questions regarding the existence of a public international organization endowed with the authority to promulgate regulations and ensure their adherence and implementation. The safeguarding of interests that transcend those of individual States was addressed through the establishment of the League of Nations and subsequently the United Nations. These entities mandated States to relinquish their right to engage in war and to uphold the fundamental rights delineated in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The concept of sovereign power as a market regulator diminished and ultimately vanished with the emergence of the European Community, which redefined national States from absolute sovereigns to associative sovereigns, thereby rendering the notion of sovereignty fluid and incompatible with rigid definitions.
The ascendancy of the concept of “supranationality” signifies a departure from the traditional notion of sovereignty, the decline of the conventional State model, and a redefinition of power, which is no longer confined to the territory under the sovereignty of individual States. By ceding portions of their power to supranational bodies and institutions, national States adopt a supplementary role, becoming components of a system characterized by layered sovereignties and integral to a global interaction framework where sovereignty is systematically dispersed and subject to the compelled abdication of increasing segments of authority.
Globalization is typified by the progressive self-regulation of the economy, asserting its independence from the State, which assumes an increasingly peripheral role. National sovereignty wanes as economic and social interactions become de-territorialized, accentuating the importance of transnational economic regulation and the centralization of global political decision-making. The market, evolving into an independent legal regime along with the lex mercatoria, reshapes global economic regulations, underscoring the adaptability and flexibility of transnational economic law.
Transnational corporations, unshackled from territorial constraints, represent a novel form of global sovereignty, orchestrating their operations according to the demands of the global market without specific allegiance to any State. This evolution signifies a pivotal shift in the State’s role in favour of market dynamics propelled by transnational enterprises, which emerge as central pillars of the global economy, influencing economies and markets through their investment decisions.
Within the European Union, the interplay between interdependence and the collision of sovereignties is especially salient, given its distinctive historical, cultural, and institutional attributes. European integration epitomizes a vital model for global cooperation. Nonetheless, the global financial crisis, epitomized by the sovereign debt and financial institutions crisis in Europe that commenced in 2008, has significantly impacted this integration process. Economic adversities may foster divergent dynamics: they may necessitate expanded collaboration, yet simultaneously encourage trends towards protectionism, hostility, and the resurgence of nationalism and populism. However, not all conflicts or procedural delays within international or supranational decision-making frameworks yield negative outcomes. In certain instances, the mutual dependency between States and communal entities may even intensify. The Economic and Monetary Union, for example, rests on four principal strategic pillars for the future: 1) harmonization of financial and banking oversight systems; 2) implementation of coordinated or unified strategies for taxation, joint budget management, and public debt mutualization; 3) centralization of directives for economic policy and national structural reforms; 4) introduction of new frameworks and structures to enhance the democratic legitimacy of EU and Eurozone central authorities. Nevertheless, the path toward European integration can be fraught with conflicts, where central powers, although legitimized and shaped by the national interests of dominant nations, tend to constrain national sovereignties, with various implications for community identity. At times, the integration process may appear uncertain, hesitant, and at times inefficient, influenced also by actors representing specific interests, potentially in conflict with collective ones. The ideal objective would be to channel sovereign tensions into a catalyst for augmented cooperation.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

In memoria di Martin Luther King Jr.
nell’anniversario della morte (1968-2024)

 

 

 

Martin Luther King Jr., profeta della nonviolenza e architetto del sogno americano di eguaglianza e giustizia per tutti. Nato in un’era di segregazione, la sua voce si elevò al di sopra del clamore dell’ingiustizia, cantando una melodia di fratellanza che ancora risuona nelle coscienze di coloro che aspirano alla libertà. Con la sua saggezza, eloquenza e impegno incrollabili, ha tracciato il percorso per un futuro dove “i figli di un tempo schiavi e i figli di un tempo proprietari di schiavi saranno in grado di sedersi insieme al tavolo della fratellanza”.
Attraverso la sua leadership nel movimento per i diritti civili, ha dimostrato che il coraggio morale unito alla nonviolenza può cambiare il corso della storia, abbattendo le barriere dell’odio e costruendo ponti verso l’amore e la comprensione. Ogni marcia che ha guidato, ogni discorso che ha pronunciato, ogni lettera che ha scritto dal carcere, erano faro di speranza per milioni, illuminando l’oscurità dell’oppressione e guidando gli Stati Uniti fuori dalle lunghe ombre del razzismo.
“Mi sono arrampicato sulla montagna – disse – e da quella vetta ho intravisto una terra promessa dove la giustizia scorre come un fiume e la rettitudine come un ruscello inesauribile”. Anche se non è entrato con noi in quella terra, il cammino che ha segnato continua a guidarci nella lotta per realizzare il sogno di una comunità globale dove la pace e la giustizia regnino sovrane.
La sua vita è stata spezzata troppo presto, ma il suo spirito e le sue idee vivono, sfidando ogni nuova generazione a prendere il testimone e a portare avanti la marcia per la libertà e l’uguaglianza. La sua eredità non è solo nella memoria di ciò che ha fatto per il suo Paese, ma nel cuore di tutti coloro che continuano a sognare un mondo migliore. Il suo sogno vive. Il suo lavoro continua. La sua speranza rimane immortale nella lotta per la dignità e l’umanità di ogni persona.

 

 

Lascia una risposta

State, sovereignty, law and economics
in the era of globalization

 

 

Taken from my lectures as a Teachinig Fellow in International Law at Università degli Studi “Link”, these reflections highlight how State sovereignty and International Law are profoundly influenced by globalization, economic integration and digital technologies, raising fundamental questions about global governance, State autonomy and the adaptation of legal structures to new economic and technological realities.

 

Part I

The role played by States within the international community

 

In the tapestry of the international arena, the dual concept of “sovereignty and independence” emerges as a foundational dyad, defining the essence and the prerogatives that are inherent to the identity of modern States. These attributes have persisted with remarkable consistency across the centuries, asserting themselves with renewed vigor in the current era of globalization.
From the inception of institutionalized international law with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, each State is recognized as sovereign – acknowledged as supreme and unanswerable to any superior authority – and is endowed with the exclusive jurisdiction over its territory, embodying the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs by other States. Within this framework, the individual is subsumed under the State, considered part of its sovereign domain.
The legal scaffolding of sovereignty in international law highlights the State’s inalienable right over its territory, establishing a singular authority over its inhabitants. This authority encompasses the exclusive right to govern and the capacity to enforce its will through coercive means if necessary, precluding any external encroachments on its autonomy.
Sovereignty, thus, is a principle that delineates identity and difference, straddling the realms of the transcendental and the empirical. It encapsulates the State’s autonomy, its inherent capacity to govern free from external subjugation, and positions the State as both subject and object within the domain of cognizance.
The essence of sovereignty is encapsulated in the ius imperii, the fundamental authority to command and govern, an authority that originates from the State itself and does not owe its legitimacy to any higher power. This original power establishes the geographical bounds of sovereignty, contained within the territorial limits where the State’s authority is exercised.
This construct of sovereignty fosters a relationship of coordination among States, a dynamic interplay replacing the hierarchical notions of subordination and superordination, reflecting a polycentric legal universe where the sovereignty of one State is balanced against that of another.
The evolution of the nation-State is rooted in the principle of sovereignty, an originality that confers upon States the legitimacy to wield authoritative powers independently. This sovereignty is manifested both internally, as the supreme authority over all domiciled entities, and externally, marking the state’s equal standing among its international peers.
The emergence of international and supranational entities has nuanced the concept of sovereignty, catalyzing a redefinition of State powers and their domains of influence. This recalibration acknowledges that certain communal interests are better served beyond the confines of national boundaries.
The acknowledgment and respect for State sovereignty remain pivotal in the ethos of the international community. The principle of effectiveness underscores the State’s presence and authority within the international milieu, predicated on its tangible establishment and dissolution.
The contemporary discourse on sovereignty navigates the tensions between the vertical legitimacy and horizontal legality, reflecting on Hegel’s dialectic of the universal and the particular. This interplay underscores the dual nature of sovereignty as both a transcendental order and a contractual horizontal pact among equals.
The narrative of sovereignty and its evolution reflects a dynamic shift towards recognizing the importance of a public international organization capable of legislating and enforcing global norms. This shift, exemplified by the establishment of the League of Nations and the UN, marks a transition from the traditional paradigms of sovereign power towards a more integrated and cooperative international order.
In conclusion, the dialogue on sovereignty and its transformation in the context of globalization and supranational governance underscores the intricate balance between maintaining State autonomy and embracing the collective governance of shared global challenges. This ongoing evolution reflects the adaptive nature of sovereignty in the face of changing international dynamics, heralding new forms of governance that navigate between the traditional sovereign State and emerging global governance structures.

 

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta