Athena – Critical Inquiries in Law, Philosophy and Globalization: Announcements <p><strong>Athena <span class="foot-title">–</span> Critical Inquiries in Law, Philosophy and Globalization – ISSN <span class="foot-title">2724-6299</span></strong> is an open access and double blind peer-review scholarly journal that sets out to analyse the problems relating to the legal, political, and social changes attendant on globalization, proposing to provide these problems with theoretical answers. It is published by the CIRSFID- AI.</p> en-US Sat, 22 Oct 2022 11:40:02 +0200 OJS 60 CALL FOR ABSTRACTS - VOL. 3 (2023), N. 2 <p><strong>New order or world disorder?</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The current international situation raises many questions about the future and the forms of globalisation, conceived as a regime involving a global spatial fix of capital as a reaction against the crisis of accumulation of the Fordist regime and labour struggles in the core States of the capitalist system.</p> <p>After the fall of the Berlin wall, a unipolar world dominated by American hegemony emerged, and the process of globalisation was defined by the creation of a global market surrounded by capitalism without barriers. However, despite the exportation of capital in the global south, the delocalisation of production and the integration of China into the World-system, the above-mentioned crisis was not resolved: indeed, this process did not prevent, in the long run, the crisis of American hegemony and the emergence of other powers.</p> <p>In this scenario, three criticalities have shaped new forms of globalisation, which have accelerated the ongoing process and exacerbated the divergences in the multi-polar world.</p> <p>First, the recent pandemic has accentuated the North-South differences and inequalities between countries that are able to cope with the infections and those that lack the resources to cope with the spread of the pandemic.</p> <p>Second, climatic crises are marked by a conflict that is currently not overcome between "developed" and "underdeveloped" countries, where the latter claim the right to reach the level of development of the former, while not limiting energy consumption corresponding to the level of development they aspire to achieve.</p> <p>Third, the supply chain disruptions (which had already an impact on global growth and inflation) are further aggravated&nbsp;by the war of aggression against Ukraine by the Russian Confederation, which interacts with the previous criticalities. This war is not just the invasion of a sovereign country by another that claims "imperial" expansion. The causes of this war are complex and may be seen in many ways. In this respect, it can be interpreted not only as aggression by Russia, but also as a war between Russia and NATO (via Ukraine as a proxy) and, third, as a “war” of the US against the EU economic system, centred on Germany.</p> <p>As a consequence, analysts have been focusing on the different and numerous causes that have led to this war.&nbsp;The debate first centred on the "historical reasons" at the origin of the invasion, focusing on the founding moment of "Russian civilisation", identified in the conversion to the Orthodox faith of Kievan Rus' in 988.</p> <p>The debate can be extended to two other major issues: a) the (presumed) threat to Russia's security represented by NATO's territorial extension and b) the Kremlin's violations of international law.</p> <p>A Eurocentric perspective has proposed to read the ongoing conflict as a "clash of civilisations". In fact, the opposition occurs, on the one side, between the "collective West" – so-called in the manuals compiled by the Kremlin for state and political media – represented by the coalition of Western liberal democracies, NATO and the European Union (the alliances with other autocracies is always disregarded in this stream of interpretation), and, on the other side, an empire that claims its role as a great power rejecting and challenging Western hegemony in the name of the values ​​of traditions, of a patriarchal vision of society and of imperial "great spaces” conception.</p> <p>The Russian empire proclaims a decline and a sunset of the West, claims a multipolar world and denounces past (such as colonialism) and present crimes (such as the Gulf wars and neo-colonialism) of the Western world.</p> <p>Another way to read the conflict is through the world-system theory, placing the current escalation in the&nbsp;<em>longue durée</em>&nbsp;and integrating it with the analyses of the different actors at the global and regional levels. In this respect, the rivalry between the US and China and the war which the US is waging through sanctions (many mainstream commentators analyse the current general and all-encompassing ban on the sales of semiconductors as an act of war), in order to strive to keep hegemony and to forbid a multipolar world to emerge,&nbsp;is of course fundamental.&nbsp;Through these lenses, the economic dimension is fundamental and leads to considering the crisis of overaccumulation and the crisis of profitability, further monopolisation, and skyrocketing inequality.</p> <p>Thus, the focus of this war has already gone beyond the reality of the invasion of Ukraine. It is instead the “fatal clash" between the Western world centred on the USA and a multipolar world. It is a conflict in which all the limits of the United Nations are emerging, and the position of the European Union is being redefined.</p> <p>There are many questions that arise in this scenario:</p> <p>- Is there a “sunset” in the West and what is its significance?</p> <p>- What are the transformations of globalisation?</p> <p>- What will be the shape of the further deglobalisation that is yet to come?</p> <p>- What are the features of the new world order?</p> <p>- Or can we only hypothesise a global “disorder”?</p> <p>- What were the violations of international law caused by Russia's war against Ukraine?</p> <p>- What are the implications for international governance and international organisations?</p> <p>-&nbsp;What is the significance of NATO expansion: self-defence of Western powers or a threat to the security of other powers?</p> <p>- The limits of the United Nations: are they unreformable?</p> <p>- What is the role of the European Union and what are its limits?</p> <p>- What is China's position in the new global scenario?</p> <p>- What might be the further development of global capitalism, even in relation to the debate on techno-feudalism?</p> <p>- Is the current conflict a way of addressing the long-lasting crisis of overaccumulation?</p> <p>- How is a disentanglement between the interests of geopolitical actors and global capital possible?</p> <p>All the topics can be addressed with a multidisciplinary approach and from different disciplinary perspectives: e.g., political science, philosophy of law, ethics, political philosophy, international law, public law, political economy, human rights law, and gender studies.</p> <p>Abstracts of no more than 500 words must be sent by&nbsp;<strong>5&nbsp;December</strong>&nbsp;<strong>2022</strong>&nbsp;via e-mail to&nbsp;<a href=""></a>&nbsp;(and in cc&nbsp;<a href=""></a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href=""></a>). Successful authors will be notified by 28 December 2022. Papers must be submitted by 31<sup>st</sup> May. The expected publication of the issue is set for October 2023.</p> <p>Please consider that you may also submit pieces of research that are not strictly related to the Call for Papers' topic, although they must strictly adhere to the Journal's themes and purposes (see our <em>manifesto</em> on the website’s homepage, <a href=""></a>).</p> Sat, 22 Oct 2022 11:40:02 +0200 CALL FOR PAPERS (VOL.2/2022) <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>RELEVANT INFORMATION AND DATES</strong></span></p> <p>Abstracts should not exceed 500 words in length and must be submitted by 31 May 2021 to: (please insert and in cc). Abstracts will first be evaluated by the editorial board who will notify acceptance by 15 June 2021. The full paper must then be submitted by 31 October 2021 for double-blind review; the confirmation of final acceptance will be provided by 31 December 2021. The paper should not be longer than 15000 words and 90000 characters. The complete submission guide can be found under the “Author Guidelines” on the journal's website. For inquiries please contact:</p> <p><strong>TOPIC:&nbsp; GLOBAL JUSTICE: THE CURRENT SITUATION AND THE NEW CHALLENGES</strong></p> <p>This topic refers to the different interpretations of the problem of justice in the international frame, that can be addressed through a plurality of approaches: from the concept of global justice – quite different from that of international justice – and conceived as a global (distributive) justice according to distinction among relationism, non-relationism, pluralist internationalism (M. Risse), to the relationship between international justice and law of peoples (J. Rawls), to the concept of “cognitive justice” of Sousa Santos, to that of justice according to TWAIL (Third World Approaches to International Law), to the interpretation of justice in the frame of a transcivilizational international law (Onuma Yasuaki), or according to the perspective of “capabilities” (A. Sen) etc.</p> <p>The scientific interest in Global Justice includes, but is not limited to, the following topics:</p> <p>- Theories of Global Justice;</p> <p>- Democracy, Sovereignty and Global Institutions</p> <p>- Human Rights and Common Goods</p> <p>- Inequality and Poverty</p> <p>- Migrations, National Borders and Citizenship</p> <p>- Climate Change, Global Environment and Sustainability</p> <p>- Strategies for dealing with Global Crisis</p> <p>- Global Health and Pandemic Challenges</p> <p>- Multicultural and Gender issues</p> <p>- Development, Trade and Economic Growth</p> <p>- War, Peace and International Relations</p> <p>A particular attention is to be paid to the question of Climate Change that is currently at the centre of multiple, and multidisciplinary, studies and research projects. Predominantly interpreted as a technical-scientific problem, and thus as a question of efficient management, containment and control of “nature,” the question of Climate Change should also be seen as an opportunity to call into question the socio-economic, political and (geo)political causes of environmental problems, and namely of our predatory approach to nature, and to relaunch the discussion on Global Justice by addressing in particular its intergenerational and ecological declinations, as well as the ways in which this debate has translated into the adoption of new constitutional norms (e.g. in Ecuador, Bolivia and many other countries) or policies and in the search for “alternative sustainabilities.”</p> <p>All the topics can be addressed with a multidisciplinary approach and from different disciplinary perspectives: e.g. political science, philosophy of law, ethics, political philosophy, international law, political economy, human rights law and gender studies.</p> <p>Please, consider that you may also submit pieces of research not strictly related to the Call for Papers' topic although they have to deal with the Journal's themes.&nbsp;</p> Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:38:20 +0100 SITE UNDER MANTAINANCE Sat, 21 Nov 2020 15:54:12 +0100 Editorial Proposal – “Sovereignty, International Law and Global Constitutionalism” <p>Within the framework of a controversial and reciprocal process of constitutionalization of international legal order and internationalization of constitutional law,<a id="fnref1" class="footnote-ref" href="#fn1"><sup>1</sup></a> one can easily see that two opposed phenomena are in progress: the erosion of sovereignty and the rising of different forms of nationalism.</p><p>Since long time and namely with reference to the international field, sovereignty has irretrievably developed from an exclusive monopoly of the State to a broadly shared practice, exercised by a plurality of actors in different places, not only at national but also at sub-national and trans-national level. If State is now considered as a “Global State”,<a id="fnref2" class="footnote-ref" href="#fn2"><sup>2</sup></a> it has even ceased to be conceptualized and represented as the entitled subject of the sovereignty (here referred as the power of the State to enact law and exercise security and protection on its own territory), but has been developed into a valuable and “measurable” entity in relation to its own capacity and resources (as for the case of the economic development) and also in relation to risks it can produce and for which an immunization must be done.<a id="fnref3" class="footnote-ref" href="#fn3"><sup>3</sup></a></p><p>Aside of the different attempts to give again to sovereignty a central role in International legal order (for example, the rising of different forms of nationalism), two particular aspects are highlighted in this reconceptualization of sovereignty: the <em>humanitarian turn</em> of the International Community and the <em>rising and legitimacy of new actors</em> in the International legal order.</p><p>As the result of a long, dramatic and discussed journey, international politics have now reached the <em>humanitarian turn</em>, which has reconceptualised sovereignty as a form of responsibility for the State, and has turned into the broadly accepted concept of “Responsibility to Protect”, posing also problems with the notion of “humanitarian intervention”. Indeed, this new concept allows to keep together the ambiguous dilemmas and effects stressing the exercise of the global governance; at the same time, a necessary containment of the sovereignty is derived and accepted.</p><p>The complexity and plenty of sources, by which the ideological, moral and doctrinal architecture is fed and which lays under the humanitarian declination of international politics, are enough for underlining the plurality of upcoming questions in the constant configuration of the ideal space, which is so far come up beside, confused and fronted by the realist space of international politics.</p><p>From the reflections on moral and legal fundaments of Spanish <em>Conquista</em> of the Americas at the beginning of XVI<sup>th</sup> century, passing through the reasons of antislavery movement in XVII<sup>th</sup> and XVIII<sup>th</sup> century, the philanthropic colonial projects of XIX<sup>th</sup> century and the dramatically known crisis of XX<sup>th</sup> and XXI<sup>st</sup> century having a humanitarian (as for the cases of Biafra, Pakistan, Cambodia, Ethiopia and Rwanda) and political character (as for the cases of Kuwait, Kosovo, the Arab Springs and Lybia), the new geometry of the relations among International law, sovereignty and human rights is qualifying the humanitarian space, even relying on the crucial and narrative contribution of a plurality of actors of global civil society.<a id="fnref4" class="footnote-ref" href="#fn4"><sup>4</sup></a></p><p>Indeed, in this context rules and language of human rights, although weakened by several failures and well-known shortcomings, find again a renovate moral and political worth for becoming the fundament of legitimacy on the basis of which traditional international principles on the use of force are dutifully reconceived, and on which the sovereignty of States is now measured again, controlled, “invaded” and contained.<a id="fnref5" class="footnote-ref" href="#fn5"><sup>5</sup></a></p><p>Aside of this form of erosion of sovereignty, International legal order is assisting to the <em>advancement of other actors</em>, namely non-state actors and indigenous people. As with respect of non-state actors, they are increasingly involved into international decision-making processes, since they are considered as bearers of different public interests to be taken into account and developed into rules by international institutions.<a id="fnref6" class="footnote-ref" href="#fn6"><sup>6</sup></a> Although this participation is highly considered at the international level as a new form of “supranational” or “shareholder democracy”,<a id="fnref7" class="footnote-ref" href="#fn7"><sup>7</sup></a> non-state actors are only formally accepted, but substantially are taken out of the deciding phase.</p><p>Together with non-state actors, indigenous people had been recently considered as new legitimate subjects and had been granted with legitimacy to participate in the discussing phase of international decision-making processes (see UNGA res. 71/231). The mere fact to be considered as a minority both at national and international level has step forward to consideration of legitimacy outside the principle of self-determination, which can be only granted to people subject to colonial, foreign or racial domination. As for non-state actors, this subject is still in search for a full legitimacy in international processes.</p><p>These new actors are putting the traditional decision-making processes into crisis, and new forms of institutional dialogue are on study. As an example, one can cite the legal and political process of creating a Global Parliament, as advanced by the European Union.</p><p>As a matter of discussion, the two sides of erosion of sovereignty (the humanitarian turn and the advancement of new actors) are putting the international legal order under new lights, i.e. those of the modern thought of Global Constitutionalism. On one side, the traditional pillar of sovereignty is facing a new conceptualization of its limits, both on legal and political sides, and is leaving room to the progressive construction of a Global Community supported by fundamental values, considered as the pillars of a new form of Rule of Law. On the other side, there is an increasing demand for a new conceptualization of international politics, involving both more consideration of the principle of human dignity<a id="fnref8" class="footnote-ref" href="#fn8"><sup>8</sup></a> and more participation in decision-making processes, for the purposes of commonly constitutionalize the International Community.</p><p>These points can be considered the starting ones for discussing on this process of constitutionalization of International law. Moreover, there are different questions to be solved (despite more others can be posed):</p><ul><li><p>Is the erosion of sovereignty still conceivable in times of incumbent nationalisms?</p></li><li><p>What kind of global patterns are going in the direction of putting fundaments for a Global constitutionalism?</p></li><li><p>What institutions must be involved in this process?</p></li><li><p>What forms of legitimacy must be accorded to the different actors of Global constitutional order?</p></li><li><p>What kind of rights and duties must be accorded?</p></li></ul><div class="footnotes"><hr /><ol><li id="fn1"><p>Brun-Otto Bryde, <em>Constitutional Law in “old” and “new” Law and Development</em>, in <em>Law and Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America</em>, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2008, pp. 10-15.<a class="footnote-back" href="#fnref1">↩</a></p></li><li id="fn2"><p>Ricciardi, <em>From Modern to Global State. History and Transformation of a Concept</em>, in <em>Scienza &amp; Politica</em>, vol. XXV, no. 48, 2013, pp. 75-93.<a class="footnote-back" href="#fnref2">↩</a></p></li><li id="fn3"><p>Duffield, <em>Social Reconstruction and the Radicalization of Development: Aid as a Relation of Global Liberal Governance</em>, in <em>Development and Change</em>, Vol. 33, no. 5, 2002, pp. 1049-71; Simpson, <em>‘Doing development’: the gap year, volunteer‐tourists and a popular practice of development</em>, in <em>Journal of International Development</em>, vol. 16, no. 5, 2004, pp. 681-92.<a class="footnote-back" href="#fnref3">↩</a></p></li><li id="fn4"><p>Gozzi, <em>Umano, non umano. Intervento umanitario, colonialismo, «primavere arabe»</em>, Bologna, 2015; Salvatici, <em>Nel nome degli altri. Storia dell’intervento umanitario</em>, Bologna, 2015; Scuccimarra, <em>Proteggere l’Umanità. Sovranità e diritti umani nell’epoca globale</em>, Bologna, 2016<a class="footnote-back" href="#fnref4">↩</a></p></li><li id="fn5"><p>Gozzi, <em>Umano, non umano</em> cit.; Scuccimarra, <em>Proteggere l’Umanità</em> cit.<a class="footnote-back" href="#fnref5">↩</a></p></li><li id="fn6"><p>Higgins, <em>Problems and Process. International law and How we Use it</em>, Oxford, 1994.<a class="footnote-back" href="#fnref6">↩</a></p></li><li id="fn7"><p>Singer-Ron, <em>Models of shareholder democracy: A transnational approach</em>, in <em>Global Constitutionalism</em>, vol. 7, no. 3, 2018, pp. 422-446.<a class="footnote-back" href="#fnref7">↩</a></p></li><li id="fn8"><p>Cançado Trindade, <em>International law for Humankind. Towards a new Jus Gentium</em>, The Hague, 2013 (II).<a class="footnote-back" href="#fnref8">↩</a></p></li></ol></div> Fri, 05 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0200