Suchergebnisse

Stante il previgente contenuto dell'art. 117 Cost., le regioni a statuto ordinario non erano titolari di alcuna specifica competenza in materie attinenti al diritto del lavoro ad eccezione della formazione professionale. Si assiste successivamente ad un rafforzamento delle istanze regionali che interessano tematiche e settori direttamente riferibili all'area del diritto del lavoro e scatenando interrogativi e dibattiti sull'ammissibilità una differenziazione delle regole su base territoriale. La compattezza storica del diritto del lavoro è messa in discussione come la sua dimensione nazionale, complici rilevanti fenomeni di mutamento istituzionale (in particolare la legge costituzionale 1/99 ma soprattutto la riforma del Titolo V che affida alla competenza concorrente Stato-Regioni la materia "tutela e sicurezza del lavoro"). Invece, una differenziazione delle regole su base territoriale viene sostenuta limitatamente alla gestione di funzioni amministrative, emergendo la preoccupazione di una pericolosa frantumazione territoriale delle regole in termini di competizione al ribasso delle discipline, con inevitabili ricadute sul principio di eguaglianza. Lo stesso legislatore nella riforma del mercato del lavoro abbraccia la logica accentratrice. Le tendenze centrifughe trovano poi un costante avversario nella giurisprudenza della Consulta, stabilmente protesa verso un sostanziale ridimensionamento delle competenze regionali, seppur tramite l'ausilio di argomentazioni e principi non sempre del tutto condivisibili.

This is a multiauthorial review essay of Daniel Ziblatt's Structuring the State: The Formation of Italy and Germany and the Puzzle of Federalism (Princeton: Princeton U Press, 2006) that includes a rebuttal by Ziblatt. Maurizio Cotta notes the persuasiveness & convincibility of the factors singled out by Ziblatt in support of the book's central thesis that the unification of Italy & Prussian Germany in the second half of the 19th century, although begun in both countries with similar regional institutions, ended with a centrist government in the former & a federalist regime in the latter. He questions, however, his attempt to project these factors in developing a more comprehensive theory of the emergence of major nation states in Western Europe, pointing out that the generalization that gives a satisfactory account for Germany & Italy becomes a fallacy when extended to Belgium or the Netherlands. Alfio Mastropaolo objects Ziblatt's implicit premise that federalism is superior to a centrist-unitarian governance & the implied conclusion that Italy would have fared better with a federalist government after its unification. He observes that neither Germany was spared from Nazism by federalism & nor Italy from Fascism by centralism. Mastropaolo points out that Ziblatt overlooks the importance of ideological factors, in particular the strong sentiments favoring a unitarian state in pre-1861 Italy. Gianfranco Poggi notes that the book fails to consider some important cultural & ideological theories of federalism that suggest an alternative explanation of the preference for federalism in Germany but not Italy. In his rebuttal, Ziblatt replies to the objections raised by each interviewer, defending the descriptive-explanatory efficacy of the historical-comparative approach adopted in the book & Charles Ragin's (1987) qualitative-comparative analysis applied in the extension of the generalization to other European states. He flatly rejects Mastropaolo's imputation that the book favors federalism as a superior form of government. Ziblatt also provides a rationale to justify the relevance of comparing the unification experience of Italy & Prussian Germany for contemporary political science. Z. Dubiel

In recent years, claims for autonomy & self-government have conditioned the politics of the so-called multinational democracies. In such democracies, national minorities have obtained one form or another of self-government thanks to various kinds of federal frameworks. Such important political processes have significantly contributed toward the renewed interest in federalism. In particular, a number of scholars have pointed out the need to formulate a specific variety of federalism to meet the needs of national minorities: asymmetric federalism. Thus, unlike scholars such as Carl Friedrich, Daniel Elazar, & Kenneth Wheare, who thought that traditional, symmetrical federal institutions could be used to manage nationalist claims thanks to their intrinsic capability of dealing with unity & diversity, many contemporary political scientists (eg, Alfred Stepan, Alain Gagnon, Ferran Requeio, Michael Burgess, & others) have analyzed the relationship between nationalism & federalism through the concept of asymmetric federalism. Focusing on the different dimensions of the concept & analyzing such a literature -- its results, suggestions, & limits, constitute the aim of this paper. 2 Tables, 45 References. Adapted from the source document.

Modernity is a very complex term, which needs great precision in the definition of its meaning. My point is that Hegel plays a major role in the transformation of modernity in post-Enlightment, but he IS also working with very traditional concepts like Stände, Polizei and so on. This represents an objective limit of his science of government, which cannot be intended as a persistent model for the democratic State-building in the 19th and 20th cen-tury. From a philosophical point of view however his idea of sovereignity and representation could be useful for us today in order to imagine a new idea of political obligation. For doing so, we need an extreme effort to elaborate and achieve a new standard of modernity, perhaps no longer based on the liberal items of individualism, representation and formal constitution. We need to discover a new measure for men and women which can coexist with the growing reality of globalization and human interchange. We can of course call it federalism, as a combination of different measures in private and public life, not only as a rule of law but with the sociological implications put forward for instance by Emile Durkheim and Léon Duguit. An answer could possibly come from a reinterpretation of a political structure that also Hegel had known very well: administration, toward an administrative federalism.

The paper investigates the relationship between the classical liberal tradition & Daniel J. Elazar's neofederalism. In the opinion of this important political scientist of the 20th century, it is federalism that makes possible the protection of individual rights: without the constitutional framework of a pluralist federalism, democracy becomes centralized & can be a road to dictatorship. But the article is also an attempt to underline the limits of Elazar's theory & the inconsistency of his opposition between federal freedom & natural freedom. Moreover, it was not clear to Elazar how calling any form of political organization a "state" is a great obstacle to understanding the phenomenon of federalism & its polycentric order. Adapted from the source document.

This paper discusses Kant's dealing with a fundamental of modern politics, that is concept of sovereignty, as well as its own capacity to reshape political order. Overcoming failures and fallacies that traditionally such a concept has maintained, Kant's political philosophy focuses on the way to reach international peace institutionally. Starting from the discuss of contradiction in sovereignty, the paper points out the analogy between individuals and states; then, elements of Kant's cosmopolitan philosophy will be presented, which is assumed as a theory of a 'world republic'. Kant's project seeks to rewrite the modern state theory, defending individual rights, the rule of law and promoting republicanism, which is, according to him, a theory that shares state's powers and defends representation. Extending such a theory from domestic to the global sphere, Kant's final solution for a World Republic implies a change of paradigm (though not completely espounded), by which modern sovereignty gets reassessed into a blended institutionalized coercion that emphasizes vertical power-sharing, thanks to federalism. Accordingly, this model of supranational world republicanism seeks to realize a cosmopolitan way for the world order. L'articolo discute la relazione della filosofia politica di Kant con un concetto fondamentale della politica moderna, com'è quello di sovranità, così come la sua capacità di rimodellare l'ordine politico. Superando i problemi a cui quel concetto appare legato, la filosofia politica di Kant si concentra sulla modalità di raggiungere l'obiettivo della pace internazionale attraverso le istituzioni. Muovendo da una peculiare contraddizione della sovranità, il lavoro si sposta sull'analisi dell'analogia tra individui e stati, per mettere infine in luce gli elementi che fanno della filosofia politica kantiana una teoria della 'repubblica mondiale'. Tuttavia, la proposta kantiana in favore della repubblica mondiale impone al contempo un cambio di paradigma (per quanto non chiarito nella sua ...

This paper discusses Kant's dealing with a fundamental of modern politics, that is concept of sovereignty, as well as its own capacity to reshape political order. Overcoming failures and fallacies that traditionally such a concept has maintained, Kant's political philosophy focuses on the way to reach international peace institutionally. Starting from the discuss of contradiction in sovereignty, the paper points out the analogy between individuals and states; then, elements of Kant's cosmopolitan philosophy will be presented, which is assumed as a theory of a 'world republic'. Kant's project seeks to rewrite the modern state theory, defending individual rights, the rule of law and promoting republicanism, which is, according to him, a theory that shares state's powers and defends representation. Extending such a theory from domestic to the global sphere, Kant's final solution for a World Republic implies a change of paradigm (though not completely espounded), by which modern sovereignty gets reassessed into a blended institutionalized coercion that emphasizes vertical power-sharing, thanks to federalism. Accordingly, this model of supranational world republicanism seeks to realize a cosmopolitan way for the world order. L'articolo discute la relazione della filosofia politica di Kant con un concetto fondamentale della politica moderna, com'è quello di sovranità, così come la sua capacità di rimodellare l'ordine politico. Superando i problemi a cui quel concetto appare legato, la filosofia politica di Kant si concentra sulla modalità di raggiungere l'obiettivo della pace internazionale attraverso le istituzioni. Muovendo da una peculiare contraddizione della sovranità, il lavoro si sposta sull'analisi dell'analogia tra individui e stati, per mettere infine in luce gli elementi che fanno della filosofia politica kantiana una teoria della 'repubblica mondiale'. Tuttavia, la proposta kantiana in favore della repubblica mondiale impone al contempo un cambio di paradigma (per quanto non chiarito nella sua ...

The principles of pacifism and federalism were central to William Penn's career. His Quaker belief in liberty of conscience and his experience of religious violence in England and Europe committed Penn to peace – within as well as between nations – and inspired both his founding of Pennsylvania and his proposal for a European Parliament. Peace was a fundamental commitment of Penn's not only because of the Quaker peace testimony, but also because he considered it a universal human aspiration. Thus, he always sought to build bridges beyond the Quaker community by appealing to broader, shared values, and he believed that well-designed political institutions that protected fundamental rights could offer a way to channel human energies in constructive, not destructive, directions. Drawing on my forthcoming biography of Penn, I consider some of the significant episodes in his life that prepared him to engage in peace building, whether it be an American society with liberty of conscience at its core or a European Parliament where nations could seek resolution of their disputes against each other.

Attempts to adapt the idea of sovereignty in order to understand the phenomenon of European integration inevitably lead to two opposing theoretical representations: on the one hand, to configure European integration as a process derived from and legitimised by state sovereignty; on the other hand, on the contrary, to consider the European Union as the locus of sovereign legitimation and that this radiates out over the member states. These reconstructions are inadequate: on the one hand, they employ a notion of sovereignty that does not fit the plural organisations of state, and, in particular, the idea of federalism, and, on the other hand, they were unable to valorise the original features of the EU system, its functioning and relations with the member states. The aim is to investigate the prerequisites and limits of the Union's tax power and, to this end, the question of the (preferable) qualification of the Union will be addressed first; then, that of the contents and boundaries of the Union's tax competences in order to verify the ownership of a power to introduce own taxes, having regard to the regulatory function of the Union and the instrumental function for the establishment and functioning of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).

The essay dwells on the important reflection on the dialectic between war and peace that Trentin opens up in parallel with the first and second Gulf Wars, involving the role of the Union as an international actor and the need for European defense before the waning of American hegemony. The author points out how Trentin participates in the life of the European Parliament with the same intellectual setting that led him heretically to argue that "freedom comes first". Political Europe comes first, he argued. The importance of a political Europe in the governance of globalization is, in fact, central to his tenure in the European Parliament and his battle for the approval of the European Constitution project.