Society is defined as modern and contemporary not for merely temporal reasons alone, but above all because it has a particular corpus that actually lists a series of rights/values that must unequivocally be universal, or rather, they must inevitably concern everyone, protect everyone and apply to everyone. These rights concern the right to/value of life, liberty, dignity, equality, health and welfare, private property, education and the protection of children. It is a group of universal and inalienable rights (and consequent prohibitions) that rise above the individual cultural traditions of any ethnic group or population. Out of such rights, in an almost natural and consequential way, emerge a series of prohibitions. Many of these rights, that were rediscovered and brought back into fashion in the XVIII century in the wake of American and French revolutionary forces, already existed in the great monotheistic religions, in what Muslims call ahl al-Kitab, the people of the Book and in the revealed Books (the Torah, Gospels, Quran, Avesta and Rigveda). Nevertheless, in order for these precepts, from religious beginnings (therefore potentially only acceptable and applicable to believers) to become trans-cultural and even laic, therefore universal, it was necessary to wait for them to undergo a particular historical political process. A process that lasted centuries and focused on the State and especially the evolution of the relationship between the State and Man, with the slow but inexorable transformation of “Sovereign” into “Servant of the State‘ and “subject‘ into “citizen”. These were transformations that led man to recapture his centrality, through the attribution to his singularity of certain rights that characterise him and simultaneously extol his privileges. Here a critical transition occurs, which historically saw the evolution of a state of classes, which had characterised Europe until the Middle Ages, into a State of society, or the Modern State/Absolute State, which had its premonitions in the XV century, but would be in development until the XVIII century. It was a transition that, by shaping the State, the conception of the State, its powers and its prerogatives, would shape a new conception of law, which would also make the transition from general to specific. This transition to the specific – paradoxical only in appearance – would sanction universality, the universality of the value of rights for every single Man.
The Man and the State. From the Status subiectionis to the Citizenship. The Parabola of the Human Rights Achievement”,
BRUNELLI, MICHELE
2012-01-01
Abstract
Society is defined as modern and contemporary not for merely temporal reasons alone, but above all because it has a particular corpus that actually lists a series of rights/values that must unequivocally be universal, or rather, they must inevitably concern everyone, protect everyone and apply to everyone. These rights concern the right to/value of life, liberty, dignity, equality, health and welfare, private property, education and the protection of children. It is a group of universal and inalienable rights (and consequent prohibitions) that rise above the individual cultural traditions of any ethnic group or population. Out of such rights, in an almost natural and consequential way, emerge a series of prohibitions. Many of these rights, that were rediscovered and brought back into fashion in the XVIII century in the wake of American and French revolutionary forces, already existed in the great monotheistic religions, in what Muslims call ahl al-Kitab, the people of the Book and in the revealed Books (the Torah, Gospels, Quran, Avesta and Rigveda). Nevertheless, in order for these precepts, from religious beginnings (therefore potentially only acceptable and applicable to believers) to become trans-cultural and even laic, therefore universal, it was necessary to wait for them to undergo a particular historical political process. A process that lasted centuries and focused on the State and especially the evolution of the relationship between the State and Man, with the slow but inexorable transformation of “Sovereign” into “Servant of the State‘ and “subject‘ into “citizen”. These were transformations that led man to recapture his centrality, through the attribution to his singularity of certain rights that characterise him and simultaneously extol his privileges. Here a critical transition occurs, which historically saw the evolution of a state of classes, which had characterised Europe until the Middle Ages, into a State of society, or the Modern State/Absolute State, which had its premonitions in the XV century, but would be in development until the XVIII century. It was a transition that, by shaping the State, the conception of the State, its powers and its prerogatives, would shape a new conception of law, which would also make the transition from general to specific. This transition to the specific – paradoxical only in appearance – would sanction universality, the universality of the value of rights for every single Man.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
