Alice Marras

The paper focuses on Harold J. Laski's political philosophy with particular reference to the critique of sovereignty, understood as a concept depending from market economy and politically imperialism, with the aim of preserving a pluralistic and free society. From an historical point of view, Laski pointed out that modern sovereignty was unthinkable in the Middle Ages, an epoch characterized by supranational harmony, and is considered, in the modern age, a progenitor of impalpable barriers that end up parceling the universal. In Laski’s view, sovereignty spreads a false impression of social unity, legitimizing a State-action behind which particular interests are hidden. It is therefore necessary to contrast, primarily in its internal dimension, the protagonism of the modern sovereign State, which represents an absorbing whole that destroys the lively multiplicity of human relations. Secondly, it is necessary to combat the Hegelian paradigm of international law as external State law, in an attempt to build a peaceful society. This implies both a new internal political order, capable of making decisive the plural social formations that compose the State – such as small groups and associations – and a new international organization. Faced with a globalization that seems to divide the world in an increasingly unequal way, and allows identitarian, autonomist and secessionist claims to grow, Laski's reflection today presents itself with a disarming actuality.

KEYWORDS: Harold J. Laski, pluralistic theory of the state, state sovereignty.

The paper focuses on Kelsen's formal interpretation of sovereignty as the core of his Philosophy of International Law and as the most important antidote to the dangerous "Neo-Hegelian" paradigm of State Sovereignty, which-through Treitschke and Lasson's reflections on International Law-, came to us as the dominant paradigm of the western Theory of Law and State. Following the "Neo-Hegelian" conception, the State is a self-sustaining super organism, whose Willen is superior to every thinkable International Law, because the latter is in fact intended as an external State Law. Such an idea, which projects Hobbes' bellum omnium contra omnes on the international level, still constitutes the heart of our International Relations and seems to be particularly relevant in the face of the actual and worrying return of nationalisms, sovereignisms and imperialisms, which threaten the peaceful and democratic structure of the Western World.

Sovereignty is one of the oldest and most discussed concepts in the history of ideas. It deals at the same time with political philosophy, jurisprudence , epistemology and political studies. Its intricacy concerns, on the one hand, the theoretical implications of its meaning; on the other, the practical consequences of its use and, in some cases, abuse. In this paper I will analyze this concept as a possible contemporary myth in the critical position of Hans Kelsen, who builds a new paradigm about sovereignty based on the Pure Theory of Law and is still influential to date. This study is conducted on three scientific suggestions: first, the ambiguity of the concept; second, a reading of Ernst Cassirer's myth of the state and, third, an examination of Lambert Wiesing's phenomenological view. Successively, Kelsen's paradigm is compared to Harold Laski's political philosophy , on the basis that both reach the same outcome: the removal of sovereignty. Could Kelsen's philosophy of law represents even now a credible formal model to achieve enduring international peace?

Hans Kelsen (1881-1973) was the most important jurist of the twentieth century and the founder of the Pure Theory of Law. His theory of International Law is grounded not only in his Neokantian perspective but also in the political thought of Dante Alighieri, sketched through the composition of the De Monarchia in 1317. In 1905 Kelsen wrote, indeed, Die Staatslehre des Dante Alighieri. Kelsen's aim was to clarify Dante's theory of the state. In this work we can grasp the following developments of his legal theory.

La nuova fase della riflessione di Roberto Esposito consegna al lettore un testo denso e complesso che, ricostruendo il rapporto tra politica e negazione, intende imprimere «un primo tassello» (p. 191) verso un suo ripensamento. La mancanza di un confronto con il negativo e il continuo tentativo di rimuoverlo o negarlo ne hanno provocato infatti un violento ritorno, sotto le vesti del totalitarismo prima e della globalizzazione e del terrorismo jiahdista poi. Ciò si deve all’incapacità di «articolare tra loro le diverse grammatiche della negazione» (p. vi) e alla mancanza, nella riflessione politica, di un confronto con la stessa negazione. L'opera traccia la via critica possibile per una «disarticolazione tra negazione e politica», che riconduca «la negazione al suo statuto logico e la politica alla sua valenza affermativa» (p. 191), permettendo così il riaffiorare delle figure affermative della negazione – la Differenza, la Determinazione e l’Opposizione – senza le quali «l’esperienza umana perde di impulso e la vita resta schiacciata sul proprio opposto» (p. 191).

Viene pubblicata col titolo di Lo Stato in Dante una nuova edizione italiana di Die Staatslehre des Dantes Alighieri, opera giovanile del massimo filosofo del diritto del Novecento, Hans Kelsen. Pubblicata per la prima volta nel 1905 nei Wiener Staatswissentschaftliche Studien, quando Kelsen era ancora uno studente di soli ventiquattro anni, era apparsa in prima edizione italiana nel 1974 col titolo di La dottrina dello Stato in Dante (Boni, Bologna).
Novità di questa riproposta sono una presentazione di Pier Giuseppe Monateri, dal titolo Kelsen e Dante: oltre Schmitt? (pp. 7-15), e una Postfazione di Tommaso Edoardo Frosini (pp. 211-215). Permangono invece rispetto alla prima edizione italiana la traduzione di Wilfrido Sangiorgi e il notevole saggio di Vittorio Frosini, Kelsen e Dante (pp. 17-27), che funge da ricca prefazione e chiave di lettura dell’opera.