Identity is a long discussed concept in many areas of philosophy. Authors of the Forum tackle the notion of identity, focusing on its history and its theoretical analysis. The normative claim embedded in the notion of identity is analysed in relation with its biological, psychological, metaphysical and political aspects.
This essay foregrounds the relevance of Italian jurist Santi Romano’s theorizing to today’s political and legal debates on the relation between state and non-state laws. As Romano’s classic book L’ordinamento giuridico (1917–1918) has finally been translated into English, the Anglophone readership can take stock of one of the most enlightening contributions to institutional thinking in the last centuries.
In the existing literature on depoliticization, the increasing use of law as a medium to tackle social and political issues is deemed to be detrimental to the legitimacy of political processes. Against this view, I argue that this trend – which some scholars call ‘juridification’ – can be key to giving life to new forms of politics. First, I show why juridification is a political more than a legal process. Second, I illustrate recent critiques of the dangers inherent in the particular type of juridification that involves the growing use of rights.
Legal pluralism, as a way of thinking about law, is the seemingly straightforward idea that there is a range of normative orders, which are independent from the state and can be properly described as legal without committing any conceptual mistake. Without giving a full survey of the long and varied history of legal pluralism theory, this article will discuss some central moments in that history.
© Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza" - Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Roma
