Luca Siliquini-Cinelli

On Legal Positivism's Word and Our ‘Form-of-(Non-)Living’

Abstract This paper is about two stories. The more reassuring one states that by establishing that a norm is valid because of its source, not its merit, legal positivism is, in its various forms, perhaps one of the greatest achievements in Western legal theory and practice. From constitutionalism to human rights policies, from criminal to international law and free trade agreements, from contracts to torts and e-commerce, legal validity, predictability, and coherence have found their most powerful ally in positivist thought. This contribution argues that it is time for a different, neorealist story: the metaphysical, ontological and biopolitical essence of its language demonstrates that legal positivism has in fact played a fundamental role in the substitution of action with behaviour, and consequently, in the normalisation of humankind’s self-annihilating animality as post-historical and post-political ‘form-of-(non-)living.’

Hayek the Schmittian: contextualising Cristi's account of Hayek's decisionism in the age of global wealth inequality

That capitalism, in all its variants, produces material inequality is beyond dispute. What is less clear, however, is not only whether Hayeks ‘equality of opportunities’ is immune to the inegalitarian trend, but also whether liberalism itself is the occult source of this outcome. This paper delves into this by offering a post-national contextualisation and partial critique of Renato Cristis 1984 and 1998 scholarship on Hayeks decisionism. The aim is to investigate the relationship between liberal thought and wealth inequality in light of the global-order project and crisis in democratic decision-making procedures. This will uncover a clear zone of interaction between Hayeks notion of legal liberty and Schmitts sovereignty that was not spotted by Cristi and that will shed new light on the dehumanising and inegalitarian essence of the universalisation of liberalism and its notion of ‘civilised economy’.

Reflections on the Pactum in the Public and Private Spheres

This chapter delves into the nature of the pactum as both substantial and functional bond, as well as mythical canon of any contractual-constituting initiative in the public and private spheres. The aim is to show that the movement toward the conceptualisation of good faith as an organising principle and implied term in the Common law tradition is due to the need to counterbalance our inhuman condition as made manifest by the humanitarian facade of the modern constitutional project. This claim is supported by an unconventional method of investigation that will promote the comparison between the role of political action at the public level and the increasing utilisation of the doctrine of good faith in Contract law theory and practice.

Legal Systemology and the Geopolitics of Roman Law: A Response to Stuart Elden’s Critique of Carl Schmitt’s Spatial Ontology

Abstract This paper explores the production, destruction, and reproduction of the geopolitical spaces of Roman law in order to offer an analysis of Schmitt’s (selective) notion of Jus Publicum Europaeum and its relevance to the current “depoliticization” and “dejuridification” of the world. By adopting a historical and geopolitical approach that reaches the boundaries of legal systemology and political theology, the present contribution investigates the manipulative and instrumentalist use of the material object of Rome’s (universalist) competence, namely the “territory” as dominium of its political intervention, which was ultimately (and idealistically) aimed at avoiding the natural destiny of any living being: birth, maturity, and death. Attention is therefore paid to the Roman strategy of (ontological?) contamination of its mythical identity through the legal and sociopolitical administration and regulation of its geographical spaces in terms of (non-)cultural signification. Through the analysis of such concepts as “nomos,” “Großraum,” “Ortung,” and “Ordnung,” it is claimed that Schmitt voluntarily chose to identify the Jus Publicum Europaeum with the geopolitical order produced during the Age of Discovery and not with the “comprehensive” Roman spatial order. The reason for this choice may be identified in the distortive use of Rome’s social relations and political allegiances that lay at the core of its genealogical expansionism (and subsequent inevitable dissolution) since the conquest of Veius in 396 BC and the historical compromise between patrician nobility and plebeians in 367 BC.