Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia del Diritto




FranÇois Ost, Pour une critique de la raison narrative

Filippo Cancelli, Res publica e princeps di Cicerone. (I)

Enrico Ferri, Linguaggio religioso, linguaggio giuridico, linguaggio politico: la questione della traducibilità. (II)

Luca Sammicheli e Andrea Lavazza, Diritto e neuroscienze. (II)


Guglielmo Feis, Barare, copiare, doparsi, simulare


Giuseppe Gangemi, Salvatore Satta sotto il torchio dello storico

Carlo Nitsch, «Astratto v. concreto». Note sulla teoria dell’interpretazione di Riccardo Guastini


Ferrajoli Luigi, La democrazia attraverso i diritti (F. M. Ceci) – Carnelutti Francesco, Il Canto del grillo (R. Proscia)


Pour une critique de la raison narrative

FranÇois Ost


This paper aims to rehabilitate narrative, against the dominant strategy of thinking, which disqualifies it. We have grown up with stories, which makes this plea easy: they are all around, nurturing us and arousing general sympathy amongst the doxa. But at the same time, the prevailing doctrine tends to discredit narrative, presenting it as private and frivolous in order to constrain its powers. I would like to show how constitutive narrative is: as collective story, memory and history of peoples, and as the individual or ‘personal novel’ each one of us tells himself, in order to create his own identity. I will analyse the repression and disqualifications of narrative, before demonstrating how theoretical reason and practical reason both arise from within our narrative imagination. This conception of man as homo fabulans (or story-telling animal) could lead us to outline a ‘Critique of Narrative Reason’.

Res publica e princeps di Cicerone. (I)

Filippo Cancelli


The translation of iuris consensus is shown to be erroneous, a concept on which the definition of res publica laid down by Cicero in De re publica depends, because iuris consensus is not the consent of the population to law but the attribution of civil and political rights to the population in accordance with the degree of dignity of each citizen. It is also shown that contrary to popular belief the princeps designated by Cicero is neither the sovereign or monarch of the res publica nor the model of senators but rather the ideal politician, one or more but always with others, more capable and prepared to lead the civitas and to govern the res publica.

Linguaggio religioso, linguaggio giuridico, linguaggio politico:

la questione della traducibilità. (II)

Enrico Ferri


This is the full version of the paper presented by Enrico Ferri of Unicusano University at the international conference on ‘Fifty years of Italian Studies at Ain Shams’, March 17-18, 2013, at the University of ‘Ayn Shams, Cairo.

Every judicial system is founded on a set of principles which define its essence and which provide it with homogeneity and unanimity. At the same time, such principles (for example, ‘the sovereignty of the people’ in democracies) are regarded as bestowing legitimacy on the system; in other words, establishing its juridical validity. Enrico Ferri’s essay analyses certain important theoretical issues which are raised in the judicial systems of communities whose vision of the world is based on revelation and a monotheism originating in Abraham. The essay concentrates especially on Islam, and also on the other two Abrahamic monotheisms – Judaism and Christianity – and discusses basic questions such as the oneness and exclusivity of the revealed God. The main idea explored in the essay is that the translation or interpretation of the Word of God cannot be achieved or understood after one or more readings, which are expressions of a given historical or cultural point in time, but must always be replenished, just as in the fullness of time human existence is replenished, in order to draw lessons for the present from the universal principles (without reference to any specific time frame) which God has consigned to mankind.

Diritto e neuroscienze. (II)

Luca Sammicheli e Andrea Lavazza


This paper (the first part of which appeared in the previous issue) has two objectives. First, we will look at the historical development and the empirical and conceptual elements at the origin of the new interdisciplinary area of research commonly defined “neurolaw”. In particular, we will focus on the acquisitions and methods of neuroscience relevant to the discussion and their philosophical implications in the context of classical behavioural sciences. Second, we will provide an introduction to the main areas of application of neuroscience when it encounters law: we will consider 1) neuroscience and the evaluation of deviant and criminal behaviour as well as 2) neuroscience and the evaluation of testimonies.

Salvatore Satta sotto il torchio dello storico

Giuseppe Gangemi


Three persons refused to teach a subject (Storia e Dottrina del Fascismo). They could refuse because: the first was too busy; the second felt ill; the third has been protected by academic powers of University of Padua. Salvatore Satta could not refuse. Which difference from the others?

The three who could refuse have in common the fact that there loyalty to the regime was not in doubt. Satta’s loyalty was in doubt because of two writings: a Prolusione (prolusion) and a Parere (advice). Both of the writings were suspect to the regime.

Satta did accept to teach the subject, but he didn’t accept the idea of definitively acting loyally. Immediately after, he started a strategy of exit: to ask to the minister to be transferred to other University. In a few years, he succeeded in being transferred to the University of Genoa.

«Astratto v. concreto».

Note sulla teoria dell’interpretazione di Riccardo Guastini

Carlo Nitsch


This paper, articulated as a comment on Guastini’s theory of interpretation (as exposed in his recent book Interpretare e argomentare), analyses some specific views (and the connected remarks formulated by Diciotti) concerning the distinction between interpretation «in abstracto» and «in concreto», the difference between «generic» and «individual» subsumption, and the logic structure of legal reasoning.

Through the reconstruction of an Italian debate of the early XX century (with particular reference to some works by Calamandrei, Carnelutti and Betti), the paper concludes with a short exercise of comparison, in order to clarify the historical connotation of the different positions examined, and to propose a critical reflection on the persistence of the main problems investigated.