Open Journal Systems

tiket kereta toko bagus berita bola terkini anton nb Aneka Kreasi Resep Masakan Indonesia resep masakan menghilangkan jerawat puncak pass resort recepten berita terkini game online hp dijual


The Journal Las Torres de Lucca, continuing its goal of becoming an open and free magazine, has incorporated the section "Dossier". This section is meant to publish compilations of articles on a specific topic proposed by the dossier coordinator.

Articles published in the dossier are evaluated according to the same rules as any other articles. Therefore, those authors interested in participating in a dossier should submit their articles as usual, indicating in "comments" the adscription to a particular dossier.

For information on how to propose a dossier to the Editorial Committee, write to

Next Issues

Nº 12 (December 2017): Gramsci. Democracy between Latin America and Europe

Coordinator: Ricardo Laleff Illief.

Deadline: September 1, 2017 (Extended).

To think about "the legacy of Gramsci" we consider it is relevant to focus on a common element in his thought: the attempt to grasp the complexity of contemporary phenomena, not reducing them through concepts, but realizing the need for creation and redefinition of the language with which we think and also act. Not surprisingly, Gramsci's presence persists explicitly or implicitly, as a reference, influence or as an absence that necessarily challenges thought in Italian Marxism wondering about the autonomy of politics, in French structuralism with Althusserian roots, in postfoundationalism, in the Latin American Left, in populism and democratic transitions, and even in right-winged policies and the concerns about cultural hegemony.

In this sense, this call is intended to be faithful to that fundamental premise of Gramscian thought, namely, the gestation of a located thinking, which, far from being narrow, is on the contrary committed to the epochal features and the nuances of the different points of enunciation. This call asks for original submissions inspired by the work of Gramsci but focused on the discussions in contemporary Europe and Latin America. In both regions, the deep crisis of "democracy" transitions restates the Gramscian question of cultural and political hegemony around democratic values.

Number 13 (July 2018): Exile as a political figure

Coordinator: Antolín Sánchez Cuervo

Deadline: November 15, 2017.

Exile constitutes a political figure that radically questions many of the spaces and times that modern rationality has built. It exposes the exclusionary dimensions of the state and its great ally, the nation narrative; It sheds light on the relevance of both in the genesis of totalitarianism and on the somber complications between the latter and the contractualist formulas from which the liberal intelligence has brought out so much profit. Exile is therefore a privileged place to weigh the critiques of modern political space, as well as to demystify numerous constructions of modern identity in general. It is the germ of a new citizenship, inspired by the semantics of alterity and the status of the diaspora. It also unmasks the violence of oblivion inscribed in the logics of progress which have nourished the philosophies of history, as well as in the continuations drawn by historicism when it has wanted to get rid of the latter. It raises other hermeneutics of the past, irreducible to the methodologies of the scientific or conventional historian, putting in value the critical and subversive significance of memory. In this way, it connects with the anamnestic rationality which the most critical contemporary thinking has developed.

This monographic issue will be composed of original contributions that deal with the figure of exile from the point of view of political philosophy, considering its close and controversial relationship with the State, the nation narrative, memory, modern identities or historiography, understood as an interested narrative. Proposals that focus on the singular protagonism of exile as the main thread of critical thinking in Latin America or which take into account its connection with literary expression are also welcome.

Number 14 (December 2018): Kant and Political Philosophy: Sovereign Peoples Sharing One Earth

Coordinator: Macarena Marey.

Deadline: March 30, 2018.

Since the twentieth century, most of the different currents in political philosophy and theory consider sovereignty as an extreme pulling two bows. One of these bows dichotomically connects sovereignty to individual rights, the other one opposes it to every normative order existing beyond its borders. To hold that sovereignty is a horn of these two dilemmas, it is necessary to assume a series of specific theses about what sovereignty is, to whom it corresponds, which political competences are ascribed to the sovereign agent, which status individual rights have facing the political community and which attributes, aims and roles the global juridical-political order already has and should have instead. Contemporary discussions on the matter tend to presuppose that sovereignty belongs to the state (not to the people), that it corresponds not to legislation but to the executive enforcement of the law, and that individual rights have a quasi-natural, pre-political status. Both realist and normative perspectives on international relations seem to see little more than a decisionist power in sovereignty and this premise limits their analysis of territorial rights, refugee rights, global poverty and the rights of states facing other states and trans- and supranational agents of various sorts. But if we study these matters from a modern perspective, i. e. a point of view focusing on the way the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries treated the novel concept of sovereignty and not tainted by exogenous interpretative hypothesis over them elaborated by the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, sovereignty does not necessarily clash with individual rights and the thesis that there is juridical and political normativity beyond nation states. The political philosophy that Kant developed as a metaphysical system in the last decade of his intellectual production is a clear example of this non-tensional conception of sovereignty. In Kant’s political philosophy, the absolute sovereignty of the reunited popular will is grounded a priori, corresponds exclusively to the legislative power and is not threatened by supranational norms; on the contrary, popular sovereignty would be guaranteed by new transnational norms protecting the rights of peoples and persons across borders.

In this dossier, we invite scholars to turn to the Kantian sources to reflect upon why it is important to defend popular sovereignty in a transnational world in which relations between states are radically inequitable and millions are exploited by economic agents interfering with positive legal corpora across frontiers. We call for papers aiming to critically answer some of the following questions, taking into account (to continue it or to reject it) the framework sketched in the previous paragraph: What is a properly Kantian justification of the necessity of the state? How does Kant sustain the thesis that the people is the only sovereign, the only author of legitimate right? What are the practical implications of popular sovereignty for and within concrete political practices that are neither the outcome of an original contract nor the product of a united popular legislative will? What could Kant’s political thought contribute to the fundamental question of collective political agency? What is the effective operativeness of Kant’s idea that the popular united will is necessary a priori and condition of possibility of all legitimate law? Lastly and perhaps more importantly, what does it mean that sovereignty belongs to peoples in a world where relations between states are inequitable, where economic transnational agents have overwhelming influence upon regional social conditions, and where millions are forced to leave their own territories?