XI. CONCLUSIONS: FROM TWO STEP IN HISTORY TO THREE STEPS IN ABYSS. This contribution is to be read auspiciously, and also in view of the editorial space kindly granted us by the publisher, as a broad-spectrum synthesis of our principal scientific and cultural interests of a socio-political and legal-economic character. It thus seeks, in conclusion, to present itself to the reader as a first point of departure for further investigations on the subject, on our part, so as to attest in the future, more fully than we have been able to do in this work, to the multifaceted and evocative-symbolic scope of the issues addressed. A scope, evidently so profound, as to make it a unicum within the framework of research aimed at consolidating the proper exegesis, at the level of general theory and systemic classification within the legal order, of the juridical-subjective situations of the so-called commons, namely common, social or collective goods, recognized by the prevailing literature as a fundamental right and an expression of human dignity.201 A unicum, however, that is polysemic, and all the more difficult to reduce to a completed unity where one seeks to identify its ubi consistam, which is and remains, ultimately, notwithstanding the trajectories pursued by each more specific discipline, its universalistic iridescence—that is to say, a peculiarity of the subjective position that is born and fulfilled in the proper definition of the ancestral concept of the just.202 It is precisely this connotation, which we seem to discern with great clarity and concern, that should urgently call into question, under the sign of a strong solidarity, the various scientific disciplines and cultural traditions across the world, so that they may converge towards that common redistributive and parsimonious outcome of super-individual goods which contemporary man, ever more interdependent yet not solidaristic203, and ever more bewitched by the yoke of liberal-capitalism, seems to have definitively lost. 201 On these issues it is always worthwhile to reason from E. Ostrom’s classic Governing the commons published by Cambridge University Press in 1990, in Italy, in its third edition, Id. Governare i beni collettivi, Venezia, 2006. For a reasoned summary of the problems of our time, linked to the topic in note, see, among many others, the recent, and fruitfully summarised, work edited by B. On the systematic classification of social rights see the useful work by R. Cavallo Perin, L. Lenti, G. M. Racca, A. Rossi (edited by), Social rights as personality rights, Napoli, 2010. 202 On the philosophical-political and legal-economic complexity of thematising this ancestral concept, see in particular J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge Ma., 1971. 203 It helps me in this argument that I develop the concept of ‘interdependence without solidarity’ developed by one of the most distinguished intellectuals of our time, E. Morin, Changeons de voie. Les Leçons du coronavirus, Paris, 2020. 465 WATER GOVERNANCE AND RIGHT TO FOOD
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==