Pablo Cristóbal Jiménez Lobeira

This contribution explores disability rights protection in Inter-American States within the framework of the OAS and in the context of the obligations established under the CIADDIS and the CRPD. Following the classical division between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ rules, the contribution first sketches key regulatory initiatives in the area of disability rights and second considers compliance and enforcement mechanisms. Along these lines, the first section illustrates similarities and differences between the CIADDIS and the CRPD and, within this framework, essential regional regulatory initiatives. The second section assesses disability rights in select countries, based on periodic reports under the CIADDIS and CRPD. The section examines the four largest countries by population in the region, notably, the United States of America (US), Mexico, Brazil and Colombia. The third section explores the enforcement of disability rights via key cases before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IAComHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). The purpose is providing a comprehensive understanding of disability rights in the region and identifying key regulatory problems and ways forward.

En este contexto se sitúa el presente escrito. Se pretende describir el estado de una problemática antigua y nueva. Antigua, porque se remonta a los cimientos mismos de la filosofía y del pensar humano, varios miles de años antes de Cristo. Nueva, porque no han terminado en el siglo XX las discusiones sobre dicha problemática, ni las aplicaciones posibles que se derivan de ella. Se trata del principio de identidad. El presente trabajo partirá de la definición del principio de identidad según Aristóteles. Se matizarán algunos aspectos de tal principio según otros autores que han perseguido sobre todo fines didácticos al presentarlo, ya sea para el desarrollo de la teología como para el de la epistemología o la metafísica. Finalmente, se expondrá —de una manera bastante elemental— la utilización y las conclusiones que algunos autores contemporáneos han efectuado con relación a la identidad. El trabajo se enmarca, así, en casi una pura descripción elemental que sienta las bases para una posterior profundización.

At a moment when a new crisis threatens Europe—a crisis including, among other factors, COVID-19, a faltering economy, immigration and Brexit—the European Union (EU) motto of ‘Europe united in diversity’ would appear progressively less attainable. This paper submits that the European ideal is still both desirable and possible through fostering of political unity at the constitutional (regime) level by using the notions of analogical state and analogical culture, and at the community level by enabling public sphere secularity and relational interculturalism. These concepts envisage the EU in a more flexible manner, in favour of policies enabling further European integration.

La literatura universal muestra cómo resulta mucho más sencillo plasmar ciertos valores en “modelos” o ejemplos humanos que los encarnen. Y es de modelos de ese tipo que los niños - y muy especialmente- los adolescentes de todas las épocas, han tomado el ejemplo y los valores que orientarán su comportamiento durante toda la vida. Por lo menos esa constituye la intuición inicial de este trabajo, que está motivado por buscar hasta qué punto la presentación de modelos puede repercutir eficazmente en la educación moral de los ciudadanos del mañana. En las líneas que vienen se procede a la investigación, siguiendo los desarrollos que al respecto han realizado diversos pensadores, en especial William Kilpatrick.

En el mundo actual se muestra preocupación por los grandes problemas que enfrentan los sistemas económicos. El libre mercado ha demostrado ser eficiente pero no completamente exitoso en satisfacer verdaderamente al hombre en bienestar y bienser. Se presentan argumentos en favor de la economía de mercado en relación con la colectivista, pero se llega a afirmar que la concepción del hombre dentro de la primera tiene que completarse: verlo en sus facetas individual, social, material y espiritual. Por último, se propone adoptar esa visión completa en el análisis económico a través de cuatro medidas concretas.

Dice Paciano Fermoso que existen diversos tipos de saber respecto a la educación. Está aquel que se encamina a la técnica de educar, a los métodos para enseñar mejor. Se denomina didáctica. Está después el que más bien tiene que ver con la educación como ciencia, y es la pedagogía. Por último está el que trata de las bases (teóricas) sobre las que se asienta la educación misma, una disciplina más “fundamental” que práctica, que hace no tanto a los quehaceres cuanto a la dirección inicial y final de ese andar: esa es la filosofía de la educación, que busca la contemplación, pero en el sentido original del término griego (“theoría”), cuyo espíritu apunta a un descubrimiento de los principios de lo real, de las cosas tales y como son: en cuanto a que no se trata del obrar humano (cómo conducirse desde el punto de vista moral) ni del quehacer práctico (la fabricación o producción de artículos), sino de un observar desapasionado, “admirativo”, “contemplativo”, de lo que está enfrente, con independencia de lo que el observador haga o desee, y principalmente para “saber”, sin una conexión inmediata con una utilidad específica. Así sucede cuando nos admiramos de observar el desenvolvimiento de un capullo o la puesta del sol, aunque no nos reporten ninguna utilidad práctica. Es en el ámbito de este tercer tipo de conocimiento que el presente trabajo se sitúa. Pretende ofrecer algunas pinceladas de “theoría” en el campo de la educación. Tales esbozos se trazan no desde cualquier ángulo, sino según una óptica muy particular, que aquí se denomina personalista. En ocasiones ayuda para entender un objeto el decir qué es. Pero también resulta provechoso indicar lo que no es. Este trabajo no constituye ni una exposición comprehensiva de una filosofía personalista de la educación, ni mucho menos la pretensión de que es la única, si bien se opine que es una opción digna de discutirse.

Entre las figuras que hicieron de parteaguas para la filosofía en México después del exilio español de fines de los años treinta, una cuya importancia está todavía por conocerse y difundirse es la de Eduardo Nicol, que murió apenas en 1990. Su amplia obra intelectual se articula durante alrededor de cincuenta años. En las siguientes líneas se recogen pasajes de dos capítulos que forman parte de Ideas de vario linaje, y que revelan ciertos trazos del pensamiento del pensador catalán, pertinentes para la situación actual de la cultura.

Nel presente lavoro si tenta di analizzare, a un livello piuttosto semplice ed elementare, le relazioni che eventualmente esistano tra Bonaventura di Bagnoregio e Bernardo di Chiaravalle. L’analisi si svolge attorno un aspetto particolare del pensiero di questi autori, cioè quello della conoscenza de Dio e l’unione con Lui. Lo studio viene incorniciato nell’ambito della scuola francescana di Parigi nel tredicesimo secolo, giacché in quell’ambito è vissuto Bonaventura —l’autore sul quale si vuole approfondire—. Anche se il confronto viene effettuato principalmente fra Bernardo e Bonaventura, appaiono nel percorso del lavoro alcuni altri autori il cui influsso non può essere dimenticato se si desidera ottenere delle conclusioni valide sulla teologia mistica bonaventuriana.

MacIntyre's is one approach among many to explain what philosophy ought to be. For Pieper (in: "Defence of Philosophy"), just to cite another one, "to engage in philosophy means to reflect on the totality of things we encounter, in view of their ultimate" or fundamental truth. And there are others. But my interest here is to explore the circumstances under which philosophers could claim a place in society due to a service they provide, as valuable as that of a mechanical engineer in a factory, a waiter in a hotel or a pilot on an airplane. The circumstances, this is, which would make society see philosophers not (or not only) as oddly useless figures addressing intellectually engaging puzzles and uttering obscure conclusions, but as valuable contributors to the common good.

El 12 de octubre se conmemora el encuentro entre España y América. El tema es apasionante, sobre todo para quienes estamos lejos de nuestros lugares de origen, recordamos nuestra cultura con nostalgia, y nos preguntamos con preocupación cómo vamos a transmitir esa herencia rica e intangible a nuestros hijos. En las líneas que siguen, analizaré, primeramente, algunos de los términos que utilizamos para hablar de nuestro mundo de habla hispana. En segundo lugar, repasaré los inicios de mi México y algunas interpretaciones de su historia. Intentaré después dar un breve esbozo cultural del México de hoy y, por último, propondré una visión de futuro para el país y para el mundo cultural del que forma parte.

El presente estudio tiene como propósito presentar a un pensador que murió hace apenas doce años, y que por varios motivos pudiera considerarse un “hereje” para la ortodoxia que dictan las corrientes filosóficas en boga hoy. No se trata, todavía, de un filósofo reconocido ampliamente, ni de uno muy popular: su discurso es profundo y a veces resulta arduo de leer. Sin embargo —es la opinión que se mantiene aquí— su pensamiento es sumamente valioso. Va directamente al núcleo de los problemas más intrincados de la filosofía actual, y, sobre todo en el ámbito de la metafísica, aporta vías de solución que merecen un atento análisis. El tema del amor no queda exento. Su situación en los campos ético y antropológico llega a la total confusión o, peor, al sinsentido y la cosificación. Y el fondo del problema es —eso creemos aquí— de índole metafísica. Por eso se emprende una descripción del pensamiento de Cardona al respecto, en tres momentos: primero, la fundamentación del amor en el acto de ser, segundo en la explicación de toda la realidad a través del amor, y su importancia como sentido del hombre. Como conclusión se ofrece una sucinta valoración del aporte de Cardona al tema.

El presente capítulo presenta un análisis teórico del tipo de amor que involucra la sexualidad, las altas expectativas que genera y la incertidumbre de que se cumplan. Para esclarecer el estudio se distingue entre sexualidad, impulso amoroso (“eros”) y amor propiamente dicho (“ágape”) y se echa mano de conceptos tomados de la filosofía personalista incluidos los de naturaleza, persona, racionalidad, relación y los varios tipos de amor. A final de cuentas se propone que sólo cuando se vuelve conyugal puede el amor sexuado puede desarrollar su máximo potencial.

Este artículo sugiere que los derechos humanos existen, que requieren fundamentación y que esa fundamentación debe ser objetiva para tener validez y legitimidad (debe ser verdadera). La clave para la fundamentación de los derechos humanos, aquí se propone, descansa en el concepto metafísico de naturaleza. El artículo concluye señalando el valor del diálogo, la comunicación y el consenso, si no para decidir cuál es la verdad, al menos para avanzar, a través de las contribuciones de todos, hacia el desvelamiento de la verdad sobre la naturaleza humana. Los derechos humanos se ligan después al problema de la identidad política a través de la hermenéutica analógica.

At a moment when a new crisis threatens Europe—a crisis containing, among other ingredients, COVID-19, a faltering economy, immigration and Brexit—the European Union (EU)’s motto ‘Europe united in diversity’ would appear progressively less attainable. This paper submits that the European ideal is still both desirable and possible through the fostering of political unity at the constitutional (regime) level by using the notions of analogical state and analogical culture, and at the community level by the enablement of public sphere secularity and relational interculturalism. These concepts share the intuition that the EU should be envisaged in a more flexible manner, and carry several policy implications for the future of European integration.

From the political point of view, European Union (EU) integration implies some kind of unity in the community constituted by EU citizens. Unity is difficult to attain if the diversity of citizens (and their nations) is to be respected. A thick bond that melts members' diversity into a 'European pot' is therefore out of the question. On the other hand, giving up unity altogether makes political integration impossible. Through a meta-theoretical analysis of normative positions, this paper proposes a composed notion of European identity that links without binding. It contains four facets – cultural, political, social, external – with nuances, expressed in three binaries, that cut across all of them – history-project, ethos-achievement, commonness-uncommonness. I will submit that a workable European identity (and the related concepts of unity, polity and citizenship) can be better conceived as analogical – a mid way between blending unity and irreconcilable diversity.

Political integration has been part of the European project from its very beginnings. As far back as the early seventies there was concern in Brussels that an ingredient was missing in the political integration process. ‘Output legitimacy’ – the permissive consensus citizens grant to a government that is ‘delivering’, even if they do not participate in setting its goals – could not sustain unification indefinitely. Such a lacking ingredient – or ‘soul’ – has been labelled ‘European identity’ (EI) in an abundant and growing academic literature. According to Aristotle, ‘polity’ is a specific ‘constitution’ (regime or politeia) of a ‘city’ (or polis): a (‘political’) community composed of ‘citizens’ (politai). No polis can exist unless the politai come together to form it and sustain it. But what will gather and keep them united? Citizens can be very diverse regarding their language, history, religion or economic activity. In absence of a motivation, diversity of itself will make each member of a community go their own way. What kind of bond is required among very diverse European citizens to keep their polis (the EU) – their political community – together? In this paper I analyse several responses – culture, deliberation, welfare, power, multiplicity. Then I attempt a synthesis suggesting that the answers might be referring to different aspects of a single notion – rather than exhaustive explanations of it. Finally I mention three issues regarding the concept of EI that require further study.

Political integration has been part of the European project from its very beginnings. As far back as the early seventies there was already concern in Brussels that an ingredient was missing in the political integration process. ‘Output legitimacy’ – the permissive consensus citizens grant to a government that is ‘delivering’, even if they do not participate in setting its goals – could not sustain unification indefinitely. Such a lacking ingredient – or ‘soul’ – has been labelled ‘European identity’ (EI) in an abundant and growing academic literature. According to Aristotle, a ‘city’ (polis) is a community composed of ‘citizens’ (politai). No polis can exist unless the politai form it and sustain it. But what will keep them united? They can be very diverse regarding their language, history, religion or economic activity. In absence of a motivation, diversity of itself will make each member of a community go their own way. What kind of bond is required among very diverse European citizens to keep their political community (the EU) together? In this paper I analyse several responses – culture, deliberation, welfare, power, openness. Then I suggest that elements of those responses could be combined in a single notion. Finally I mention issues regarding EI that require further study.

In the concept of European citizenship, public and international law intersect. The unity of the European polity results from the interplay between national and European loyalties. Citizens’ allegiance to the European polity depends on how much they see the polity’s identity as theirs. Foundational ideals that shaped the European project’s identity included social reconciliation and peaceful coexistence, economic reconstruction and widespread prosperity, and the creation of supranational structures to rein in nationalism. A broad cultural consensus underlay the first impulse for integration. Europeans had little trouble giving explicit or tacit allegiance to such a project, which resulted in an unparalleled success. However, roughly 60 years and 20 Member States later, social integration is being challenged as immigrants with diverse cultural backgrounds arrive, while far-right political parties surge in reaction; economic integration is confronted with a faltering euro and countries struggling to meet financial commitments; and political integration weakens as the EU seems to fail the democratic test. Cultural assumptions are no longer shared by all. Allegiance to today’s EU is problematic for the ordinary European citizen. This paper submits that careful attention to the spirit of the foundational ideals sheds light on how the present problems as well as future integration could and should be approached.

The increasing number of residents and citizens with non-Western cultural backgrounds in the European Union (EU) has prompted the question of whether EU member states (and other Western democracies) can accommodate the newcomers and maintain their free polities (‘liberal democracies’). The answer depends on how important – if at all – cultural groundings are to democratic polities. The analysis of a fascinating Habermas-Ratzinger debate on the ‘pre-political moral foundations of the free-state’ suggests that while legitimacy originates on the will of the citizens that conform the political community, liberal democracies might not be completely free from moral principles implicit in their political culture. This possibility has normative implications for the political future of the EU - and of the West in general - particularly regarding immigration, integration and citizenship policies.

In 2004 Jürgen Habermas and Joseph Ratzinger participated in a debate on the ‘pre-political moral foundations of the free-state’. Their contributions showed broad agreement on the role of religion in today’s Western secular state and on areas of collaboration and mutual enrichment between Modernity and Christianity in Europe and the West. They diverged regarding the need or not of a common cultural background prior to the existence of the polity. Their diverging point becomes all the more fascinating to the extent that the matter requires wider empirical, analytical and normative research before it can be settled. Nevertheless, the implications that derive from one or the other possibility are very different in terms, for instance, of immigration and citizenship policies. This is already clear in Europe and is becoming more evident in general in Western democracies.

Postnationalists like Habermas have suggested EU citizenship as a way to overcome nationalisms, grounding political belonging on the body of laws that members of the postnational polity generate in the public sphere. Cosmopolitan communitarianist like Bellamy think that EU citizens should form a mixed-commonwealth, with political belonging based on their nations. I will argue that the second option is more desiderable and submit the analogical character of the ensuing ideas of the citizenship, identity and polity. Cosmopolitan communitarianist citizenship promises to better foster the great richness of European national cultural, religious, historical, political, legal and linguistic diversity while still maintaining a certain unity to form a "mixed" polity.

The Lautsi case in Italy attracted widespread attention in Europe and beyond. Though the issue under contention was a Christian symbol, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgements showed changes in assessment both about religion (in contrast with former cases regarding Muslim veils) and secularism (which did not have the same meaning for everyone). In light of those rulings, this paper reflects on the concepts of neutrality and secularism and their normative implications for European citizens in terms of belonging, solidarity and cohesion. An open and plural public sphere, in which intercultural exchange can flourish, is crucial if Europe is serious about the integration of its immigrants, many of whom possess a Muslim background. A ‘post-secular’ Europe may have to reconsider long-held stereotypes about religion and nuance its self-understanding as ‘secular’, in a way that religious citizens can identify with Europe too. The discussion will draw on the ideas of Taylor, Casanova, Habermas, Weiler and Beck to illustrate some of the political, ethical and theoretical complexities of the Lautsi case, specifically issues to do with neutrality, secularism and the role of religion in the public sphere.