Since the establishment of the 1991’s multiethnic Constitution and a considerable amount of indigenous juridical protection that followed it, colonialist ideas of discrimination seemed to dissipate. Subsequently, the Peace Agreement of 2016 emerged as an effective mechanism for protecting the rights of the indigenous peoples. Even so, arguing that the reality of this population is considerably different is problematic. With 4,508 cases of human rights violations reported in indigenous territories between November of 2016 and July of 2017 and more than 242 murdered indigenous leaders since the Peace Agreement, the Constitution of 1991 and its successive legal instruments are struggling to effectively protect indigenous peoples’ rights. At this point, one might wonder if the Constitution is nothing but a mere reflection of the very arranged discriminatory ideas that date from the conquest.

Territory and sovereignty of the State in the face of global constitutionalism and the new global subjects

One of the main effects of globalization in the legal sphere has been to undermine a model of a self-referential State that is closed against any external interference in its internal relations, in some way breaking both the very close connection between law and sovereignty, which has long conditioned modern legal thought, and the relationship between public law and territory.
The aim of the contribution is to investigate the current significance of territory and sovereignty, as fundamental legal categories of modern public law, in particular in the light of the increased distance between politics (understood as the ability to make decisions) and power (understood as ability to implement them). This latter is located less and less in the States, but rather in the supranational global space and in the “new global sovereigns”, namely in all those subjects who manage to take part or to impose decisions of planetary political importance.

Covid-19 and the support to cultural industries: a (temporary) change of paradigm

The integration of cultural considerations in European Union’s policies has always been a controversial topic, because of the need to reconcile the promotion of culture with other EU primary aims, such as the creation of a common market and the need to safeguard the competition: this is the reason why the idea of cultural exception has been developed. This contribution aims at analyzing the new approach which characterizes the Temporary Framework adopted by the European Commission in March 2020, paying particular attention to the funding of cultural industries and focusing especially on the audiovisual sector, in an attempt to understand on the one hand how this temporary measure combines itself with the other EU provisions on state aid, on the other hand whether it is possible to consider it a step towards a new way of balancing cultural and economic considerations.