What is collective security worth? What compromises – in terms of reduction of individual human rights, which are now, for the most part, taken for granted – are we prepared to make, in order to increase the level of our daily safety?
This is the debate in which all democratic societies are deeply involved. After the 11th of September, parliaments and western public opinion have constantly asked the questions of the possibility or need, to pass new laws which, although inevitably reducing certain areas of human rights, would increase the defence against terrorism.
In this issue, in our Forum, questions are asked on the new boundaries which - in an era of global terrorism – can (or must) be drawn between the defence of privacy and collective security. Privacy is a democratic good which, by now, is perceived as irrevocable in our society: for this reason we feel that the thoughts and opinions of our participants are an excellent instrument of reflection for our readers and also, perhaps, for the Legislature.
Afghanistan, Iran, the Middle-East, the Far-East and Islam, represent the areas and the ‘burning’ questions on which, with the contribution of expert professionals, we shall reflect, from both an historical and analytical viewpoint.
In accordance with the tradition of the Review, the answers which derive from these reflections are, obviously, not definitive, but wish to constitute the stages of a dialectic process from which, we hope, will also result in operative options.
Globalization encompasses all aspects of modern life: crime is no exception and, with the contribution of two officials from the Guardia di Finanza, (Customs and Inland Revenue Service), we face, for the first time, an aspect of crime against the economy, which expands by exploiting the networks present on the global market.
And finally, our reflections on the ‘precariato’ (job and economic precariousness): a phenomenon negatively perceived by the greater part of public opinion, especially by the young. We shall try to analyze it scientifically, from its social and economic aspects. It is a phenomenon we must face, approaching it in a rational way, in order to defeat it and not be defeated by it.
|
| |
|
|
|
