English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Any amnesty generates a conflict of values that is difficult to solve. What is the “good” to prioritize in the circumstances that facilitate the proposal of amnesties? Punishing the most serious crimes or to easy the restoration of peace at the expense of the obligation of punishment? In Thought history there was a critical moment in the rationalization of the philosophical-legal ‘validity’ of the amnesty. Las Casas formulated the first theory about the conditional validity of amnesties based on his theory of the ‘social pact’. A century later Grotius responded with the ‘eminent domain’ theory of the sovereign who affirmed the validity of any amnesty fixed in treaties because of its public utility. The grotian position prevailed until the end of s. XX.

Amnistías y Derecho internacional en perspectiva histórica: Bartolomé de las Casas vs. Hugo Grocio