La Rome antique, tant à l’époque des rois qu’à celle de la république, constitue un bon modèle de gouvernement sous la plume de Machiavel. Ce modèle, présenté dans le cadre d’une interprétation de l’histoire politique romaine, semble être fréquemment désigné par l’expression de vivere civile ou encore celle de vivere libero. Qu’est-ce exactement que le vivere civile selon Machiavel ? D’après les réponses des chercheurs de l’école de Cambridge, le vivere civile serait une république conçue comme « structure of virtue », c’est-à-dire l’institutionnalisation de la virtù civique promouvant la virtù des citoyens (J.G.A. Pocock), ou encore le nom de tout régime républicain caractérisé par son indépendance vis-à-vis de l’extérieur et par l’autogovernemment de ses citoyens (Quentin Skinner) ; l’équivalence entre vivere civile et régime républicain serait complète. Nous pensons à l’inverse que le vivere civile est pensé avant tout en opposition à la tyrannie comme une bonne forme de communauté politique régie par les lois et ordini (elle peut à ce titre éventuellement se réaliser dans un cadre monarchique et non seulement dans une république). Par ailleurs, le vivere civile se fonde sur trois pierres angulaires interdépendantes : l’ensemble des lois et des ordini, les armes et la religion, pensés conjointement dans le cadre d’une république conquérante. Notre problématique regroupe plusieurs questions : par rapport à la tradition, quelle est la particularité de l’idée machiavélienne du vivere civile ? Quelle est la nature et quel est le contenu de la justice dans le vivere civile machiavélien ? Pourquoi une république « expansionniste » (c’est-à-dire une république qui désire se développer par les conquêtes militaires) est-elle supérieure à une république « conservatrice » (qui se contente de son territoire, sans chercher à s’agrandir) ? Pourquoi faut-il armer ses propres citoyens dans la république expansionniste ? Quel rôle la religion joue-t-elle dans le vivere civile ? Comment remédier à la corruption du vivere civile ? etc. Ces questions, pourtant, sont plus complexes qu’il pourrait y paraître et méritent qu’on y accorde plus d’attention. Divers travaux publiés ces dernières années ont présenté sous de nouveaux visages les aspects juridique, militaire et religieux du vivere civile machiavélien. La thèse a donc pour ambition de présenter une synthèse de la pensée machiavélienne au prisme de la question du vivere civile. / The ancient Rome, both in the epochs of kings and of the Republic, is a good model of government in the thought of Machiavelli. In the interpretation of Roman political history, this model is frequently referred to as vivere civile or vivere libero. What exactly is the vivere civile according to Machiavelli? According to the responses of the Cambridge School researchers, the vivere civile would be a republic conceived of as a "structure of virtue", namely the institutionalization of the civic virtù that promots the virtù of the citizens (J.G.A. Pocock), or the name of any republican regime characterized by its independence from the external world and by the self-governance of its citizens (Quentin Skinner); and they believe that the vivere civile is equivalent to the republican regime. Conversely, we argue that the vivere civile is conceived of as, above all, in opposition to the tyranny, a good form of political community governed by laws and ordini, which can be realized not only in a republic but also in a monarchy. Besides, the vivere civile is based on three interdependent cornerstones: the whole of the laws and the ordini, the arms, and the religion, which are conceived together in the framework of a conquering republic. Our issue includes a set of questions: compared to the tradition, what is the particularity of the Machiavellian idea of the vivere civile ? What is the nature and content of the justice in the Machiavellian vivere civile ? Why is an “expansionist” republic (namely a republic that wants to expand by military conquests) superior to a “conservative” republic (that is content with its territory and does not seek to expand) ? Why is it necessary to keep one's own citizens armed in an expansionist republic? What role does the religion play in the vivere civile ? How to remedy the corruption of the vivere civile ? etc. These questions, however, are more complicated than they might seem and deserve more attention. Various works that are published in recent years have presented the legal, military and religious aspects of the Machiavellian vivere civile from several new perspectives. The thesis therefore aims to present a synthesis of Machiavellian thought through the prism of the question of vivere civile.

La presente tesi tratta il principio di concorrenza fra diritto del lavoro, diritti sociali e ordini professionali. E' un elaborato multidisciplinare comportando l’analisi di istituti, norme e principi non solo giuslavoristici, ma anche propri del diritto privato generale e del diritto antritrust / This thesis deals with the principle of competition between labor law, social rights and professional associations. it is an elaborate multi-disciplinary analysis of the leading institutions, rules and principles not only labor law but also of their private law and general law antritrust

La produzione di carne è disciplinata dai diritti ebraico ed islamico attraverso normative che, a prescindere dalle loro rispettive specificità, sono accomunate dallo scopo fondamentale di rammentare ai fedeli la gravità dell’atto di privare un animale della vita. La produzione di carni kashèr (idonee ad essere consumate, in base al diritto ebraico) e halal (lecite, ai sensi di quello islamico) trova generalmente spazio nelle democrazie pluraliste in virtù del diritto alla libertà religiosa. Questo, ad ogni modo, non esime lo Stato dalla responsabilità di disciplinare la macellazione e l’uso commerciale delle indicazioni di qualità kashèr e halal, in ragione ed entro i limiti dei propri compiti di tutela della salute umana ed animale, della concorrenza e dei consumatori. Assolvere questa responsabilità nel rispetto della reciproca autonomia tra Stato e confessioni religiose implica la ricerca di un equilibrio complesso, soprattutto quando si tratta di individuare e delimitare le competenze dei poteri pubblici, degli enti confessionali e del settore privato in materia di macellazione rituale e di certificazione religiosa delle carni. La tesi analizza e mette a confronto le soluzioni normative adottate in due ordinamenti (quello francese e quello statunitense) ispirati al principio di separazione dello Stato dalle religioni, seppur con declinazioni molto differenti. / Meat production is regulated by both Jewish and Islamic Laws through sets of rules that, aside from their respective specificities, share the aim of teaching reverence for life to the believers. Generally speaking, in pluralist democracies the production of kosher (“fit/proper”, according to Jewish Law) and halal (“permissible”, under Islamic Law) meat is protected under the right to freedom of religion. However, the State retains the authority to regulate the use of religious slaughter and that of kosher and halal claims in the meat market, on the basis and within the limits of its mandate to protect and promote public health, humane treatment of animals, fair market competition and consumer rights. Fulfilling such responsibility without overstepping the bounds of State-religion mutual autonomy is a complex task, especially when it comes to determining the roles of public authorities, religious bodies and the private sector in the fields of ritual slaughter and religious certification; it requires, indeed, to strike a fair balance between several - sometimes competing - rights and interests. The dissertation analyses and compares the legal approaches through which these matters are addressed in France and in the US, where the general principle of separation between Church and State is construed and implemented in profoundly different ways.