| dc.description.abstract | The aim of this dissertation is to elucidate how the concept of enemy is a narrative constructed by those in power to legitimize an authoritarian government intervention
against its citizens. In view of this, the problem question that is intended to be answered
is: to what extent is the construction of a narrative about the enemy fundamental for the civil war to be a paradigm of government? By way of conclusion, the hypothesis raised will be confirmed, that is, that in current democracies the enemy's narrative is crucial to legitimize the legal civil war, which is a biopolitical device of control and that from it the State has more strength, while citizens lose their rights. In the first chapter, an analysis is carried out on the consequences of enmity in the legal system based on the thinking of Gunther Jokobs and later, the criticisms made to him by Raúl Zaffaroni are analyzed. It is important to understand in this problem who decides on the enemy and how he is recognized in society, this analysis is done through the study of Carl Schmitt's thought. In the second chapter, based on the thought of Giorgio Agamben, a study is made on how enmity legitimates the legal civil war and strengthens that exceptional practices enter the legal system. Finally, in the last chapter, it is clarified that the state of exception at its peak creates anomic spaces such as fields, which are updated in various ways in modernity. In addition, we present a study of the criticism made by Achille Mbembe to the concept of enmity, addressing how war has always occurred in the colonies and how the great “enemies” are currently individuals who have always been marginalized throughout history.” are currently individuals who have always been marginalized throughout history | en |
