LOS USOS CONTEMPORÁNEOS DE LA EXPRESIÓN BIENES COMUNES: UN MAPA CRÍTICO DE SUS DEBATES Y PROPUESTAS

This dissertation examines the contemporary uses of the expression Commons, arguing that it constitutes not a univocal legal category but a heterogeneous constellation of theoretical perspectives and practical experiences. Far from being a merely descriptive label, the term reflects an effort to reintroduce humility and interdependence into political and legal thinking—an alternative to the individualistic and proprietarian logic that has shaped modern institutions and contributed to environmental, social, and economic crises. Contemporary discourses on Commons evoke the idea that human existence is inseparable from others, including non-human beings and ecosystems, and that coexistence requires forms of collective stewardship capable of sustaining life. This research was developed within the European H2020-MSCA program “CLOE – Training to Complexity,” under the project Alternatives to Private Property in the History of Legal Culture. Within this framework, the study addresses the following central question: What are the contemporary modes of understanding the expression “common goods”? The general objective is to analyze theoretical and practical proposals associated with common goods in order to determine whether they articulate an alternative to private property. The specific objectives include: (1) contextualizing the rise of Commons within current political and theoretical debates; (2) identifying the fundamental questions guiding these proposals; (3) offering a teleological classification of the main contemporary understandings of Commons; (4) examining their relationship with law; and (5) analyzing the Chilean Constitutional Convention (2021–2022) as a notable institutional example of the term’s deployment. Methodologically, the research is situated within legal sociology, understood in Kelsen’s sense as the study of social facts in their relations of cause and effect rather than as an analysis of valid norms. The expression common goods is thus approached as a linguistic and social fact that aspires to enter legal and institutional practice. Following the analytical tradition of the Genoese School, the dissertation identifies distinctions necessary to clarify the conceptual field and contributes to the history of legal culture by uncovering the political ideas embedded in contemporary uses of the term. A qualitative methodology is applied in the final chapter to examine primary sources of the Chilean Constitutional Convention. The dissertation is structured into four chapters. Chapter I situates the contemporary uses of Commons within their political, legal, and theoretical context, and identifies three essential elements of any proposal engaging with the concept: a view of the identity of the commons, a criterion defining what counts as common, and a position toward law. Chapter II surveys existing classifications and proposes a new typology based on the purposes attributed to Commons. Chapter III analyzes the diverse attitudes toward law within commons discourse—ranging from reformist confidence to revolutionary distrust—and argues for the constitutional inclusion of Commons as a means of strengthening democratic and collective rights. Chapter IV examines the work of Commission V of the Chilean Constitutional Convention and the 2022 draft constitution, showing that although the term was often used to protect material and immaterial goods, the case of water governance illustrates how commons discourse can open spaces for community participation. Overall, the dissertation offers a systematic map of contemporary understandings of Commons, demonstrating their potential to reconfigure the relationship between community, law, and ecology, and to inform new institutional imaginaries beyond the limits of proprietary modernity.