Tuyen Quang Travel on State sovereignty and private property, writes the Italian jurist Ugo Mattei, share an identical structure, one of exclusion and sovereign discretion (Mattei 2011,45). Far from being the other of, or more simply the limit to, state power, private property constitutes and develops itself within the same framework, whose establishment is made possible by multifarious processes of bordering the common. To recall what we wrote following Evgen Pashukanis in the previous chapter, a kind of double bind characterizes the historical and conceptual evolution of civil and public law in modem times. It is certainly true, as we saw in Marx’s analysis of enclosures, that the establishment of private property and civil law is made possible by the direct and violent intervention of the state. Moreover, as we can say playing with the terminology of Roman law, the role of the state is not only crucial in the moment of limitation but also extends across each actio finium regun-dorum, each act of regulating the relations between proprietors, because the sovereignty of the state on its territory is the condition for the existence of civil law itself. At the same time, when we look at the structure of civil law from the angle provided by Pashukanis’s analysis of the relation between law and the commodity form, it appears that the hardest core of legal haziness (if one may be permitted to use such an expression) is to be found precisely in the sphere of civil law. It is here above all that the legal subject, the persona’ finds entirely adequate embodiment in the real person of the subject operating egoistically, the owner, the bearer of private interests (Pashukanis 2002, 80). Tuyen Quang Travel 2016.