This article critically examines major contemporary theories of sovereignty, legitimacy, systems, biopolitics, and justice through a transversal normative provocation: under what conditions does institutional continuity cease to be justifiable? While these traditions offer sophisticated accounts of institutional foundation, reproduction, reform, and stability, they often presuppose continuity as an implicit normative horizon. The article identifies a structural asymmetry within modern legitimacy theory: extensive criteria exist for evaluating legitimacy and reform, yet institutional termination is rarely conceptualized as a structured fiduciary obligation. In response, the article introduces the concept of fiduciary admissibility of continuity, a procedural framework for evaluating whether continued institutional authorization remains normatively defensible. The model distinguishes reformable deficit from structural exhaustion and articulates evaluative criteria including constitutive purpose integrity, reformability plausibility, harm proportionality, authorization correspondence, and vulnerability impact. The framework does not advocate discretionary dissolution. It constrains termination within procedural safeguards designed to preserve stability while recognizing limits to institutional endurance. The central claim is that, under specific conditions, withdrawal of authorization may represent not governance failure but its highest fiduciary expression.
Ricardo Pires da Silva (Fri,) studied this question.