This dissertation analyzes the theoretical and political debate about the state of exception with a focus on the contributions of Carl Schmitt, Walter Benjamin and Giorgio Agamben. Thus, it explores how the dynamics of social struggles fit in that discussion. From very different perspectives, the three authors understand that the state of exception is immanent to the rule of law, and reveals life as an element that, in exceptional circumstances, has a closer relationship with sovereignty. Therefore, this paper assumes that it is not possible to react to exception by reaffirming liberal normality, since that exception is ultimately within the very foundation of Liberalism. The paper then observes that, in addition to the negative dimension of the state of exception (as a tool of oppression), the debates concerning this issue acknowledge the power of resistance. Some seek to eliminate resistance (like Schmitt); others strive to empower it to the fullest, inciting revolution (as Benjamin). And there are those who devote themselves primarily to the task of deeply understanding the problem, instead of pointing out subjects and practical means able to cope with the situation (as Agamben). Notably, an exception is as oppressive as the rule; in the face of that reality, the challenge thus is to work on resistance. Hence, there is a need to make the subversive potential that emanates from very exceptional situations— called, in this study, the positive dimension of the state of exception—real. To do so, one has to take into account the selectivity of an exception and understand that it is even because of that selectivity that politics come from the oppressed. The question is whether the law, appointed as an instrument of violence and domination, must be denied altogether or can be used as a tool to legitimate struggles. The conclusion of this work is that, if the state of exception is a strategic place of political struggles, the law (the flip side of that coin) is as well. The ambiguity of exception permeates the law and vice versa. They are in both the dimension of oppression and of resistance.