Suchergebnisse

The author's starting point is Locke's classical thesis that the rulers & the ruled are subject to universal laws & that their abuses are prevented by the institutional means of power sharing. The rule according to which nobody can be a judge in their own affairs unconditionally applies in all court or administrative proceedings. The problem arises when this legal thinking is applied to parliaments. Namely, in parliamentary work the incompatibility of the mandates of the legislative & the executive branch is annulled since the executive power gains the upper hand in the composition & substance of the legislature. Besides, The basic law (Grundgesetz) provides MPs with indemnity in their voting behavior & guarantees to them immunity from punishment for certain acts that other citizens would not be able to get away with. This relative freedom & independence of MPs is corrected by the rule books on the behavior of MPs that envision the necessity of their ethical conduct. The violations of the rules are sanctioned not so much by moderatorial law as by political means. The author's opinion is that deciding on their own affairs cannot be universally granted to parliaments. Constitutions allow, even call for, certain decisions on one's own affairs to be made. However, due to insufficient outside control, self-control must be increased, which implies legal obedience on the part of MPs so that laws become meaningful for all participants. Besides the ethical & political pressures that force the MPs to behave in a law-abiding manner, laws also exert positive pressure on them to see to it that their decisions serve the public good. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the concept of balance of power in International Relations through critical overview of Realist tradition (both Classical and scientific), and its horizontal understanding of balancing of power as a principle per se. The first part analyzes the pessimistic phase (Classical Realism), with the emphasis on the works of H.J. Morgenthau, who promoted the balance of power as a principle per se in the hands of international power politics. In the second part, the scientific phase (Neorealism) empirically establishes the value-free balance of power concept in International Relations. By examining materialism and empiricism of Realism, in the third part the author indicates the limitations of the horizontal approach as a consequence of permanently ignoring the vertical aspect: ideational approach and norms and rules as the first principle of international system of society of states. Adapted from the source document.

The topic under discussion is the correlations between respect of the sovereign equality of all states, the balance of power in the World Community, & the capability of that Community for certain joint enforcement actions when necessary. All attempts throughout the history of radical elimination of the principle of sovereign equality of states by imposing hegemony by one power, or by several powers, finally failed. That happened with the rule of Napoleon I over continental Europe prior to 1815, or with attempts to impose a "New Order" by the Axis powers during WWII. At the same time, efforts to replace the balance of power by some integrated collective security systems failed. Within the League of Nations & the UN, that balance of power continued to operate among the leading member states. There is, however, a paradox in the fact that respect of the principle of sovereign equality of all states in the presence of a balance of power considerably diminish the probability of joint enforcement actions when they prove necessary. Today, only the US has the military potential & political will to face large-scale commissions of international crimes, as well as acts of international terrorism. At the same time, the lack of the balance of powers in the present World Community results in some distorted attitudes & practices by this unique superpower that are not always in perfect harmony with basic values of our civilization. 9 References. Adapted from the source document.

The successive stages of development of constitutional democracy in the USA, in particular the experience of "judicial supervision paradox," show us that the U.S. Supreme Court performed at least two different functions: (1) norm enforcement, & (2) policy-making through re-examination & interpretation of the Constitution & the laws in cases brought before the Court. Dissent among American legal experts related to this & other matters prove that debates on judicial activism are not a thing of the past. Still, both advocates & critics of judicial activism share the view that judges have been an important part of the American constitutional process since its inception. The Marbury v. Madison case (1803) affirmed the institution of judicial supervision & denoted a gradual shift of judicial power into the field of public law. Thus further expansion & transformation of judicial power was made possible. In this article, the author establishes a connection between judicial activism & judicial supervision, & adheres to the standpoint that the "judicializing aspect of modern liberalism" deserves as much attention as any other aspect of democratization. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes two hypotheses about the end of history & the end of democracy. It has turned out that Fukuyama's thesis that the principle of liberal democracy has outlasted its competition is valid, but only, as Guehenno claims, when the conditions for democratic politics have disappeared. Guehenno does not refute Fukuyama's thesis but only declares it irrelevant. He finds the rationale for this in the deterritorialization of politics ie, the notion that politics is eluding democracy. This also means that the state is no longer important for politics. The author relativizes this thesis in two ways: first he shows that there are still the spheres in territorially limited spaces where politics is hugely influential. Second, the state remains the foundation for all political structures that are set up at the regional or global levels. He concludes that despite its vicissitudes, the state, & consequently democracy, have a future. And finally, the author refers to Tata Vahnen who claims that the expansion of democracy is linked with a more equitable distribution of the resources of power. 8 References. Adapted from the source document.

This article investigates which one of two competing theories -- balance of power theory or power preponderance theory -- better explains war in the territory of former Yugoslavia. The main finding is that military preponderance in favor of Serbia fostered aggression of this state on Slovenia, Croatia, & Bosnia & Herzegovina. Furthermore, relative balance of power, which was established in 1995, was the main reason for the termination of hostilities & for the Dayton peace agreement. Consequently, this article concludes that case study of the war in the territory of former Yugoslavia is an additional argument in favor of classical balance of power theory & that power preponderance theory can neither explain the outbreak nor the ending of this war. This article also challenges previous interpretations of war in the former Yugoslavia, which claimed that this war was a civil war based on ethnic hatred. In contrast, this article argues that conflict on the territory of former Yugoslavia was primarily an interstate war based on rational calculations of the main actors. 50 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author devotes the first portion of the article to an analysis of several modern 'two-house' parliamentary systems, & shows the factors influencing their formation in federal & unitary states. An analysis of the relationship between the two houses in some political system leads to the conclusion that this system has considerable influence in federal countries (with the exception of Austria), while there is considerably less influence on unitary states -- where the role of the first house is considerably greater than that of the second in law-making & executive functions. The second portion of the article is an analysis of the relationship between the Representatives' House and House of Counties in the Croatian parliament. Although a two-house system by definition, it lacks equality between the two houses in the law-making process & their stances toward the executive. They each have different powers, their members are elected in different ways, & their relationship with the executive differs. This parliament can be characterized as an asymmetrical two-house parliamentary system. Although the House of Counties can initiate laws, it cannot by law, pass laws. Thus, the House of Counties is seen as an advisory body &, in some degree, a supervisory body with the right of veto, & as a house through which regional interests are articulated & represented. Although the real center of power is in the hands of the state & the president, & not in the parliament -- since the Croatian political system is based on a concept of imbalance favoring the executive -- the new Parliament is the real framework for fundamental & long-term political, economic, & institutional transformation in Croatia, as seen by the intensive legislative, supervisory, & legitimation functions of the past two years. 5 Tables. Adapted from the source document.