Suchergebnisse

"The author intends to present legal socialization - the concept of the sociology of law - which describes attitudes to norms, law and law enforcement institutions. For law to be effective, any individual in a given community needs to internalize a number of values and attitudes. The attitude to law will influence its application; its effectiveness will depend on the perspective adopted by the legal norm addressees who could either accept binding regulations or ignore them. An adequate legal policy helps construe legal norms in a manner to prevent costs of interventions which need to be taken when law is not convergent with social expectations." (author's abstract)

General Introduction -- 1. Status of Religious Communities -- 2. Relations between the State and Islam -- 3. State Support for Islamic Religious Communities -- 4. Islamic Community -- 5. Muslims in Integration Law -- 6. Mosques and Prayer Houses -- 7. Burialand Cemeteries -- 8. Education and Schools -- 9. Further and Higher (Tertiary) Education -- 10. Islamic Chaplaincy in Public Institutions -- 11. Employment and Social Law -- 12. Islamic Slaughter and Food Regulation -- 13. Islamic Dress -- 14. Criminal Law -- 15. Concluding Remarks -- Bibliography -- Index.

Rozdział prezentuje teoretyczna analizę relacji zachodzącej między prawem a kontrolą społeczną przedstawiając w jaki sposób prawo jako narzędzie kontroli społecznej określa nastawienia wobec prawa.

The prestige of law is one of the most crucial issues addressed in the sociology of law. The awareness of the degree of acceptance of the law by its addressees is a fundamental factor in the introduction of possible changes in the legal system.The notion of "prestige of law" was introduced to empirical sociology by Adam Podgórecki in the research he conducted in Poland in 1964.A new perspective in the study was to go beyond classical socio-demographic variables and put an emphasis on personality variables. It was also one of the first such studies internationally. In the fifty years that have passed since A. Podgórecki's research, similar studies, even using exactly the same questions, have been repeated many times in both nation-wide and local studies. It should be assumed that the changes taking place in Poland and in the consciousness of its citizens during that time, such as the change of the system, increasing civil rights and freedoms, Poland's accession to international organizations, etc., might be reflected in the increasing level of the prestige of law. But did it happen? Unfortunately not. The analysis of empirical research devoted to the prestige of law in the following article, especially after the political transformation that took place in 1989, but also nowadays, is an attempt to explain the reasons for its persistently low level. ; Prestiż prawa to jedno z najważniejszych zagadnień podejmowanych w socjologii prawa. Wiedza na temat stopnia akceptacji prawa przez jego adresatów jest czynnikiem podstawowym dla wprowadzenia ewentualnych zmian w porządku prawnym. Pojęcie prestiżu prawa zostało wprowadzone do socjologii empirycznej przez Adama Podgóreckiego w badaniach pod tym tytułem, które przeprowadził w Polsce w 1964 r. Nowym ujęciem w przeprowadzonych badaniach było wyjście poza klasyczne zmienne socjodemograficzne i położenie nacisku na zmienne osobowościowe. Było to też jedno z pierwszych takich badań w skali międzynarodowej. W ciągu pięćdziesięciu lat, które minęły od badań A. Podgóreckiego, podobne badania, nawet przy użyciu dokładnie tak samo sformułowanych pytań, powtarzane były wiele razy, zarówno w badaniach ogólnokrajowych, jak i lokalnych. Należy założyć, że zmiany zachodzące w Polsce i w świadomości jej obywateli przez ten czas, takie jak zmiana ustroju, zwiększenie praw i swobód obywatelskich, wstąpienie Polski do organizacji międzynarodowych itp., mogą mieć odzwierciedlenie w zwiększającym się poziomie prestiżu prawa. Czy jednak tak się stało? Niestety nie. Przeprowadzona w niniejszym artykule analiza badań empirycznych poświęconych prestiżowi prawa, zwłaszcza po transformacji ustrojowej, jaka miała miejsce w 1989 r., ale również w czasach obecnych, stanowi próbę wyjaśnienia przyczyn stale utrzymującego się jego niskiego poziomu.

The issue analysed by the author is that of the institution of Presidential immunity pertaining to the President of the Republic of Poland, and operating in such a way that a sitting President cannot be held criminally liable before a common court for acts tantamount to offences. Inclining towards the essence of this solution and its consequences when it comes to respect for constitutional principles of legalism and equality before the law, the author at the same time seeks to assess the completeness of the provisions in effect in Poland, in so doing identifying a lack of clear directives as to how a former President (i.e. one who has left office) is to be held criminally liable. The conclusion reached by the author can be said to boil down to a recognition that the liability of a former President before Poland's Tribunal of State for offences or crimes committed is of an accessory nature where common courts are concerned, with the condition underpinning recognition of the Tribunal's primacy in matters of jurisdiction being the National Assembly's adoption of a Resolution holding a former President liable constitutionally, and potentially at the same time initiating action in respect of given offences. Any lack of such a National Assembly Resolution must give rise to a particular kind of reactivation – in respect of the former President – of jurisdiction in the dispensing of justice by common courts, given the fact that one of the negative procedural premises has ceased to be non-applicable. Thus, unlike in the case of a President still holding office, the cognition of the Tribunal of State in relation to a former President is neither exclusive nor automatic. Such observations have also stimulated work by the author to develop de lege ferenda postulates regarding the subject matter, as set against the wider background of Poland's political and constitutional system.

The purpose of the article is to present the legal situation of a slave under Roman criminal law. The analysis conducted proves that the approach towards slaves changed along with the transformation of the government system of ancient Rome. In the Period of the Republic, criminal liability of slaves evolved in two directions. The dominica potestas was exercised by owners, as well as the collegial body – tresviri capitales. From the Principate period, Roman jurists were convinced that the legal status of a slave and a free person was identical under criminal law. The difference between these offenders was non-exercise of leges criminales with a penalty that would be inadequate for their legal status, or ruling and exercising of more severe penalties against slaves. ; Artykuł ma na celu przedstawienie sytuacji prawnej niewolnika na gruncie rzymskiego prawa karnego. Przeprowadzone rozważania dowodzą, że podejście do niewolników ulegało zmianie wraz z ewolucją systemu władzy w starożytnym Rzymie. W okresie republiki odpowiedzialność karna niewolników kształtowała się dwutorowo. Jurysdykcję w ramach dominica potestas wykonywali ich właściciele, a także kolegialny urząd – treviri capitales. Juryści rzymscy, począwszy od epoki pryncypatu, nie mieli żadnych wątpliwości, że status prawny niewolnika i osoby wolnej był na gruncie prawa karnego tożsamy. Różnica dotyczyła niestosowania wobec nich leges criminales z sankcją karną nieadekwatną do ich statusu prawnego czy też orzekania i wykonywania surowszej kary wobec niewolnika.

The institution of self-defence comprises both provisions of the General Part (art. 36 and 37:self defence and imaginary self defence) and the Special Part (art. 118 and 124: intentional killing,causing grievous bodily harm as a result of exceeding the borders of self defence or using excessivemeasures necessary to catch the perpetrator) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.There are diverse opinions in Ukrainian jurisprudence concerning the problem of how selfdefenceand other circumstances eliminate the illegality of a forbidden act. The aim of this paper isto present the main attitudes to these problems. The approach considering self-defence in the lightof legality is the most popular view. There is also an approach according to which one distinguishesthe prerequisites for self-defence and the elements of such self-defence taking into account elementssuch as: the subject – the aim – the objective side – the subjective control. The socially harmfulattack which justifies the use of self-defence should be analysed using both of these approaches.The features of a legitimate self-defence are: the subject – a private person; the aim – to causeinjuries to the attacker (the direct aim) in order to repel or stop the attack (the indirect aim) in orderto defend legally protected rights and interests of a person, interests of the society or the state (thefinal aim); the object – the attacker, his rights and interests; the objective side – actions casually connectedwith the causing of harm to the attacker, commensurable with the harmfulness of the attackand the state of the defence; subjective control – proper realisation by the subject of the prerequisitesand features of the defence and the will to cause commensurable harm to the attacker.Two types of exceeding the borders of self-defence are distinguished in the paper: exceedingthe borders of acceptable harm and exceeding the borders of adequate harm. Criminal responsibilityfor exceeding the borders of self-defence arises only in cases clearly provided for in art. 118 and 124of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The sanctions in these articles are much more lenient than in thecase of corresponding offences not committed while exceeding of the borders of self-defence (art.115, 119 and 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). ; Artykuł nie zawiera abstraktu w języku polskim

The breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 30 years ago still has a substantial impact on the post-Yugoslav countries which proclaimed independence. Bearing in mind that the breakup also generated a military conflict, e.g. in Croatia, the restoration of Serbian-Croatian relations remains problematic. One of the challenges is passing a fair judgment on people responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established for this reason in particular. Ante Gotovina – a Croatian general, was one of those indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in connection with the military operation "Oluja" during which some heinous acts of crime took place. Gotovina played a clear and primary role in this operation, and therefore his actions were the main count of the indictment, firstly, for the prosecution and then for the Trial Chamber of ICTY. However, the sentence of 24 years imprisonment was never carried out following a successful appeal. The Appeals Chamber did not uphold the verdict of the Trial Chamber owing to a serious legal error and, consequently, it acquitted Gotovina of all the charges. This issue became yet another source of Serbian-Croatian conflict in connection with the most important people held responsible for the crimes committed in 1991-1995.