Suchergebnisse

Корупција представља једну од најважнијих тема међународне политике сузбијања криминалитета. Управо нас она упућује, заједно са савременим облицима коруптивног деловања, на потребу увођења одговорности правних лица за дела корупције. Дуго година владајућа максима societas delinquere non potest, која је одбацивала идеју о кривичној одговорности правних лица, у савременом кривичном законодавству је доведена у питање. О неопходности законског уређења проблематике одговорности правних лица за кривична дела говоре многобројни међународни документи које је наша земља ратификовала и на тај начин преузела обавезу имплементације норми међународног права. Овом приликом проблематизујемо питање које се односи на одговорност правних лица за кривична дела и кривичноправно сузбијање корупције. На овом месту размотрићемо да ли је потребно да се говори о кривичној одговорности правних лица, или је примереније терминолошки и са становишта теорије говорити о казненој одговорности правних лица. ; Corruption is considered a social problem not only in Serbia. This phenomenon is given more and more attention at the international level as well. This primarily means coordinated efforts in opposing this obstacle and threat to the development of every country. It is surprising how material-criminal legal norms were narrowly determined in the field of one of the most important topics of international and national policy of crime suppression. For decades, and particularly thanks to sensations of the last years, the practitioners, especially those in the field of judiciary and police, have been warning of corruption and the need of its suppression and limiting. The connection between corruption and organized crime has intensified even more the discussions on counter measures that could be incorporated into the existing laws and remove their weaknesses. Every country should undertake a number of measures and activities in the field of battle against corruption taking into account the international standards in this field. These measures may be of preventive or repressive character. This paper deals with criminal legal intervention that represents ultima ratio, i.e. the last resort that should not be used until all other means and manners to protect someone have been exhausted. Our legislator has responded in the meantime, removed the most important flaws that distort the picture about our criminal legal regulations and incriminated corruptive behaviour, taking into account at that the obligations undertaken based on international conventions. Very delicate field of the responsibility of legal persons for criminal act remains unregulated. In this paper we point out to the need and state the reasons, with parallel study of the achieved solutions in some countries and Anglo-Saxon and continental legal culture, why the issue of responsibilities of legal persons for acts of corruption and even more widely should be regulated by a separate law.

The author argues that democracy is not appropriate for the resolution of the relationship between law & the democratically conditioned state authority in the multinational Europe. The so-called democratic deficit should be understood not only as the empirical fact of a multinational Europe, but also as a paradoxical structural attribute of modern political thought from Kant until today. The author claims that the people should not rule as they might violate all the laws they enacted themselves. Thus the question of the equality of citizens cannot be a democratic one but legal & constitutional. Democracy cannot lay claim to be the sole provider of the legal equality of citizens just as law cannot be the only arbiter in making democratic distinctions among them. Since democracy should be understood as an independent autopoietic & autoimmune medium relatively independent of political power & legal constraints as its setting, the author concludes that the existing forms of immediate & representative democracy, as well as of the traditional form of democratic decision/making represent a risk of regressive progress in Europe in the direction of democracy limited by nation, religion or by class. Adapted from the source document.

The author shows the importance of Hobbes' political thought in formulating the modern state. His contractual argument did not become obsolete as his scientific method. Hobbes breaks from the Aristotelian & natural rights tradition, or rather, he gives the concept of natural right an entirely new meaning. In this context the state of nature, contract & state are logical constructs, & not concepts in direct causal relationship. Hobbes' contract is not just a contract about the system of government; it is what society begins with. The contract is only the ground for the formation of the sociability of the individual, if it is at the same time the ground for establishing the government. The author emphasizes that, just like Kant, Hobbes & Locke consider leaving the state of nature necessary, not simply because of pragmatic reasons, but because the state has to legitimate itself as a claim of pure practical reason. Therefore, the author, following Kant, holds that the duty towards civil society & state cannot be based in the context of Hobbes' & Locke's philosophy, because, although the creation of state can be seen as an act of prudence, that in itself does not show a real obligation to pass from the state of nature to the state of law. The author also notes Hobbes' error in constructing a state independent from ownership. Contrary to him, Kant reasonably & legally bases theory of property as decisive part of his contractualism & creates a philosophical & legal foundation for the philosophy of the state. References. Adapted from the source document.

The paper deals with the innovations the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe brings into the field of human rights. One of them is incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the very Constitution. In this way, a political declaration adopted in Nice has become a legal document, achieving also constitutionalization of fundamental rights at the Union level. Secondly, there is an explicit possibility for the EU to accede the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms. Within that context the author considers the relationship between the Charter of Human Rights & the European Convention, as well as the relationship between the two courts: the European Court of Human Rights & the European Court of Justice. References. Adapted from the source document.

The article deals with international legal regulation of protection & sustainable use of watercourses with special reference to the Sava River Basin. This regulation is considerably developed on universal, regional & sub regional international levels by a substantial number of declaratory, treaty & other acts dealing with the subject. In case of the river Sava the basic frame for regulation is on the European level: the documents concerning the Danube River as a whole, & particularly the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin. The author stresses that adoption & ratification of this document is probably one of the biggest step forward in co-operation between Slovenia, Croatia, B&H, & Serbia & Montenegro. References. Adapted from the source document.

The ability to publish one of the key texts of the ancestors of modern thought is a reliable sign of the self-awareness & professionalism of a community. Therefore, the long awaited Croatian translation of Hobbes' Leviathan deserves our full & close attention. Hobbes' main theoretical work is an especially challenging one to translate. It requires the translator to be skilled & well-versed in modern & contemporary political & legal theory. An undertaking of this magnitude makes sense only if through it -- by the means of the Croatian language -- we can hope to understand Hobbes' political ideas more fully. This careful scrutiny of the translation follows challenging pitfalls of translating Hobbes' capital work. The author examines the correctness of the terminology & the conceptual accuracy of the translation of terms, such as: "power," "Sovereignty," "Commonwealth," "Law" through the example of analyzing three chosen chapters (XVI, XXI, XXVI). Although the undertaking of such task deserves praise for both the translator & the publisher of the work, the review, a critical analysis of the work, states that the Croatian translation does not satisfy the high expectations. It is conceptually inaccurate at places, which, occasionally makes it harder or even impossible to understand Hobbes' original. The review ends on a doubtful self-critical note: are we up to the task of tackling this certainly most important book of modern political thought? The professional self-respect of Croatian political science depends, or should depend -- at least to some extent -- on tasks like this one. References. Adapted from the source document.

Polazeći od postmodernih teorija diferencije (Luhman, Derrida, Castells) autor ustvrđuje da se pitanje europske budućnosti i demokracije ne može razumjeti preko bilo koje vrste projekta višeg jedinstva, već kao proces političkog djelovanja uz koji se ne može vezati perspektiva unaprijed određenog ustrojstva Europe. Ishodište takve ocjene autor pronalazi u oprečnosti dvaju nesumjerljivih pluralizama: povijesno proizvedenog, koji se očituje u specifi čnim nacionalnim ili religijskim svojstvima i onog koji je određen demokratskom procedurom, koji ne polazi od specifi čnih svojstava pripadnika neke zajednice nego od načela pravne jednakosti. Upravo zbog spomenute razlike, demokracija, pravo, politika ili pak religija su naprosto auotopoietični sustavi, koji se ne integriraju u viša jedinstva, već funkcioniraju kao funkcionalno limitirane cjeline, koje uključuju i isključuju iz sustava različite segmente okoline. Ako nema tog višeg cilja prema kojem Europa treba ići, čemu treba težiti Europa, pa onda i europska demokracija? Odgovor je, smatra autor, u dekonstrukciji europskih vizija, iluzija i projekata, pri čemu kritički potencijal teorija diferencije nije u njihovoj praktičkoj primjeni, nego u njihovom drugačijem razumijevanju stanja stvari. ; Proceeding from postmodern theories of diff erence (Luhman, Derrida, Castells), the author concludes that the issue of the European future and democracy cannot be understood through any kind of project of higher unity, but as a process of political action which cannot be tied with a perspective of a predetermined structure of Europe. The author fi nds the origin of such an assessment in the oppositeness of two incommensurate pluralisms: a historically produced one, manifested in specifi c national or religious properties, and the one determined by a democratic procedure, which does not proceed from specifi c properties of members of a community, but from a principle of legal equality. It is because of the mentioned diff erence that democracy, law, politics or religion are ...