Suchergebnisse

U ovom članku autor na sugestivan način ukazuje na važnost razumijevanja nacije i države u kontekstu evropske filozofske misli i prakse o naciji i državi. Iako su mu povod nacija Bošnjaka i bosanska država, autorova razmišljanja su aplikativna za sve skupine slične naciji Bošnjaka, kao i za države slične bosanskoj državi. Osnovna misao u ovom članku je da ideja univerzalne nacije, kulture i civilizacije niti osporava niti negira partikularni osjećaj i subjektivni doživljaj nacije i države. Članstvo u Evropskoj uniji ne oduzima pravo nijednoj naciji u Evropi da gaji i razvija svoju nacionalno-kulturnu i nacionalno-državnu svijest. Zapravo, u mjeri u kojoj je svaka nacija i svaka država u Evropi aktivno svjesna svoje nacionalne i kulturne specifične vrijednosti, čini Evropu, odnosno Evropsku uniju, snažnom i važnom u globalnom svijetu. Otuda i Bošnjaci, odnosno Bosanci, kao nacija i kao država (nacija) nemaju potrebe da se povlače, već imaju historijsku obavezu da istaknu svoju specifičnu bosansku kulturu i bosansku državu kao bogatstvo vrijedno pažnje ne samo u Evropi već i u svijetu. ; In this article, the author suggestively points to the importance of understanding the concept of nation and the state in the context of the European philosophical thought and practice regarding the nation and the state. Although the occasion is about the Bosniak/Bosnian nation and the Bosnian state, the author's reflections are applicable to all groups similar to the Bosniak/Bosnain nation, as well as to all the states similar to the Bosnian state. The basic premise of this article is that the idea of a universal nationality, culture and civilisation does not oppose or negate the particular feeling or the subjective experience of either the nationality or the state. The membership of European Union does not detract the right for any nation in Europe of the right to cultivate and develop its national culture as well as its particular state consciousness. In fact, in the extent of which every nation and every state in Europe has an active awareness of its national and cultural specific value, gives Europe, indeed – the European Union strong and important role in the global community. Hence, the Bosniaks/Bosnians, both as a nation and a state (nation) have no need to withdraw, but rather have the historical opportunity to feature their specific Bosnian culture and Bosnian state as a richness worthy of appreciation, not only in Europe, but also in the world.

The author discusses the reasons for relativization of the national minorities protection policy of the Council of Europe and the European Union in light of the problems with national minorities protection in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The minorities protection policies in Bosnia and Herzegovina had implications for minority rights protection in Hungary and Croatia after Croatia's accession to the EU . The European Union, the Council of Europe and other European institutions defined their position towards minority rights in light of the European Court for Human Rights decision in the Sejdić and Finci case. The decision specified mandatory constitutional changes in terms of equal protection of national minority rights. According to the demanded constitutional revisions, the representatives of national minorities would have a right to compete for legal and executive positions in the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina. Before the ECHR decision, only representatives of the three constituent peoples – Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats could be nominated for positions in the legislature and in the executive institutions. The Council of Europe mediated by CoE Parliamentarian Assembly and Committee of Ministers threatened to suspend BiH membership to the CoE until the decision was implemented. At the same time, coordinated European Union institutions made the ratification of the Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) negotiated with Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2008 conditional upon the implementation of the Sejdić and Finci decision. The threat wasn't carried through and BiH became presiding country of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 2014. In the meantime, the newly elected European Parliament as well as recently appointed European Commission accepted the SAA although the Sejdić-Finci decision was not incorporated in the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. ; Evropska unija, Savjet Evrope i druge evropske institucije bitno su odredile svoj odnos prema Bosni i Hercegovini u odnosu na primjenu Odluke Evropskog suda za ljudska prava "u slučaju Sejdić i Finci", koji nalaže obavezu ustavnih promjena u pravcu zaštite jednakosti prava pripadnika nacionalnih manjina. Tim promjenama i predstavnici nacionlanih manjina imali bi pravo da budu kandidovani na sve pozicije zakonodavne i izvršne vlasti u Bosni i Hercegovini. Do odluke u spomenutom slučaju, poznatom kao "Sejdić – Finci", samo su pripadnici tri konstitutivna naroda u Bosni i Hercegovini – Srba, Bošnjaka i Hrvata, mogli da budu kandidovani za te funkcije. U više navrata Savjet Evrope je posredstvom Parlamentarne skupštine ili Komiteta ministara prijetio suspenzijom, čak i izbacivanjem Bosne i Hercegovine iz ove međunarodne organizacije. Istovremeno, čak i koordinisano, institucije Evropske unije raznih nivoa uslovljavale su ratifikaciju Sporazuma o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju (SAA ), postignutog još 2008. godine, isto primjenom navedene odluke. Prijetnja se odnosila na nepriznavanja izbornih rezultata na lokalnim izborima 2012. i opštim izborima 2014. godine. To se nije desilo, a u međuvremenu BiH je bila zemlja – predsjedavajuća Komiteta ministara Savjeta Evrope. Novoizabrani saziv Evropskog parlamenta i nova Evropska komisija prihvatili su Sporazum o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju nakon opštih izbora u BiH 2014, iako odluka Evropskog suda za ljudska prava nije primijenjena. Predmet rada biće razlozi relativizacije manjinskih politika Savjeta Evrope i Evropske unije u politikama zaštite prava nacionalnih manjina u BiH. Time su postale vidljive i upozoravajuće i druge politike relativizacije položaja i prava nacionalnih manjina, poput Mađarske i Hrvatske, do čega je došlo nakon prijema ove dvije države u Evropsku uniju.

Početkom 20. stoljeća brojne krize potresale su Balkan, a one poput Aneksione (1908–1909) i Balkanskih ratova (1912–1913) snažno su utjecale na gibanja u bosanskohercegovačkom društvu. Suočena s vrlo kompleksnom političkom situacijom na Balkanu, Austro-Ugarska je morala izgraditi strategiju jačanja svog utjecaja na ovom području. U tom smislu, Sarajevo je trebalo odigrati vrlo važnu ulogu. U ovom radu se želi pokazati kako je austrougarska vlast u Bosni i Hercegovini, plasirajući ideju da bi se u Sarajevu mogao osnovati univerzitet, lavirala između davno zacrtane kulturne misije u datom području i političkih mahinacija kojima se trebao anulirati rastući utjecaj Srbije. Reakcija javnosti, kako one u Bosni i Hercegovini, tako i one u Monarhiji, na ideju o osnivanju sarajevskog univerziteta, primorala je njene glavne zagovornike na propitivanje vlastitih političkih rezona. ; At the beginning of the 20th century, the Balkans was the epicentre of numerous crises and some of them (the Annexation Crisis 1908–1909 and the Balkan Wars 1912–1913) had a major effect on social activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore, faced with a very complex political situation in the Balkans, Austro-Hungary was about to develop a strategy of increasing its own influence in the mentioned area. Consequently, Sarajevo was bound to play an important role in these plans. This paper argues that, by promoting the idea of establishing a university in Sarajevo, the Austro-Hungarian authorities were actually oscillating between their previous plan of conducting a cultural mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina and political machinations aimed at the annihilation of Serbian influence. The public reactions in Bosnia, as well as in the remainder of the Monarchy, forced the solicitors of this idea to re-examine their own political considerations.

Poduzimanje pravne reforme postaje nužno onda kada pravni sistem ne odgovara na potrebe društva u promijenjenim društvenim okolnostima. Reformu pravnog sistema moguće je provesti na temelju postojećih izvora, unutar pravnog sistema koji se želi reformirati ili putem pozajmljivanja pravnih instituta iz naprednijih pravnih sistema, koji su od ranije poznati. Oživljavanjem funkcije države u Evropi od XI stoljeća sve više vladara poseže za reformom pravnog sistema kao odgovorom na narastajuće probleme s kojima se društvo suočava. Ova reforma započeta je na Siciliji 1140. godine, donošenjem Assize iz Ariana, a nastavljena je u Engleskoj donošenjem više assiza od strane kralja Henryja II. U pokušaju da ukažemo na mogući utjecaj koji se odvijao putem preuzimanja gotovih rješenja iz jedne pravne tradicije u drugu, koristili smo se historijskom i uporednom metodom. Pojedini pravni instituti u okviru ove reforme ukazuju na to da se radilo o pravnim transplantima koje anglosaksonska i normanska pravna tradicija nisu poznavale. Rješenja koja su usvojena ukazuju na sličnosti sa šerijatskom pravnom tradicijom a njihovo prenošenje u engleski pravni sistem moglo je doći posredstvom ljudi koji su bili u službi normanskih vladara na Siciliji (Rogera II) a koji su kasnije ušli u službu engleskog kralja Henryja II. ; Undertaking legislative reform becomes necessary when the legal system does not respond to the needs of society in changed social circumstances. The reform can be carried out on the basis of existing sources, within the legal system to be reformed, or by borrowing institutions from more advanced systems, which are already known. After the 11th century, following the revival of the function of the state in Europe, more and more rulers resorted to the reform of the legal system, as a response to the growing problems that society was facing. This reform began in Sicily in 1140, with the enactment of Assizes from Ariano and continued in England with the enactment of The Assize of Clarendon? (1166) by King Henry II. In an attempt to point out the possible influence that took place by taking ready-made solutions from one legal tradition to another, the historical and comparative method is used. Some legal institutions that were part of this reform indicate that these were transplants that the Anglo-Saxon and Norman traditions did not know. The solutions adopted point to similarities with the Sharia legal tradition, and their transposition into the English legal system could have come through people who were in the service of the Norman rulers in Sicily (Roger II) and who later entered the service of King Henry II.