Suchergebnisse

This article's point of departure is that the national self-determination doctrine remains one of the most paradoxical, contested, but successful doctrines which has largely contributed to the shape of our existing international system of nation-states. It argues that the doctrine which is intended to safeguard peace and human dignity is and always has been at the heart of many conflicts. Starting with the tension between the universality of the national self-determination doctrine and the particularity of the national group whose interests it promotes, the article explores other paradoxes contained within this doctrine. They range from political and legitimacy challenges to the very nation-state it creates, through the violations of human rights contrary to its very meaning, to the fact that national self-determination doctrine, far from being a national issue, is actually an international affair. While not rejecting the doctrine, the paper concludes with the final (ninth) paradox that perhaps the success of this doctrine should not be measured by how many states it can produce, but how it can make the existing states a safe home for more self-differentiating national groups. Adapted from the source document.

By "collective" human rights we understand the ones that belong to a collective. We should distinguish the individual rights which can be exercised only collectively (suffrage). The demands for "collective" human rights lead to misconceptions and explanatory problems since the universal, egalitarian, and categorical postulate of human rights cannot be equally valid for collectives and individuals. Thus, the protection of minorities' interests can be solely procured by adopting a restricted definition of individual human rights which necessitates more and better respected social human rights. In some cases, collective rights were designed to protect endangered minorities but were justified by means of equalizing fairness. However, such collective rights are not possible at the level of human rights: they are regulated by special by-laws at the state level. Thus, they are restricted by the requirement that they do not violate individual human rights. (SOI : SOEU: S. 48)

The Croatian Constitution belongs into the category of pioneer constitutions in the Eastern European countries and its content-related achievement cannot be appraised outside the context in which it has been merged. Unlike some other Eastern European constitutions, it does not include the context of transitional experience. Consequently, the author analyzes the 1991 Croatian Constitution via several foci of comparison: The Preamble culture in the introductory article, Basic provisions and fundamental values provision, fundamental human rights, constitutional court, and others. In the conclusion, the author claims that the Croatian Constiuition is a solid foundation for developing today's type of constitutional state. (SOI : PM: S. 55)

"Democracy provides an environment in which the protection of basic human rights is best guaranteed." (Our Global Neighborhood: The report of the Commission on Global Governance, New York 1998). A comparative analysis of available data on state security services of several European states and the US points to the fundamental theoretical tenets concerning the role and the functioning of these services in democratic environment. Since their beginnings, these agencies have been the chief instrument in national security protection. Historically, in various states and in different periods, the unique mission of security services - the protection of national security - has not included uniformity of content. Among other things, this is largely due to a lack of an unequivocal definition of the concept of national security and a miscellany of "perceptions" by the ruling structures of certain states. This is why security services in totalitarian regimes, in t name of protecting "national security", have violated human rights. Due to their specific role within national security systems, security services restri certain rights of certain individuals and organisations even in democratic societies. However, democratic societies are characterised by the fact that security services operate strictly within the law and that such violations are minimal. In other words, in democratic states, security services violate some civil rights in order to protect the key sections of national security, democratic society, and community rights. (SOI : SOEU: S. 150)