Suchergebnisse

The article distinguishes two ways in which Heidegger can be a subject of research. In one type of research, he is a historical figure of political events, & as such a subject of history as a science. Such research has to satisfy the scientific criteria of historiographical method regardless of how critically it treats its subject. In the second type, the subject are Heidegger's work & the philosophical motives of his political involvement at the start of the Nazi regime in 1933/34. An analysis has in both cases come up with some sloppy scientific procedures & shown that frequently the a priori assumptions get the upper hand, & tend to lean in favour of proving his guilt. A brief introductory overview of the debate is followed by a concise historical outline of the stages in this controversy, & then by an excursus about the essence of the scientific method, & finally by a critical review of the works of some historians which serves the author to demonstrate how it is possible for research to get off the right track when not respecting the criteria & the standards of the scientific method. The second part focuses on the question of the interpretation of the relationship between philosophy & political activism. The thesis (with critical references to some recent ideas by Fried, Kisiel, Thoma) is that the philosophical motives of Heidegger's "leap" into politics should primarily be sought in the methodological dimensions of his work, primarily in those linked to the problems of grounding, & not so much in certain notional concordances of his categories with the Nazi terminology & concepts. 54 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author gives a brief account of the (active or passive) complicity of the overwhelming majority of Serbian intellectuals in the Serbs war on Croatia & Bosnia-Herzegovina & the war crimes & crimes against humanity, including genocide, they have committed in its course. The author then argues that in view of this complicity, intellectuals outside Serbia should not be doing "business as usual" with their Serbian colleagues. He advances an argument for a comprehensive, but selective, boycott of Serbian intellectuals as the morally appropriate response of intellectuals the world over. Adapted from the source document.

The Kosovo crisis once again brought the powerful, unscrupulous, & destructive Milosevic media apparatus into the spotlight. This is nothing new or surprising for all those who have been covering his political ascent from the beginning, but this time he used his heaviest artillery, never mincing words nor flinching from using all possible means to achieve his ends: to justify the genocidal policy & rally Serbs once again around the well-known platform of national unity & the Greater Serbia rhetoric. On one side, he had a well-oiled media machine that mercilessly rolled over everything in its way, not respecting any basic journalistic principles, not to mention ethics. On the other side were the most powerful media in the world -- aggressive, assertive, & equipped with state-of-the-art technology, but with one major flaw: these are mass media, not propaganda machinery. Two completely different structures clashed head-on. Thus, the media in war turned into the war of the media, a totally unfair war between a small but powerful propaganda machine & the large but democratic media. 8 References. Adapted from the source document.

Banac, Ivo: Bakir Tanovic i problem zemljisnog vlasnistva u Bosni i Herecegovini. S. 7-8. Badrov, Zlatko: Nasilna promjena vlasnickih odnosa na privatnoj imovini izvrsena u razdoblju od 1918. do 1992. godine, na stetu bosnjacko-muslimanskog naroda u Bosni i Hercegovini. Podrivanje ekonomske snage bosnjaka ili ekonomski genocid nad bosnjacima. S. 89-91

Historical precedents & a host of international documents -- from Daniel Webster's speech on the Caroline Affair of 1837 to the 1949 Geneva Convention & recent UN Security Council resolutions -- are perused to take a legal stand on the 1999 NATO intervention against Serbia to stop the Kosovo genocide. A distinction is made between humanitarian intervention, humanitarian relief action, & the right of a sovereign state to intervene abroad to protect the life of its citizens. It is opined that there is no international law granting states the right to take a military action on behalf of citizens of another state. However, a set of rules of action in exceptional circumstances sanctioning a military humanitarian intervention is established, outlining a scenario where such an intervention would be legal. It is pointed out that the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo met the criteria & satisfied the conditions necessary for a lawful humanitarian intervention, & the NATO military action should be viewed as such. Adapted from the source document.