Suchergebnisse

The author analyzes the direction that the European Union has taken after the Nice conference. In order to create an appropriate & transparent competency system for the European Union, the priority on today's agenda are the models borrowed from the constitutions of different federal states. The first model is the so-called dual federalism that evolved in the US. This model aspires to strictly separate the European competency & the member countries' competency. The second option has been provided by the German Fundamental Law (Constitution). According to this model, the European Union would be accorded competences in line with the systematics of the exclusive, competitive & comprehensive legislation. The author is of the opinion that this would lead to a sort of formal transparency but would not completely prevent the overlapping of the competences of the Union, its member countries & other territorial units. A special focus is given to the transparency & efficacy of the reform process. Also, it is emphasized that a coherent coordination of the horizontal & vertical reform of the competency system is called for. Regarding democracy, the author thinks there is no need for a new model of democracy, but a systematic revision of the existing system of decision making in the European Union. Besides, a genuine democratization would not set its sights solely on reforming institutional regulation, but also on strengthening the mediation bodies. This would improve the relations between the public & the parliaments of the nation-states & the federal units concerning European issues. This would go hand in hand with an expansion of European party organizations & a more efficient "Europeanization" of central associations & institutions for interest-promotion. And finally, the author looks into the traditional boundaries between the private & the public. The public sector would take over from private economy some established procedures or would completely hand over certain tasks. This would require well-defined criteria. Also, an efficient control by parliaments & government bodies is necessary as a guarantee of innovation & cost-effectiveness & as a protection against abuse. This might help to turn Europe into a place of unity & cooperative behavior. Adapted from the source document.

Prvi svjetski rat bio je (ne)očekivana situacija zastrašujućeg intenziteta koja je uvelike izmijenila dotadašnje pojmove i rasprave o ograničenosti ratnih djelovanja. Bio je pomalo »očaravajući« za tehnologe, uzbudljiv za političare i šokantan za intelektualce. Međunarodni odnosi (preko Lige naroda i Ujedinjenih naroda) nakon Drugog svjetskog rata više nikad nisu bili isti, uz tihe ratove koje su vodili idealisti i realisti teorija politike i međunarodnih odnosa. Kenneth Waltz, kao neorealist, usmjerava raspravu o smislu rata manje na pitanje ljudske prirode, a više prema pitanjima država, međunarodnih sustava te prema globalnoj strukturi koje stvara potrebu za ratovanjem ili za uspostavljanjem mira. Uviđa da suvremene metode (filozofije) politike i političke znanosti valja i dalje prožimati s klasičnim pristupima i kriterijima filozofske i političke misli. U raspravi o naravi ratovanja ili nužnosti mira valja razotkrivati koncepte sile i državne dominacije – koja se provodi u kulturnoj, tehnološkoj pa i masmedijskoj sferi – i kritičkim pristupom Noama Chomskog. Potrebno je i (re)afirmirati stav javnosti, reakcije intelektualaca i ozračje što ga je izazvao Prvi svjetski rat da bismo se – i kroz eseje Hermanna Hessea – bolje suočili s današnjom postmodernističkom dehumanizacijom i beznađem aktualnih koncepcija i perspektiva ratovanja. ; World War I was the (un)expected situation of frightening intensity that has greatly changed the prior concepts and discussions about the limitations of war operations. It was somewhat "enchanting" for technologists, exciting for the politicians, and shocking for the intellectuals. International relations (through the League of Nations and United Nations) after World War II changed, with silent wars being led by idealists and realists of the theory of politics and international relations. As a neorealist, Kenneth Waltz directs discussion about the meaning of war less towards the matter of human nature, and more towards the questions regarding countries, international systems, and global structure that create the need for a war or the need for establishing peace. He recognizes that modern methods of (philosophy of) politics and political science should still be pervaded with classical approaches, and criteria of philosophical and political thought. In the debate about the nature of war or about the necessity of peace, the concepts of force and the state domination should be exposed. They are carried out in the cultural, technological, and even in the mass media sphere, and here Noam Chomsky's critical approach is needed. Attitude of the public, the reaction of intellectuals, and the atmosphere which was caused by the First World War has to be (re)affirmed in order to – and through the essays by Hermann Hesse – better face with today's postmodern dehumanization, and the pointlessness of current concepts and perspectives of War

The author looks into the relationship between political parties & the public good. He begins by asking whether it is legally possible to compel parties to work for the public good. It seems it is not, since in democracy there are no criteria that might a priori be established as the binding norms. The public good, namely, depends on the fundamental constitutional solutions & the general political culture. In line with this, the author goes on to depict the model of the monarchical state. According to this model, the public interest may be derived "from above" ie, the public interest is a result of the emanations of the "exalted" state authority. In modern democracy, however, it is not possible to shape the general will without parties, organizations more committed to their own interests than those of their political community on the whole. In a way, parties represent a danger for this democracy & the entire political community. The author asks how, if at all, we can resolve this dilemma. Referring to Scheuner, Hesse, Emke, Habermas, & Haberle, the author finds the answer in the postulate that the promotion of the public interest cannot be left solely to the state, but that all members of a political community should get involved. Parties in the contemporary pluralist culture ought to become aware that their primary task is the public good that is not in the function of party life. 19 References. Adapted from the source document.