Gustav August Vichodil bio je jedan od najznačajnijih hrvatskih agronoma s kraja 19. i početka 20. stoljeća. Rođen je u današnjoj Češkoj. Osim u rodnoj zemlji, školovao se u Njemačkoj i Mađarskoj, a prije dolaska u Hrvatsku radio je u Mađarskoj, Austriji i Češkoj. U Hrvatsku je došao tijekom rujna 1874. godine na poziv Zemaljske vlade u Zagrebu da bi preuzeo mjesto tajnika Hrvatsko-slavonskog gospodarskog društva. Budući da se iskazao kao izvrstan poljoprivredni stručnjak, 1878. godine imenovan je za ravnatelja Kraljevskog gospodarskog i šumarskog učilišta u Križevcima. Nažalost, već je 1890. godine zbog teške bolesti umirovljen, no nakon ozdravljenja ponovno je počeo raditi i pisati brojne članke o poljoprivredi, koje je objavio u hrvatskim i austrijskim publikacijama. U svojim prvim radovima Vichodil se ponajčešće bavio poljoprivrednom ekonomijom, pa ga se smatra osnivačem te grane znanosti u Hrvatskoj. Kasnije je puno pozornosti posvećivao svinjogojstvu, ali i organizaciji poljoprivrednog obrazovanja u Hrvatskoj. Pritom spada među prve autore koji su pisali o uzgoju ruža. Zbog doprinosa razvoju agronomije u Hrvatskoj, uoči smrti dodijeljen mu je prvi počasni doktorat poljoprivrednih znanosti na Sveučilištu u Zagrebu. ; Gustav August Vichodil was one of the most prominent Croatian agronomists at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. He was born in today's Czech Republic. Apart from his native country, he studied in Germany and Hungary, and before coming to Croatia, he worked in Hungary, Austria and the Czech Republic. He came to Croatia in September 1874 at the invitation of the Provincial Government in Zagreb to take over the position of the secretary of the Croatian-Slavonian Economic Society. Since he proved to be an excellent agricultural expert, in 1878, he was appointed head of the Royal Agriculture and Forestry College in Križevci. Unfortunately, he retired in 1890 due to a severe illness. However, after recovering, he went back to work and wrote numerous articles on agriculture, which he published in Croatian and Austrian publications. In his early works, Vichodil mostly dealt with agricultural economics, which is why he is considered to be the founder of that branch of science in Croatia. Later, he paid a lot of attention to pig farming, as well as to the organisation of agricultural education in Croatia. He was also one of the first authors to write about the cultivation of roses. Due to his contribution to the development of agronomy in Croatia, shortly before his death, he was awarded the first honorary doctorate in agricultural sciences at the University of Zagreb.
U svom djelu Zatvorena trgovačka država iz 1800. godine, njemački filozof Johann Gottlieb Fichte zagovara ekonomsku autarkiju kao radikalan oblik protekcionizma, dok 1840. njemačko-američki ekonomist Friedrich List izdaje »bibliju protekcionizma«, djelo Nacionalni sustav političke ekonomije u kojem se suprotstavlja učenju Adama Smitha o važnosti slobodne trgovine i međunarodne razmjene. Pitanje otvorene ili zatvorene privrede iznimno je aktualno s obzirom na to da su globalizacijski procesi rezultirali rastućim nejednakostima i drugim anomalijama te se, kao reakcija, ponovno javljaju, ako su ikad i nestale, snažne protekcionističke prakse. U radu će se pokušati odgovoriti na pitanje je li globalni kapitalizam nužno suprotstavljen ekonomskom nacionalizmu te koju poziciju u toj opreci danas zauzimaju lijeve i desne političke opcije. Naime, umjesto lijeva ili desna, sve češće može se čuti da je neka stranka sistemska ili prosvjedna, pri čemu se tzv. sistemskima predbacuje da žele zadržati status quo u provođenju neoliberalne agende, dok prosvjedne često klize u populizme i nacionalizme. ; Johann Gottlieb Fichte in his work The Closed Commercial State (1800) argued for economic autarky as the next reform of protectionism. German-American economist Friedrich List published The National System of Political Economy (1840) which is considered to be the "Bible of protectionism". List was the opponent of Adam Smith's theses on the importance of free trade and international market. The advocate in a shift from open to closed economy is actual in the globalized world, which is determined by growing inequality and other social and political anomalies. Protectionism is imposed as a possible response to the discontents of globalization. The paper attempts to answer if there is a link between global capitalism and economic nationalism, and how are left and right political parties related to that possible link. Recently, in the days of political dissatisfaction, the alternative between left and right positions is replaced by the opposition between system and anti-system or protest parties. While system parties are criticized for keeping a status quo of neoliberal agenda, protest parties slide into nationalism and populism.
Studije iz povijesti geodezije i kartografije u Bugarskoj objavilo je Šumarsko sveučilište, a tiskala Vojna geografska služba u Bugarskoj na bugarskom jeziku 2013. godine. Dvije godine kasnije knjigu je na engleski prevela Meglena Baždarova, a sponzori su bili Komora diplomiranih inženjera geodezije i Vojna geografska služba u Ministarstvu obrane. Engleska verzija ne sadrži dva poglavlja iz bugarskog izdanja: poglavlje XIV "Katastar u inozemstvu i u Bugarskoj – uvod i razvoj od 1878. do 1944." i poglavlje XV "Visinsko planiranje – povijest i razvoj u Bugarskoj". ; Studies in the History of Geodesy and Cartography in Bulgaria was published by the University of Forestry, and printed by the Military Geographic Service in Bulgaria in Bulgarian language in 2013. Two years later, the book was translated into English by Meglena Bazhdarova and published with the sponsorship of the Chamber of Graduate Surveyors and Military Geographic Service at the Ministry of Defence. The English version did not include two chapters from the Bulgarian edition: chapter XIV "The Cadastre Abroad and in Bulgaria – Introduction and Development from 1878 to 1944" and chapter XV "Vertical Planning – History and Development in Bulgaria".
Studies in the History of Geodesy and Cartography in Bulgaria was published by the University of Forestry, and printed by the Military Geographic Service in Bulgaria in Bulgarian language in 2013. Two years later, the book was translated into English by Meglena Bazhdarova and published with the sponsorship of the Chamber of Graduate Surveyors and Military Geographic Service at the Ministry of Defence. The English version did not include two chapters from the Bulgarian edition: chapter XIV "The Cadastre Abroad and in Bulgaria – Introduction and Development from 1878 to 1944" and chapter XV "Vertical Planning – History and Development in Bulgaria". ; Studije iz povijesti geodezije i kartografije u Bugarskoj objavilo je Šumarsko sveučilište, a tiskala Vojna geografska služba u Bugarskoj na bugarskom jeziku 2013. godine. Dvije godine kasnije knjigu je na engleski prevela Meglena Baždarova, a sponzori su bili Komora diplomiranih inženjera geodezije i Vojna geografska služba u Ministarstvu obrane. Engleska verzija ne sadrži dva poglavlja iz bugarskog izdanja: poglavlje XIV "Katastar u inozemstvu i u Bugarskoj – uvod i razvoj od 1878. do 1944." i poglavlje XV "Visinsko planiranje – povijest i razvoj u Bugarskoj".
Irska folklorna zbirka nacionalni je društveni arhiv i važna je središnja točka koja je imala stabilizirajući utjecaj na razvoj irskog kolektivnog identiteta nakon osnutka Irske slobodne države 1922. godine. Ovaj povijesni model prilagođen je i izmijenjen kako bi ispunio sličnu zadaću u nastajanju kolektivnog identiteta Južnog Tirola u sjevernoj Italiji, gdje je izazovno manjinsko pitanje pacificirano dalekosežnim ustupcima i regionalnom političkom i kulturnom autonomijom. Prilog ističe da uspostavljanje društvenog arhiva na ovom području spornih sjećanja i oprečnih tumačenja povijesti 20. stoljeća povjesničaru postavlja brojne izazove, od poštivanja individualnih sjećanja do usvajanja međunarodno prihvaćenih interpretacija fašističke prošlosti u Njemačkoj i Italiji. Zaključuje se da bi, unatoč tim izazovima, društveni arhiv mogao biti odgovarajući instrument za poticanje pomirenja i međusobnog razumijevanja. ; The Irish folklore collection is a national social archive and has been an important focal point and a stabilizing influence on the development of the Irish collective identity after the foundation of the Irish Free State in 1922. This historic blueprint has been adapted and modified to fulfill a similar role in the emerging collective identity of South Tyrol in Northern Italy, where a challenging minority issue was pacified through far-reaching concessions and a regional political and cultural autonomy. This contribution outlines that establishing a social archive in this area of contested memories and conflicting interpretations of the history of the 20th century poses many challenges to the historian, ranging from the respect for individual recollections to the adoption of internationally accepted interpretations of the Fascist past in Germany and Italy. It concludes that despite these challenges, a social archive might be the appropriate instrument to foster reconciliation and mutual understanding. ; La Collezione del folklore irlandese è un archivio sociale nazionale ed è stato un importante punto focale e un'influenza stabilizzante sullo sviluppo dell'identità collettiva irlandese dopo la fondazione dello Stato libero irlandese nel 1922. Questo modello storico è stato adattato e modificato per soddisfare un ruolo simile nell'emergente identità collettiva del Sud Tirolo nell'Italia del nord, dove un arduo problema delle minoranze è stato pacificato attraverso concessioni di vasta portata e un'autonomia politica e culturale regionale. Questo contributo sottolinea che la costituzione di un archivio sociale in quest'area di memorie contestate e interpretazioni contrastanti della storia del XX secolo pone molte sfide allo storico, che vanno dal rispetto per i ricordi individuali all'adozione di interpretazioni del passato fascista in Germania e in Italia accettate a livello internazionale. Conclude che, nonostante queste sfide, un archivio sociale potrebbe essere lo strumento appropriato per favorire la riconciliazione e la comprensione reciproca.
Početak razvoja Kliničkoga bolničkog centra u Osijeku vezanje uz Huttler Kohlhoffer Monspergerovu zakladnu bolnicu, osnovanu 1874. godine, koja je tada bila najmodernija bolnica na jugoistoku Europe. Naredbom Vlade 1895. godine postaje "Sveobća i javna Huttler Kohlhoffer-Monspergerova zakladna bolnica pod Zemaljskom upravom u Osieku". U vrijeme Prvoga svjetskog rata Zakladna bolnica skrbi o ranjenima i bolesnima. Poslije Prvoga svjetskog rata otvaraju se novi bolnički odjeli. Osim Kirurgije i Interne medicine, novi su odjeli Oftalmologija, Otorinolaringologija, Dermatovenerologija, Epidemiološkohigijenski zavod i Dispanzer za tuberkulozu. Daljnji razvoj prekinuo je Drugi svjetski rat. U teškim prilikama razvijen je poseban način medicinskoga rada, osobito u pogledu zbrinjavanja ranjenika i bolesnika, poduzimanja protuepidemijskih mjera, medicinskog opskrbljivanja i si. Nakon Drugoga svjetskog rata obnavlja se Opća bolnica Osijek i započinje moderan ustroj kao temelj razvoja buduće kliničke bolnice. U razdoblju 1980. - 1990. godine provode se stručna usavršavanja na svim područjima, objavljuju se brojni znanstveni i stručni radovi, razvija izdavačka djelatnost, što pridonosi stvaranju obrazovno nastavne djelatnosti i znanstveno-istraživačkoga rada. Posebno treba istaknuti razdoblje Domovinskoga rata u kojem je bolnica časno izvršila sve svoje zadaće u liječenju ranjenih i bolesnih. Stoga joj je dodijeljena nagrada "Medicina . Godine 1992. stekla je naslov Klinička bolnica Osijek. Daljnjim razvojem, izgradnjom, opremanjem i napredovanjem djelatnika u znanstvena, nastavna, znanstveno nastavna i stručna zvanja, 2009. godine postaje Klinički bolnički centar. Klinike i odjeli Kliničkoga bolničkog centra u Osijeku nastavna su baza Medicinskoga fakulteta Sveučilišta J. J. Strossmayera u Osijeku. ; Beginnings of the University Hospital Centre in Osijek were related to Huttler Kohlhoffer Monsperger Foundation Hospital, which was founded in 1874 and was the most modern hospital in the south-east Europe at the time. By the Government legislation in 1895 it became "General and public Huttler Kohlhoffer Monsperger Foundation Hospital under Country's management in Osiek". Foundation hospital was taking care of the wounded and sick during the World War 1. New hospital departments were opened after the World War I. Apart from Surgery and Internal Department; new departments were Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology, Dermatovenereology, Epidemiological and Hygienic Institute and Tuberculosis Clinic. Further development was interrupted by the World War II. A special way of performing medical work developed in those hard times, especially regarding taking care of the wounded and sick, taking epidemic precaution measures, medical supplying, etc. After the World War II General Hospital Osijek was renovated and modern organization began, which was a basis for development of the future university hospital. In the period 1980 - 1990 professional educations in all areas were implemented, many scientific and professional papers were published, publishing developed, what contributed to creating educational and teaching activities, as well as scientific and research work. Period of the War for Croatian Independence, in which the hospital honourably performed all its duties regarding treating wounded and sick, especially needs to be pointed out. For those activities it was rewarded with "Medicine" reward. In 1992 it became University Hospital Osijek. By further development, construction, and equipment and by promoting its employees to scientific, teaching, scientific teaching and professional titles, it became University Hospital Centre in 2009. Clinics and Departments of the University Hospital Centre in Osijek are the teaching base of the Faculty of Medicine, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek.
The author presents Vico's & Hegel's theory that without a state, there is no historical nation. According to Vico, world history is the process in which the rulers of the strongest & most ethical-politically virtuous replace one another. For Hegel, history crystallizes into rational principles that become the basis for customs & the national advancement of the society. Certain nations become the carriers of world history as they take more seriously freedoms in the state. The author suggests that modern understanding of history should not forget Hegel's concept of practical wisdom. For this reason also, Croatia is not obliged to accept the international pragmatists' dictation, but Croatia's ties to the West must be based on principles of truth & justice. Adapted from the source document.
Najopsežnije i sigurno najcitiranije djelo o povijesti »grada baroka«, epitet je kojim se nesumnjivo može opisati Povijest grada Varaždina renomiranog hrvatskog povjesničara Rudolfa Horvata (Koprivnica, 14. ožujka 1873. – Zagreb, 25. svibnja 1947.). Njegovim se tiskom namjeravalo dostojno obilježiti proslavu jubileja sedamstogodišnjice grada Varaždina (1909.) – ali nije; rukopis je tiskan 1993. godine. Godine 2017. navršilo se sedam desetljeća od piščeve smrti, a 2018. godine, 125 godina od njegova rođenja i četvrt stoljeća od tiskanja povjesnice. Na temelju podacima obilne arhivske građe u varaždinskom i zagrebačkom arhivu, upotpunjuje se slika o njezinom nastanku. Iz sačuvanih točaka sjednica gradske vlasti, dopisa gradonačelnika i Prosvjetnog odbora, korespondencije između gradske vlasti i Horvata iščitava se napor autora u provođenju opsežnog istraživanja povijesti grada Varaždina i obradi građe za sastavljanje buduće povjesnice, njegovoj viziji o njezinom sadržaju i ustrajnosti u isplati honorara koji je on neprestano smatrao primjerenim za svoj gotovo tridesetogodišnji rad. Također se iščitava napor njezinog naručitelja da primjerenu visinu honorara provjeri sa znanstvenim i nakladničkim institucijama, te je ugovori u skladu s tadašnjim lošim gospodarskim uvjetima. Naručitelj se o troškovima tiskanja buduće povjesnice raspitavao kod različitih tiskara unaprijed im poslavši predloške tiskanih historiografskih radova, pa tako i Horvatovog. U njezin nastanak uključivao je i mjerodavne osobe – zastupnike i ne-zastupnike grada Varaždina koji će na temelju svog stručnog iskustva i rada, putem triju višečlanih odbora donositi stručne zaključke o predanom rukopisu. Horvat je na njemu radio nepunih trideset godina. Zaključuje da je rukopis predao u dijelovima: u ožujku 1934., 1935., 1936., kolovozu 1938. i proljeće 1939. godine, izravno osobnim dolaskom u Varaždin ili posredstvom gradonačelnika Novakovića ili dragog mu prijatelja. Zaključuje se da je zamislio višedijelni sadržaj rukopisa: njegov I. dio, opća ili politička povijest tiskana je 1993. godine, a tematski II. dio sa zasebnim poglavljima ostao je neobjavljen; pod naslovom Dr. Rudolf Horvat: Kulturna povijest grada Varaždina, skupa s objavljenim prvim djelom, čuva se u Gradskom muzeju Varaždin. Želeći omogućiti Horvatu vrijeme za istraživanje i pisanje povjesnice, gradska vlast je uz pomoć tadašnjeg hrvatskog bana Pavla Raucha, piscu ishodila premještaj u tadašnji Zemaljski kraljevski arhiv u Zagrebu, kako bi tamo mogao istraživati sačuvanu arhivsku građu, a novčanom isplatom pripomogla njegova arhivska istraživanja u austrijskim i mađarskom arhivu i tisak studije Varaždin koncem 16. vijeka. U zagrebačkom arhivu Horvat je imao mogućnosti i vremena istraživati građu ne samo o povijesti Varaždina, nego i o povijesti drugih hrvatskih gradova, na temelju koje je također mogao raditi i na povjesnicama tih gradova. U tom se pogledu ističe i skroman doprinos varaždinskih gradskih zastupnika davne 1909. godine za hrvatsku historiografiju. U vezi s tim, s obzirom na to da je Horvat na rukopisu radio nepunih trideset godina i da ga je u dijelovima predao do 1939. godine, neminovno je uspoređivati rukopis i promatrati ga u kontekstu historiografskih radova nastalih tijekom 1930-ih godina. ; The most comprehensive and most cited work on the history of "the Baroque Town" is undoubtedly the best description of The History of the Town of Varaždin by the renowned Croatian historian Rudolf Horvat (Koprivnica, 14 March 1873 – Zagreb, 25 May 1947). The manuscript was meant to be printed on the 700th anniversary of the founding of the town of Varaždin (in 1909), but the plan failed; it was only printed in 1993. In 2017 it was seven decades since the author's death, and in 2018 we marked 125 years since his birth and a quarter of a century since the publishing of his historiographic work. With the help of rich and comprehensive archive material in State Archive in Varaždin and Croatian State Archives in Zagreb, we get the full picture about the making of his work. Reading the minutes from town assembly sessions, the letters by vice-mayor and Education board, and the correspondence between town officials and Horvat, we see how ardent the author was in conducting a comprehensive research of the history of Varaždin, in collecting the materials for the future historiographic work, in his vision regarding the work's content, and in his persistence in negotiating the fee he deemed reasonable for his 30-years effort. We can also see the commissioner's efforts to discuss the reasonable fee with scientific and publishing institutions, in order to agree a fee in accordance with the poor economic situation of that day and age; they negotiated the cost of printing of his future historiographic work with different printing offices having sent them similar examples of historiographic works, including Horvat's own. The commissioner was keen to involve other competent people in this process – representatives and non-representatives of the town assembly of Varaždin – who were supposed to use their professional and work experience and draw an expert conclusion about the manuscript by means of three multimembered committees. Horvat had worked on it for almost thirty years. He handed over his manuscript in parts in March 1934, 1935, 1936, August 1938 and in the Spring of 1939; he used to com to Varaždin in person or send the text via the mayor Novaković or one of his close friends. It is thought he planned to publish the manuscript in multiple volumes: the first part, general and political history, was published in 1993, whereas the topic-based, second part with separate chapters has never been published. This text titled Doctor Rudolf Horvat: The Cultural History of the Town of Varaždin, together with the published first part, is kept in the Varaždin City Museum. Wanting to give Horvat the time for research and writing of his historiographic work, the town authorities, with the help of the former governor of Croatia Ban Pavao Rauch, sent the author to the then Royal State Archive in Zagreb, where he studied archive materials, and helped him financially to continue his research in Austrian and Hungarian archives, as well as to publish the study Varaždin in the Late 16th Century. In the Royal State Archive in Zagreb (today's Croatian State Archives), Horvat had the time and opportunity to research not only the history of Varaždin, but also the history of other Croatian towns, which allowed him to write historiographic works about these towns as well. That way the representatives of the Varaždin town assembly from 1909 made a small contribution to the development of historiography in Croatia. Regarding that and keeping in mind that Horvat worked on the manuscript for almost thirty years up until 1939, it is necessary to compare this manuscript in the context of historiographic works from the 1930s.
Na osnovu analize izvornih arhivskih dokumenata i propisa objavljenih u službenim listovima, opisuje se djelokrug, ustroj i sastav Prezidijuma Sabora NRH. Njegovi temelji postavljeni su u radu Zemaljskog antifašističkog vijeća narodnog oslobođenja Hrvatske (ZAVNOH), odnosno njegova Predsjedništva, koje je kao uže tijelo plenuma osnovano 9. svibnja 1944. godine. Na Četvrtom zasjedanju održanom 24. i 25. srpnja 1945. u Zagrebu, ZAVNOH je promijenio naziv u Narodni sabor Hrvatske, a njegovo Predsjedništvo od tada djeluje kao Predsjedništvo Narodnog sabora Hrvatske. U razdoblju 1945.–1953. njegovo djelovanje može se podijeliti u četiri mandatna razdoblja: Predsjedništvo Narodnog sabora Hrvatske/Prezidijum Sabora NRH (25. srpnja 1945.–30. studenoga 1946.), Prezidijum Ustavotvornog sabora NRH (30. studenoga 1946.–20. siječnja 1947.), Prezidijum Sabora NRH prvoga saziva (20. siječnja 1947.–4. prosinca 1950.) i Prezidijum Sabora NRH drugoga saziva (4. prosinca 1950.–6. veljače 1953.). U prvom dijelu rada opisuje se osnivanje i prestanak rada Prezidijuma Sabora, u drugom njegov djelokrug, a u trećem ustroj i sastav po mandatnim razdobljima. Njegov ustroj i djelokrug uspoređeni su s ustrojem i djelokrugom Prezidijuma Narodne skupštine FNRJ i prezidijuma drugih jugoslavenskih republika. Rezultati istraživanja prezentirani su kombinacijom tematskog i kronološkog pristupa, a dijelom su sistematizirani u obliku tabelarnih prikaza. ; This paper describes the scope, structure and the composition of the Presidium of Parliament of the People's Republic of Croatia (PRC) which was active as a political governmental body in Croatia from 1945 to 1953. According to the Yugoslav constitutional system of government, the same political body existed on the federal level as the Presidium of the People's Assembly of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (FPRY), as well as in every republic-member of the Yugoslav federation and the scope, organization and composition of the Presidium of Parliament are compared with the scope, organization and composition of those bodies. The foundations of the activities of the Presidium of Parliament, as well as other central governmental institutions in Croatia (namely, Parliament, Government, and Supreme Court) were laid in the work of the State Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Croatia (ZAVNOH) i.e. its Presidency, since until the end of the war they together performed the legislative, executive and judiciary government. During the 4th session that took place in Zagreb from 24 to 25 July 1945 ZAVNOH changed is title to the People's Parliament of Croatia and since then its Presidency worked as the Presidency of the People's Parliament of Croatia. In the period from 1945 to 1953 its activity can be divided into four mandate periods: the Presidency of the People's Parliament of Croatia/the Presidium of the Parliament of the PRC (25 July 1945–30 November 1946), the Presidium of the Constituent Parliament of the PRC (30 November 1946–20 January 1947), the Presidium of the 1st Session of the Parliament of the PRC (20 January 1947–4 December 1950) and the Presidium of the 2nd Session of the Parliament of the PRC (4 December 1950–6 February 1953). Its existence in the system of governmental power is the result of taking over the Soviet constitutional solutions about organizing the state and governmental institutions in the 1946 constitution of the FPRY and through it also in the constitutions of each federal unit. It was the main legislative body in the period until the constituting of the Constituent Parliament of the PRC, since the Parliament of the PRC only had a single short five-day session in late August 1946. This is confirmed by the information about 29 laws passed by the Presidium of Parliament in the period from 8 September 1945 to 20 November 1946. Besides legislative, it also performed other functions from the jurisdiction then belonging to the Parliament. The constitution of the PRC from 1946 bestowed upon it performing tasks that are usually given to the president of the state (representing in the country the people's and state sovereignty of the PRC, calling the general elections, granting pardons, awarding medals and recognitions), as well as other executive tasks partly closely linked to the legislative activities. The special function pertained to supervising the people's committees. The important difference in the scope in relation to the Presidium of the People's Assembly of the FPRY was that it did not have the authority in the area of foreign affairs. Even though the constitution of the PRC from January 1947 lists it together with the Parliament in the chapter on the highest bodies of the governmental power in Croatia, the sources and constitutional-legal texts of the time, in accordance with the principle of unity of power, define it as a body which "stems from the Parliament" and is subordinated to it. Also, despite being formally constitutionally defined as one of the highest bodies of governmental power in Croatia, in reality it was the Party's transmission, since the actual power and monopoly in decisionmaking was in the hands of the bodies of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia/the League of Communists of Yugoslavia i.e. the Communist Party of Croatia/the League of Communists of Croatia. It was a collegiate body comprised of members of the Parliament. The decision of its composition was formally passed by the Parliament, but based on the conclusions reached during sessions of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Croatia. It was elected for the same term as the Parliament, but it continued to perform its duties after the dissolution of the Parliament, until the election of the new Presidium of Parliament. From 1945 to 1953 the total of 45 MPs were included in its activities. 13 of them were members during all four mandate terms, 11 during two and 14 during only one. The structure and the way of work were determined by the Rulebook dated from 7 August 1947. They were the exact copy of the structure and the way of work of the Presidium of the People's Assembly of the FPRY, with differences deriving from different jurisdictions (federal, republic) of these two bodies.
Within the last twenty or so years a lot has changed in bioethics that is worthy of a serious re-writing of its history. Namely, up to the end of the 20th century Anglo-American "biomedical ethics" (often borrowing the name "bioethics" coined by V. R. Potter but deliberately ignoring Potter's concept), launched from Georgetown University and narrowed down to four principles, was a globally predominant doctrine, propagated by the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, its students, financial resources, and political power. Up to then, most of Europe had been very slowly accepting the notion of "bioethics", perceiving it correctly as an unnecessary American "import", while attempts to Europeanise the idea by revising the set of principles had not proven to be particularly successful. With the discovery of the work of Fritz Jahr in 1997, however, European bioethics regained its lost genealogy and found the courage to claim respect for values other than the American ones. Within the bioethics defined by the Jahrian "Imperative", a place could have been found not only for the colourful, philosophical, religious and cultural legacy of Europe, but also for the newly evaluated Potter's work. This "fusion", a substantial and methodological deepening and broadening of the discipline, soon revealed its attractiveness to Latin-American and Asian centres and individuals also. Today we can talk with certainty about the end of "bioethics in Europe" and the beginning of "European bioethics" with all the complexity and interdependence of its variations – Mediterranean, German, French, Central and Eastern European, and others. By finding similarities among them, we might eliminate fear from "insurmountable" moral relativism, but also avoid the mistake of understanding global bioethics as a list of national bioethics. For the sake of constructing a more "universal bioethics", this paper finds the ideas of Fritz Jahr, Van Rensselaer Potter, Diego Gracia Guillén, and integrative bioethics as promoted by several Southeast-European authors, as ...
The author analyzes the attitude of the lawyer Carl Schmitt toward the philosopher Hegel. He considers the way in which Schmitt relates to Hegel & believes his references to Hegel are not justified. Namely, Schmitt was not Hegelian. The author proves his theory with an analysis of the stance of each philosopher toward liberalism, political theology, the friend-enemy theory, & each one's style of reasoning. Adapted from the source document.
The author shows that it is not possible to formulate a consistent theory of freedom, tying together the internal perspective of action & the external perspective of rational description & explanation of action. In the history of philosophical discussion about freedom as a fundamental concept of liberalism, Kant & Hegel represent two extremes. Each tried to formulate consistently a concept of freedom & its moral & political consequences, but both paid the price of one-sidedness. Kant postulates the primacy of the internal perspective of the moral subject, which is ideally expressed by his categorical imperative. However, the concept of freedom defined from the stance of autonomous morals loses contact with the historical world of traditional values, with the consequence of moralizing politics & unrealistically disregarding the nation as a characteristic framework of politics. Hegel points out the priority of the external perspective, which gives him an analytical advantage relative to liberal theories of natural law & Kant's moralist position. However, as warned by the German political theorist Hermann Heller, Hegel's position results in defining the sphere of collective morality as superior to individual action, disregarding the protection of individual liberties against the state & accepting national politics of power as the only criterion for international politics. The author concludes that liberal constitutions, unlike totalitarianism, must then be inconsistent. Adapted from the source document.
Using as his starting point Hegel's explanation of the principled differentiation between the "manner of studying" & acquiring actual knowledge in the Antiquity & the Modern Age, the author demonstrates that both Hegel & Husserl, each in his own philosophical fashion, try to link the substantiality of Antiquity & the subjectivity of Modernity as well as to deepen &, consequently, put an end to the one-sidedness, both in the ancient tradition of multi-formity ("des sinnlichen Daseins") & in the modern "abstract form" of the manifesting subjectivity. The notion of "the actual knowledge" as actualization and "spiritualization" of the universal, with Hegel ends in "Selbstbewusstsein" & with Husserls in "phanomenologisches Residuum," representing "das Feld einer neuen Wissenschaft," which Husserl calls "die Phanomenologie der Lebenswelt" & Hegel "die Phanomenologie des Geistes." Hegel & Husserl evolve actual knowledge in the "form of science," which is -- as "Wissenschaft von der Erfahrung des Bewusstseins" -- different from the dogmatic metaphysics, empiricism, & positivism of sciences. "Erfahrung" cannot be reduced to sensory experience; it -- as the source of "des neuen wahren Gegenstandes" -- also represents the experience of human thought & understanding. This already envisions in Hegel's works the rehabilitation of different kinds & ways of genuine knowledge conceived by Aristotle in his Nichomachean Ethics. The author emphasizes the significance of practical knowledge, as extrapolated by Hegel in his philosophy of objective spirit &, particularly, in the notion of "Geist-Kapitel" in his Phenomenology of Spirit -- not in the form of metaphysical definitions taken over by Hegel from the practical philosophy into the speculative one, but for the sake of developing the abilities of the spirit as "reality" in the historical world & its own historical "logic." This peculiar logic of The Phenomenology of Spirit differs from the later Science of Logic like metaphysics. While the latter represents the thinking of the world prior to the creation of the world, The Phenomenology of Spirit makes for the practical philosophy of the historical world of life & requires the development of various kinds of knowledge, especially modern spiritual sciences appropriate for the contemporary reality & world history. Adapted from the source document.
In this text, the authors' starting point is that the modern conception of representation, decisively connected with the state as modern type of political order, not only represents a radical cut with regard to pre-modern forms of representation, but is also the result of evolution through which many key elements of the antique and medieval perception of representation were built into the modern perception. This is confirmed by two eminently modern theories of representation: the theory of Hobbes and the theory of Hegel. In both cases, the theories prove to be largely based on the antique and medieval legal-political heritage. With Hobbes, the basis consists primarily of the idea of legal representation, and with Hegel, of the idea of identity representation. Both ideas are gradually developed in civil law and canon law. This part of the text focuses on the part of history of representation which culminated in the perception of representation according to the model of legal representation. For this purpose, the authors first discuss the definition of representation in the Roman period and in early Christianity, and then they investigate how the antique heritage was reinterpreted in medieval civil law and canon law. Adapted from the source document.
Ages ago, Plato understood justice as the purport & the essential purpose of the very existence of the state. Though Plato distinguishes between the political justice of the state & the personal justice of the individual soul, it was Aristotle who in his practical philosophy developed, apart from the general justice, an appropriate understanding of the special or particular justice & its significance for social progress. The first part of this paper deals with the different types of justice, & the second with civil society. In order to understand the contemporary theories of political justice & the roles of civil society in its realization, the author looks into the history of the European political thought & "civil society," since "civic" or "civil society" ("societas civilis"), was originally a political society. In modernity, Hegel began differentiating between the state as a political community & the "civil society" as a nonpolitical society; his intention was not to separate but to integrate them by means of the public scrutiny & the citizens' governance, Thus Hegel linked Locke's & Montesquieu's opposing definitions of the relationship between the civil society & the state. This is all the more important since Hegel's philosophy is often misinterpreted as the state totalitarianism since we overlook the dangers coming, especially today, both from the civil society reduced to economy & the absolute state, the dangers that Hegel, with his concept of customariness, detected & avoided. 11 References. Adapted from the source document.