Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

U prvom dijelu ove studije, objavljenom u prvom broju časopisa "Svjetionik", autor je ukratko izložio osnovne elemente filozofije politike karakteristične za historiju savremenih nacija u kojem je analizirao odnose pojedinca, naroda, nacije i države. Drugi dio ove studije fokusira se na odnos Bošnjaka prema kolektivnom sjećanju koje je, kako autor smatra, pod utjecajem dugoročne političke strategije susjeda, dovedeno na prag amnezije. Autor smatra da poljuljana kolektivna memorija predstavlja najneuralgičniji problem i najveću opasnost za historijsku reintegraciju i homogenizaciju Bošnjaka kao naroda i nacije. Autor naglašava da je "Bosanac" teritorijalna odrednica i potpuno isključuje nacionalnu odrednicu "Bošnjak". Koketiranje s formulacijom "Bošnjaci/Bosanci", koja se često koristi, ne samo što ne afirmira etničku i nacionalnu pripadnost Bošnjaka nego još dodatno negira njihovu posebnost – a time dovodi u pitanje i samo postojanje Bošnjaka. Bošnjak se rađa, Bošnjak se ostaje. "Bosanac" se postaje, "Bosanac" se prestaje biti. Bošnjak koji živi u Bosni ujedno je i "Bosanac". "Bosanac" koji nije Bošnjak, nigdje, pa ni u Bosni, ne postaje Bošnjak. Bošnjak koji ne živi u Bosni ostaje Bošnjak, ali prestaje biti "Bosanac". Cilj supstituiranja historijskog imena Bošnjaci teritorijalnom odrednicom "Bosanci", očigledan je: Razbiti homogeno jezgro Bošnjaka brisanjem svijesti o njihovoj etničkoj posebnosti, imenu, nacionalnom jedinstvu, zajedničkoj historiji, kulturi, jeziku, ukratko – zajedničkoj prošlosti, sadašnjosti i budućnosti. Također u studiji se podsjeća na razliku savremenog shvatanja nacije od načina na koji je ovaj društveni fenomen bio tumačen sve do sredine 20. stoljeća. Iza razgraničenja nacije od naroda, kao njegove navodno superiorne forme, u pozadini se krije nastojanje da se narod, kao objektivna činjenica, relativizira, uzajamne veze njegovih pripadnika oslabe i da se cijelo stanovništvo podvede pod kontrolu centralne političke moći – kao prividno integrirana i homogena cjelina. ; In the first part of this study, published in the first issue of the magazine Illuminatio/Svjetionik/Almanar, the author briefly outlined the basic elements of the philosophy of politics characteristic of the history of modern nations in which he analysed the relations of the individual, the people, the nation and the state. The second part of this study focuses on the attitude of Bosniaks towards collective memory, which, according to the author, was brought to the threshold of amnesia under the influence of the long-term political strategy of their neighbours. The author believes that the shaken collective memory represents the most neuralgic problem and the greatest danger for the historical reintegration and homogenization of Bosniaks as an ethnicity and a nation. The author emphasizes that "Bosnian" is a territorial determinant and completely excludes the national determinant "Bosniak". Flirting with the phrase "Bosniaks/Bosnians", which is often used, is not only a denouncement of the ethnic and national affiliation of Bosniaks, but further denies their uniqueness – and thus calls into question the very existence of Bosniaks. A Bosniak is born, a Bosniak remains. A "Bosnian" becomes, a "Bosnian" cease to be. A Bosniak living in Bosnia is also a "Bosnian". A "Bosnian" who is not a Bosniak does not become a Bosniak anywhere, not even in Bosnia. A Bosniak who does not live in Bosnia remains a Bosniak, but ceases to be a "Bosnian". The goal of substituting the historical name Bosniaks with the territorial designation "Bosnians" is obvious: Break the homogeneous core of Bosniaks by erasing awareness of their ethnic identity, name, national unity, common history, culture, language, in short – a common past, present and future. The study also recalls the difference between the modern understanding of the nation and the way in which this social phenomenon was interpreted until the middle of the 20th century. Behind the separation of the nation from the ethnicity/people, as the supposedly superior form, lies the effort to relativize the ethnicity/people, as an objective fact, to weaken the mutual ties of its members and to bring the entire population under the control of central political power – as a seemingly integrated and homogeneous whole.