Suchergebnisse

At a few places in his Philosophy of Right, Hegel directly addresses the discussion with his famous predecessor, Immanual Kant. These places indicate very clearly the distinction between the two philosophical standpoints. This article focuses on Hegel's criticism of Kant's views on peace & international law. For two reasons however, it starts with Hegel's rejection of Kant's moral point of view. First, this criticism is presupposed in Hegel's rejection of Kant's view on politics. Second, at least a partial return to Kantian morality is implied in Hegel's statement that war, although not to be condemned categorically, must be limited both quantitatively & qualitatively. Adapted from the source document.

In accordance with his practical philosophy, which views the essence of morality & right as "ought to" (Sollen), Kant deduces his notion of perpetual peace as the paragon of the relationship among rulers & states. Hegel's criticism of this view in his Philosophy of Law points to its three major flaws. The first is the very nature of the international legal system, which operates among independent states & whose sanctions do not provide a supra-sovereignty of a pan-international state. Further, treaties & agreements among states have no praetor & do not exclude war as "the natural state" among them. Finally, there is no universal international will, but only particular wills of individual states, which hardly achieve a consensus on war & peace. As a postulate of practical reason, perpetual peace remains a sheer ideal. Adapted from the source document.

The turmoils in international relations following the fall of the Berlin wall represented a serious challenge for the overall concept of European political unity. In its first international assignment outside the context of the Cold war, traditional national interests & animosities surfaced, & they demonstrated rather precisely all the complexity of the project promulgated by the Maastricht Agreement. At the time there was no common European approach to the solution of the crisis on the territory of the former Yugoslavia & no consent regarding the key issues, such as the recognition of the former Yugoslav republics as sovereign entities i.e. defining the criteria for their recognition. The paper focuses on this very specificity of the new approach to this problem, since it has increasingly been a subject of discretionary political decisions rather than the issue of international law in the traditional sense of meeting certain criteria for state recognition. & finally, concerning the degree of encroaching upon national sovereignty, there is a marked difference between the nature of the process of shaping a common foreign & security policy & shaping policies in other areas (e.g. transport, science & education, & so on). Also, the importance of developing an awareness of this difference as the main precondition for the realization of the project of the EU political integration is pointed out. References. Adapted from the source document.

Responding to criticisms & discussions about the non-existence of European Union's human rights policy, the article claims that this policy exists although it has been developing inconsistently both at the level of the Union's internal affairs & at the level of its relations with third countries. The second key hypothesis of the article refers to the institutional implementation mechanisms of the Union's human rights policy which, according to the author, require new positioning & better coordination. The article firstly analyses the development of the human rights policy in the Union's internal affairs from the Stauder Case in 1969 to recent discussions on the legal force of the Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights & the accession of the Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms. The second part of the article gives an overview of human rights policy development in the Union's external relations from the Fourth Lome Convention to the European Neighbourhood Policy. The paper ends with an analysis of the features common to the Union's human rights policy implementation mechanisms focusing on the role of the Commission, the Parliament & the Council of the Union. The article points to the lack of institutional harmonization using the European Instrument for Democracy & Human Rights as an example & sees in the establishment of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights the need to introduce changes in the implementation of the human rights policy. In a conclusion, the author identifies the complexity & fragmentation of the Union as a system on the one hand and, on the other hand, the omnipresence of human rights protection & promotion in the Union's public policies as the key factors encumbering the control over the human rights policy implementation & the cause of its perceived deficit. Adapted from the source document.

U radu se analiziraju pojam i pravni položaj nedržavnih aktera kao stranaka nemeđunarodnih oružanih sukoba, s posebnim osvrtom na odredbe zajedničkog čl. 3. Ženevskih konvencija za zaštitu žrtava rata iz 1949. te Dopunskog protokola II uz Ženevske konvencije iz 1977. godine, kao temeljnog međunarodnopravnog okvira koji regulira postupanje svih stranaka u nemeđunarodnim oružanim sukobima. Analizirajući pravni temelj obvezatnosti spomenutih pravnih normi u odnosu na nedržavne aktere autorica upućuje na neravnopravan položaj koji nedržavni akteri imaju u odnosu na države zbog nemogućnosti da formalno postanu strankama navedenih međunarodnih ugovora. U tom kontekstu iznose se prednosti alternativnih mehanizama (sklapanja drugih međunarodnih ugovora, davanja jednostranih izjava ili izjava o obvezivanju) kojima nedržavni akteri mogu izraziti svoju volju i pristanak da budu vezani pravilima međunarodnog humanitarnog prava, što može imati pozitivan učinak i na njihovu svijest o odgovornosti za kršenje tih pravila. ; The author of this paper analyzes the concept and the legal status of non-State actors as parties to non-international armed conflicts. A special emphasis is placed on common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions for the protection of victims of war of 1949, as well as on the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) of 1977 – the fundamental legal framework that regulates conduct of all parties to non-international armed conflicts. Notwithstanding the fact that these international instruments equally bind both States as well as non-State actors as parties to non-international armed conflicts, the legal position of non-State actors, compared to States, is not identical. Moreover, non-State actors cannot become parties to the aforementioned international agreements. In such a context, the author introduces alternative mechanisms (the conclusion of other international agreements, making unilateral declarations or Deeds of Commitment) which non-State actors can use to express their will and consent to be bound by the rules of international humanitarian law. The author concludes that such mechanisms may produce positive effects on non-State actors' awareness of their responsibility for violations of those rules.

The author criticizes the universalism of democracy as a world model. He argues that WWI has been insufficiently explored from the perspective of the clash of two democratic concepts. The outcome of that war heralded the long-term victory of the Franco-American universalist concept of democracy over the traditional British concept of democracy. This has greatly influenced the political & philosophical understanding of democracy as the universalist elements of democratic constitutions have prevailed, while awareness of the historically evolved institutions of democracy has been suppressed. The author shows that the emergence of fundamental rights had nothing to do with their universalist natural-law version, since in England & Germany, there were pre-forms rooted in the specific legal traditions of those countries or regions. Since the creation of a world democratic state is not feasible, there is no genuine significance of the universalist democracy. In his conclusion, the author promotes the acceptance of the traditional concept of democracy modeled after British democracy, which would strengthen the UN & international law. This would be particularly important in today's circumstances & conducive to the acknowledgment of various traditions &, consequently, to a variety of systems of government. Adapted from the source document.

Glavni je problem priopćenja vanjska politika Republike Hrvatske (RH) u vezi s Ustavom BiH jer nedovoljno pridonosi rješavanju društvenih, političkih, ekonomskih, kulturnih itd. slabosti Bosne i Hercegovine (BiH) koje mogu i trebaju biti rješavane unutar prava. Ta je politika nedovoljno uspješna jer nije državna, nego strančarska. Matica politike je narodnjačka, tj. etnička. Alternativa zanemaruje činjenicu da je RH, kao stranka Daytonskoga mirovnog sporazuma, čiji je dio Ustav BiH, internacionalnim pravom ovlaštena zahtijevati od drugih stranaka, uključujući BiH, da poštuju i primijene Sporazum. Sporedni je problem priopćenja nedostatna znanstvena spoznaja glavnog problema. Posljedica je pomanjkanja interesa pravnih znanstvenika u RH i previda pravnih slabosti politike. Temeljna je svrha priopćenja priprema istraživačkog projekta unutar integralne pravne znanosti dopunjene izvornom pravnom dogmatikom i prilagođenom pravnopolitičkom analizom. Hipoteze, koje su dijelom ispitane, pripisuju politiku uvjetima te predviđaju razvoj problema ako se politika ne promijeni i ako se prromijeni u skladu s prijedlogom izloženim u priopćenju. ; The paper deals with the main problem of the Republic of Croatia's foreign policy on the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which fails to alleviate the social (political, economic, cultural, etc.) inadequacies of Bosnia and Herzegovina that can and ought to be solved within the limits of the law. It is of meagre success because it is a policy of political parties rather than of a nation-state. The mainstream policy is ethnicist. Its alternative ignores the fact that the Republic of Croatia, as a party to the Dayton Peace Agreement, whose part is the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is by international law entitled to demand other parties, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, to observe and change the Agreement. The subordinate problem is a paucity of knowledge provided by legal scholars in the Republic of Croatia about the main problem. The knowledge deficit is a consequence of the lack of interest in the policy and oversight of its legal ramifications. The principal goal of the paper is the preparation of a research-project within integral legal scholarship supplemented by original legal dogmatics and adjusted policy analysis. The principal hypotheses are that the past policy can be ascribed to Croatian institutions (legalistic order, ethnic state, parochial studies) and their environment (dependence on foreign powers, pre-political and pre-legal conditions of the Croatian population); and that the same policy, even in a stable environment, should be expected to facilitate threats to the very existence of Bosnia and Hercegovina and Bosnian Croats, thus greatly endangering the Republic of Croatia. On the assumption that the environment, as well as the institutions and doctrines improve, the paper proposes a state policy as an alternative to past partisanship, with a view of re-instituting Bosnia and Hercegovina as a functional nation-state, establishing local and cultural autonomy, and retaining the constitution-making power of each major ethnic community in Bosnia and Hercegovina. The expected consequences are the strengthening of Bosnia and Hercegovina, Bosnian Croats, and the Republic of Croatia, in line with the values and principles of the inquiry.

Kao rezultat izbora 2005. Pravo i pravda (PIS) postaje dominantna stranka u poljskom parlamentu s dominantnom braćom Kaczyński na čelu. Od 2007. do 2015. je oporbena politička sila, a onda 2015. uvjerljivom većinom i u donjem i u gornjem domu parlamenta opet dolazi na vlast. PiS je radikalna stranka desne orijentacije ili desnog centra. Zbog svojih je radikalnih stavova često spominjan kao uzrok slabijeg razvoja Poljske i njenog slabog međunarodnog položaja. U radu se konzervativna vlast te stranke prikazuje s obzirom na neovisnost rada sudova, slobodu medija i zaštitu ljudskih prava i sloboda. Status zaštite ljudskih prava i stupanj demokracije utjecao je na odnos EU prema Poljskoj, a nacionalizam PiS-a na odnos Poljske prema EU, Rusiji, Njemačkoj i ukupnoj međunarodnoj zajednici. ; As a result of the 2005 election, the Law and Justice party (abbreviated as PiS in Polish for Prawo i Sprawiedliwość) became the dominant party in the Polish parliament under the leadership of the Kaczyński brothers, Lech and Jaroslaw. From 2007 to 2015, PiS was a force in its role as the political opposition. It came to power again in 2015 after winning persuasive majorities in the Lower and Upper Houses. PiS is a radical party of right or center-right orientation. Because of its radical positions, it often is mentioned as a cause of Poland's weaker national development and international status. This work discusses the party's conservative government with regard to the relationship between legislative and judicial authorities, freedom of the media, and the protection of human rights. Poland's state of human rights protection and its degree of democracy has influenced its relationship with the EU. PiS's nationalism also has had an impact on Poland's relations with the EU, Russia, Germany, and the larger international community.

Uredba (EZ) br. 864/2007 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 11. srpnja 2007. o pravu koje se primjenjuje na izvanugovorne obveze (Uredba Rim II) sadržava pravila o mjerodavnom pravu za izvanugovorne obveze i jedan je od najvažnijih izvora europskoga međunarodnog privatnog prava. Zbog nemogućnosti pronalaska kompromisa u vezi s odgovarajućom poveznicom za povrede prava osobnosti u zakonodavnom postupku donošenja Uredbe Rim II europski zakonodavac odlučio je isključiti povrede prava osobnosti iz polja primjene Uredbe Rim II. Budući da to pitanje nije uređeno relevantnim izvorom europskoga međunarodnog privatnog prava, sudovi svake države članice EU-a primjenjuju nacionalna kolizijska pravila. U Republici Hrvatskoj krajem 2017. godine donesen je novi Zakon o međunarodnom privatnom pravu koji je na snagu stupio u siječnju 2019. godine. Hrvatski je zakonodavac u novom Zakonu odlučio proširiti primjenu Uredbe Rim II i na ona pitanja koja su isključena iz njezina polja primjene, što za posljedicu ima činjenicu da će se na hrvatskim sudovima pravo mjerodavno za povrede prava osobnosti određivati prema općoj odredbi Uredbe Rim II koja se temelji na poveznici mjesta nastanka izravne štete. Iz navedenoga razvidan je utjecaj europskoga prava na hrvatsko međunarodno privatno pravo, ne samo u slučajevima koji ulaze u polje primjene izvora europskoga međunarodnog privatnog prava nego i u slučajevima koji samim tim izvorima nisu pokriveni. Cilj je ovoga rada ispitati je li pristup prihvaćen u novom Zakonu o međunarodnom privatnom pravu najbolji izbor za slučajeve povrede prava osobnosti, posebice imajući u vidu polemike koje su se vodile oko adekvatnosti poveznice mjesta nastanka štete za predmete povrede prava osobnosti tijekom zakonodavnog postupka donošenja Uredbe Rim II. ; Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II Regulation), containing rules on applicable law for non-contractual obligations, is one of the most ...