Suchergebnisse

One striking aspect of the coronavirus crisis was the poor response of the right-wing populist leaders to the pandemic in countries such as the US, Britain, and Brazil. Despite this fact, the continuing voter support right-wing populist leaders attract across countries with different socio-economic traits is puzzling. In this paper, we argue in favour of a cognitive anthropological view of populism scholarship. Cognitive and evolutionary anthropology shows that mental systems common to all humans shape the way we understand the world, making some ideas more plausible than others regardless of their levels of accuracy. Even though the action of 'building a wall' to keep illegal migrants away can prove ultimately unfeasible and does not address real immigration issues, due to our cognitive evolution, it makes intuitive sense as a plausible option to reducing immigration. Populist leaders exploit our cognitive intuitions by providing such intractable but oftentimes intuitively-plausible ideas in order to get elected or to promote preferred policies. Furthermore, we intuitively admire powerful individuals and tend to defer to authoritative and charismatic figures as an evolutionary strategy for acquiring valued skills and negotiating hierarchies. As a result, by committing to the intuitively-plausible policies populist leaders promote, such as 'building a wall', they give additional credence to the political beliefs that are based on our cognitive intuitions, effectively increasing their plausibility for the "common folk".

The issue indicated in the title of the study is essentially a complex of legal problems, which raise several questions about the concepts used, such as: What is human dignity? What rights can be derived from it? Can we talk about the right to human dignity? What is personhood? What are the personality rights? How is human dignity related to the personality rights? The study examines the problem from the perspective of Romanian legislation and Constitutional Court practice.

The Nordic countries have long been renowned for their contribution to international peace and security. This contribution – occasionally viewed by both Nordic and non-Nordic policy-makers and academics as a particular model for facilitating peace and development in international affairs – is based on a combination of active contributions to peaceful conflict resolution, a high level of development aid and a continuous commitment to strengthening international society. However, recently Scandinavians have been making headlines for reasons that seem to contrast with their well-established brand as humane internationalist peacemakers. This article identifies the characteristics of the Nordic model for international peace and security and discusses how and why it has changed.

The legal relationship between civil servants and the state, is not governed by the theory of sovereignty, which is relevant in the outer relationships between the state and its citizens, though it has some, limited effect on the inner relationships between the civil servant and the state organ, as well. The inner relationship falls into the category of "dependent work" and therefore civil servants must enjoy the employment rights generally applicable to employees with some alterations. Among such rights, two are investigated more closely in the paper: protection against unjust dismissal and collective rights of workers (right to organise, right to bargain collectively, and right to strike). In 2010 the Hungarian state modified its regulations on civil servants and introduced dismissal without notice referring to the argument that the parties of the legal relationship must be treated equally and because the civil servant can resign from its position without notice, the same right should be enjoyed by the state, as well. The Hungarian Constitutional Court and European Court of Justice nullified this law because of violating the right to work, the right to human dignity, and the right to hold public positions. The regulations on collective rights of civil servants have been systematically violated by the Hungarian legislator since 1992, when the first regulation on civil servants passed. Until 2011 the right to organise has been enjoyed without disturbance by civil servants but since than the state has organise the Bar of Hungarian Civil Servants into which all civil servants are obliged to enter. Because the Bar has rights which are usually considered to be union rights, therefore the Bar is a competitor of the civil servants' unions; consequently the regulations on the Bar violate the right to organise. The right to bargain collectively has never been enjoyed by unions of civil servants since 1992, despite such right is generally applied in developed countries app. since 1960-1970s and is also accepted by the international conventions on social and economic rights. The right to strike is also restricted by the Agreement on Right to Strike in Civil Service (1994) which prohibits the rights to strike far beyond the limits established by the Fundamental Law and the Act on Right to Strike (Act No. VII of 1989). Alternative methods of collective dispute settlement (mediation, arbitration) are also neglected by the Hungarian legal regime.