Suchergebnisse

The aim of this work is to shed light on the relations between the principles, those which present the basis of dominant theories of global justice, and states without a clear legitimity basis and in a process of democratization. A premise is that a global society does not have an absolute responsibility for the results achieved in overcoming internal injustices by the aforementioned states. Non-transparency of global conditions, necessary for the development of the mentioned processes, hinders the states in a process of development of long lasting stability basis. Therefore, those states are captured in a condition of permanent incompleteness. Moreover, here we highlight a position of an individual. The individual is defined as a potential subject of global processes, as well as a member of certain political communities. This definition includes their political capacity to achieve self-defined demand for justice. Considering Serbia's positioning within the frame of debates about global justice, 5th of October 2000 has been defined as a crucial moment. .

According to Paul Kahn, one of the leading American constitutional theorists, the terms 'nation' and 'national sovereignty' are beyond the moral argument. From the perspective of constitutional ontology, the nation is the community of all those who share the 'political eros' love of the nation, who are ready to respond to her call and, if necessary, lay down their lives on the altar of its self-preservation. The moral debate about the limits of nation's state is meaningless, tells us Kahn. The boundaries of all, even liberal states arise through a 'make sacrifices' they 'never just a matter of geography', and therefore 'there is no abstract drawing of borders by some principle of justice. As in the life of the individual, the limits have the same necessity: There is nothing abstract in that necessity.'. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyses the relationship among atomism, pluralism, and democracy from the standpoint of contemporary Rawlsian and Kafkian theory of justice. The author views fairness and justice as forms of substituting democratic decision-making in multicultural communities. (SOI : S. 143)

The author distinguishes between the antiquity's and Middle Ages' teachings on natural law and justice as a virtue and the modern-age Hobbes' theory of the prerequisites of the legal system. Hobbes' theory identifies the prerequisites of the legal system and describes the institution of legal constraint which guarantees the rule of law. The author points to the central historical difference between these paradigms. Finally, the author traces the evolution of Hobbes' paradigm in Kant's philosophy of right. (SOI : PM: S. 276)

Mixed government, which is commonly regarded as a distinctly medieval form of government, is relevant also to contemporary constitutional states. It is the best form of government, since the aristocratic element is a continuous source of virtue, especially of justice, and a check not only on the executive, as the monarchical element which is the seat of political power, and the legislature, as the democratic element which expresses the will of the majority, but also groups and institutions that have the might and will to impose themselves as oligarchies. Mixed government is also the form of government that is practised by most developed contemporary constitutional states: USA, UK, France, Switzerland, Germany etc. European nobility is the original aristocratic institution, by virtue of the fact that it was a system for the transfer of both virtue and general conditions of life. Three institutions that emerged in the late Middle Ages assumed structures and functions of the nobility. + The first is the clergy. When, as a result of the differentiation of feudal society ethical and intellectual virtues of the nobility could no longer maintain general conditions of life, the clergy, by virtue of their abstract knowledge that ranged from philosophy and theology to law and medicine, became a class of new experts in generalities and thereby a new aristocracy. The second modern aristocratic institution is the judiciary, which has a structure and function similar to earlier aristocracies. The task of judges is to establish the highest virtue o constitutionalism. It is justice by law, which regulates general conditions of life in the state and society. What qualifies judges for the task is expertise in the new generality. The expertise includes not only education and experience in law but also impeccable private life and demonstrated professional ethics. + The third modern aristocratic institution is the profession, whose most important instance is the legal profession. It shares its structure and function partly with the judiciary and partly with other professions. It seems that modern professions are degenerating. In the key area of data processing, due to rapid changes of technology, professions as systems of the transfer of virtue do not even seem to be possible. Professional aristocracies are replaced increasingly by oligarchies of capitalists and technocrats. (SOI : PM: S. 111)

Pitanje prava drzava na samoodbranu je jedno od fundamentalnih pitanja medjunarodnog javnog prava. Ovo nacelo koji postoji koliko i samo medjunarodno pravo, formulisano je na univerzalan nacin sredinom proslog vijeka, i postoje mnogi pisani radovi o njegovoj izradi i tumacenju. Pozivanje na samoodbranu kroz cijelu istoriju je koristeno kao opravdanje za zloupotrebu sile od strane drzava van svojih teritorija. ; Question of right of states to self-defense is one of the fundamental questions of public international law. This principle, which exists just as long as public international law does, was formulated in universal manner by the mid 20th century and there are many written works on its formulation and interpretation. Invoking self-defense during the course of history was used as a pretext for the use of force by the states outside of its territories. Right of states to self-defense originates from customary international law. During antic and medieval times, principle of self-defense was linked to the theory of just war which was differently interpreted in different times. In the period between two world wars, still there was no absolute prohibition of the use of force in international relations so the principle of self-defense was linked to the right of self-help through use of different forcible measures: retorsions, reprisals, naval blockade, intervention and demonstration of naval power. Contrary to the period of League of Nations, mechanism of implementation of international law was centralized by the foundation of the United Nations because a single body – Security Council – was entrusted with the authority to determine when the use of force is allowed in international law. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter defines that the states have a right to individual or collective self-defense in case of armed attack on the UN member state. This right is considered legitimate until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Projects on the establishment of world peace in the late Middle Ages were initially marked by religious views on the world. Christian church was the subject of war and peace and it did not make differences among peoples. It had universal aspirations. This dogmatic comprehension will be abandoned by the appearance of national states where the state becomes subject of war and peace. A division among nations appears and the possibility of their mutual recognition. In that way relations among states are being regulated from the point of view of international relations. His basic principle becomes the one of sovereign equality, this could happen after the termination of religious wars which got its peak by Westphalia peace. Starting from Dubois, Podjebrady, Penn, Duke of Silly, via Hobbes, Grotius end Puffendorf, it will be possible to determine how changes in society political systems and way of production influenced the developments of ideas on perpetual peace. The achievements of these thinkers were revolutionary and were still valid. It is worth mentioning the principles of sovereign equality of states, the presence of realism in international relations and the existence of judicial institutions such as the International Court of Justice.

In the research traditions of social and political science two central answers are being sought. The first is, what is the relationship between the specific con-figurations of the proponents of social changes and the particular outcomes of their activity? The other is, which changes in the configuration of the proponents lead to better results than the existing ones relative to th value criteria such as peace, feasible development, or social justice? This makes the reference frame-work of contemporary discussions on institutional shaping of the relations between the state and the society. In this work, the author first mentions three dominant dimensions of social change to which all of us are exposed. Second, by changing perspective, he goes over from a passive to an active approach in order to observe the actors (citizens) and the forms of their activity (civilness) that might challenge th forces of change and transform them into tolerable or even desirable outcomes. And third, he contributes to the discussion about civilness and depicts in bigger detail six fallacies that must be avoided if one wants to attain a competent configuration of activity. (SOI : SOEU: S. 37)