Celem artykułu jest charakterystyka dwóch kultur prawnych, tj. kultury władzy oraz kultury uzasadniania, sformułowanych przez Davida Dyzenhausa. Powyższa dystynkcja kultur zaproponowana przez kanadyjskiego teoretyka prawa stanowi interesujący głos w dyskusji nad tym, w jaki sposób wybrnąć z problemu wyznaczenia granic sprawowania władzy publicznej, a w konsekwencji również problemu bezkonfliktowego realizowania zasady podziału władzy. Najogólniej rzecz ujmując, w kulturze władzy uzasadnianie dla działania władzy jest konieczne na etapie jej ustanawiania, w momencie zaś jej ustanowienia władza nie widzi potrzeby uzasadniania swoich decyzji. W kulturze uzasadniania w sytuacji, gdy władza już została ustanowiona, reguły kultury uzasadniania nakazują władzy uzasadniać swoje wszystkie decyzje. Rekonstrukcja powyższych idei kultur prawnych została zilustrowana ostatnimi propozycjami zmian w ustawie o Sądzie Najwyższym. W konkluzji artykułu wskazano, że zaproponowane zmiany funkcjonowania Sądu Najwyższego są oczywistymi przykładami działań władzy ustawodawczej opartych na dyrektywach kultury władzy, co prowadzić może do naruszeń zasad państwa prawa. ; The aim of this article is to describe two legal cultures, namely the culture of authority and the culture of justification, as formulated by David Dyzenhaus. This distinction between legal cultures proposed by the Canadian theorist of law makes an interesting contribution to the discussion on how to make headway with the problem of determining the limits of public authority and, consequently, the problem of implementing the principle of the separation of powers in such a way that conflicts do not arise. In general, with the culture of authority, justification of the actions of an authority is necessary only when it is being established, and once its authority has been established, the authority sees no further need to justify its decisions. Whereas in the cultureof justification, after an authority has already been established, the rules of the culture of justification require that the authority continue to justify all its decisions. The reconstruction of these conceptions of legal cultures are illustrated by the recently proposed Act on the Supreme Court in Poland. The conclusion of the paper indicates that the proposed changes to the functioning of the Supreme Court are clear examples of legislative action based on the directives of a culture of authority, which may lead to violations of the rule of law.
In the present paper the author attempts a general characterization of the national security policy of Ukraine in the context of its constitutional foundations and geopolitical location. The security policy of Ukraine is determined by several factors and in particular by the economic interests, geographical position, political system ("oligarchic democracy") and possible alliance with the European Union, United States and NATO. These factors work together with the historical experiences and political relations with countries of the Post-Soviet area, especially with Russia under V. V. Putin regime. Russia's annexation of Crimea in 18 March 2014 violated rules of international law, because for the end of the Cold War the borders in East Europe were redrawn by use of force. The author tries to present the conceptions, documents and practical implications of the Ukrainian national security policy ; W przedstawionym artykule autor dokonuje generalnej charakterystyki polityki bezpieczeństwa narodowego Ukrainy w kontekście jej podstaw konstytucyjnych oraz położenia geopolitycznego. Polityka bezpieczeństwa narodowego tego państwa jest uwarunkowana paroma czynnikami, szczególnie jej interesami ekonomicznymi, położeniem geograficznym, właściwościami systemu politycznego ("demokracja oligarchiczna") oraz możliwymi sojuszami z Unią Europejską, Stanami Zjednoczonymi oraz NATO. Te czynniki współgrają z ukraińskimi doświadczeniami historycznymi oraz stosunkami politycznymi z państwami obszaru postradzieckiego, szczególnie z Rosją, pod rządami W.W. Putina. Rosyjska aneksja Krymu dokonana 18 marca 2014 r. złamała reguły prawa międzynarodowego, ponieważ po zakończeniu ery zimnej wojny, granice w Europie Wschodniej zostały zmienione przy użyciu siły. Autor podejmuje próbę prezentacji koncepcji, dokumentów oraz implikacji praktycznych ukraińskiej polityki bezpieczeństwa narodowego
The book contains a thorough analysis of the European Union institutional system as a specific, sui generis international organisation, in the context of its legitimization (its validity and legitimacy). The book is mainly theoretical. Primarily, the author aims at presenting a reliable depiction of the EU institutional system legitimization through the prism of the theoretical output concerning legitimization of the political power, including and accentuating the indicated specificity of the EU as a distinct international organisation. Secondly, he took into consideration the changes introduced into the legal foundations of the EU functioning, pursuant to the Lisbon Treaty – the latest treaty reforming the structures of the Union. In the context of the main theme of the present study, these changes are important not only in terms of the EU institutions themselves, i.e. their competences and reciprocal relations, but also with regard to the fundamental change of the legal character of the EU, and the alterations introduced into the individual Union politics. Thirdly, the author attempts to present the problem of the EU institutional system legitimization in the special circumstances, i.e. in the situation of the most profound economic crisis that the EU members have faced since the beginning of the integration process. The EU is regarded as a specific structure, being neither a state nor a typical international organisation. Such an approach was the starting point for the main premise of the present book – the idea that the thesis about the deficiency of democracy in the EU, formulated in the literature on the subject and in the public debate, is a certain simplification, and the characteristic features of the EU and its institutions, which provoked the formulation of such a thesis, should be considered in a broader context, such as the problem of the EU institutional system legitimization and, alternatively, the deficiency of that legitimization. For the direct democratic legitimization is only one of many sources of legitimacy of the EU institutional system and of the Union as a specific international organisation in general – an extremely important source, perhaps the most important, yet not the only one. Thus, the legitimization of the EU and its institutions should be analysed in a broader perspective, which also includes other sources of legitimization – as it is done in case of every political power which, striving for its legitimization to be as strong as possible, attempts to derive it from the largest number of sources. According to the author of the book, to base the EU institutional system legitimization only on the grounds of the direct democratic legitimization characteristic of a democratic state, would be tantamount to a certain disruption of the right order. It would rather be a symptom of too advanced an integration on the "institutional" level in comparison to the extent of the "material" integration. Until the EU is a structure sui generis, in which case it is a combination of features characteristic of an intergovernmental, international organisation, a supranational organisation or a state, the nature of legitimization of this structure should also be specific. The most important role should be played by the democratic legitimization, which should be completed with other sources, owing to which the functioning of the EU institutional system, and the whole EU, could be recognised as legally valid. Apart from the main thesis also other theses and hypotheses are posed in the book. The first chapter is a certain theoretical introduction and a basis to the deliberations presented in the further parts of this study. In the first subsection, with reference to the literature on the subject, the problem of legitimization (legitimacy) of the political power, i.e. the concept, classifications and sources of legitimization (legitimacy) of the political power, have been synthetically depicted. In another part of chapter one, the author attempts to relate the problem of legitimization to the EU as a specific international organisation and to formulate his own definition of legitimization deficiency with regard to EU institutional system. Bearing in mind that the problem of legitimization deficiency in the EU (EC) has not been discussed on a larger scale until certain stage of development of integration process was reached, in 1.3. subsection, the author raises some questions concerning: the sufficiency of legitimization of the integration process during the first few decades after the Second World War, the grounds for that legitimization and the reasons why, at a certain stage of the EU (EC) development the legitimization of the Union's institutional system started to be considered insufficient, which was manifested in the opinions acknowledging the democracy and legitimization deficiency. The first chapter ends with a passage devoted to the importance of the EU institutional system legitimization, whereas the significance of legitimization to the political power and political institutions in general, consitutes its reference point. The second chapter (subsections 2.3.–2.8.) presents a synthesis of the evolution of the EU (EC) institutional system in the context of its legitimization, from the moment of the EC founding treaties ratification, till the time the changes pursuant to the Lisbon Treaty were introduced. The author focused here mainly on the competences of the particular EC (EU) institutions and their reciprocal relations, which should make it possible to observe two main tendencies in the dynamics of changes taking place in this field, and present its specificity and distinctiveness in comparison to the systems of democratic states. At the beginning of this chapter, a thesis has been formulated (simultaneously, becoming an extension of the attempt to determine why, at a certain stage of the integration process, the issue of democracy/legitimization deficiency started to be discussed – a question that was raised in the first chapter), which states that the legitimization of the EU institutional system will be sufficient, if the law regulations and political practice of their functioning are convergent with the level of advancement of the integration process in various spheres of social life; in other words, the "institutional" integration should correspond with the "material" integration (that is the Union politics). To that end, the author made an attempt to present, in a synthetized form, the development of the "material" integration (subsection 2.1.), which he completed with an analogical endeavour to illustrate the evolution of the EU (EC) institutional system in the context of its legitimization (subsection 2.9). For in accordance with the increasingly common approach, the EU institutions are treated as a system, the concept and principles of which have been presented in 2.2. subsection. In the third chapter, the author presents the EU institutional system in its current form, that is with the changes introduced under the Lisbon Treaty. Here, the selected aspects regarding competences and functioning of the particular EU institutions have been depicted, as well as the relations between them in the context of legitimization. Additionally, three selected problems regarding the EU institutional system have been raised, which are especially important in the context of its legitimization (the relation between the EU institutional system and the institutions of the EU member states, the question of transparency in the functioning of the EU institutions, as well as the Union budgets in the consecutive years). In the last subsection (3.9.) the specific features of the EU institutional system, significant in the context of its legitimization, have been identified. The fourth chapter is devoted to the functioning of the EU institutional system in the perspective of four basic sources of its legitimization, i.e. indirect and technocratic, direct and democratic, utilitarian, and one consisting of "values". The chapter ends with a conclusion outlining the specificity of the EU and its institutional system with regard to the sources of its legitimization, which is especially important in the context of the book's main thesis. The fifth chapter concerns the problem of legitimization of the EU institutions in the context of the economic crisis, which the EU member states struggle with since around the year 2008. The sixth chapter, in turn, regards the so called subjective (empirical, social) dimension of the EU institutions' legitimization, that is, the way this problem is perceived by the citizens of the EU member states. It has been based on the results of opinion polls conducted for the use of Eurobarometer, from among which these questions and answers were selected, which could be applied to illustrate the way the EU citizens perceive the Union institutions in the context of their legitimization. The closing remarks include the most important conclusions drawn from the conducted analyses and the potential reforms and modifications of the EU institutional system, which may allow for the reinforcement of its legitimization, primarily in its democratic aspect. The bibliography contains a list of sources which were cited and referred to in the book.
The discussion of the role of self-government in Poland's political structure has been closely linked to the Polish people's aspirations and desire for freedom, democracy and a state in which sovereignty is indeed in the hands of its people. These aspirations, so strongly expressed during the general election of June 1989, have since the very beginning included demands for self-government. What it meant for the state and its political system, was the implementation of the idea embodied in the name Solidarity which, as a trade union, was also to be independent and self-governing. It was also the realisation of the demand for a 'Samorządna Rzeczpospolita' (a Self-governing Republic), one of the fundamental principles of the Solidarity movement put forward at its First National Congress, which I had the honour of chairing in 1981.In March 1990, only a few months after its election on 4 June 1989, the Polish parliament adopted a law that restored the institution of local self-government at the level of communes and municipalities (gmina). Thus, 25 years ago, the road to political transformation in Poland was opened, allowing the building of a Polish state understood as the political community of all its citizens – a real Res Publica.The predominating belief which accompanied us in this process was that the indispensable prerequisite to shaping democracy was to give back the state to its citizens, thus releasing dormant social energy and the entrepreneurial spirit of the people. After all democracy means not only the possibility of the democratically electing the political representatives (the authorities) but equally the chance for citizens to feel involved and take the responsibility for public affairs.Therefore the first democratic government, headed by Tadeusz Mazowiecki, began the process of restoring the state to its citizens from the most important starting point. It started with the rebuilding of communal and municipal self-governing structures and the recreating of the intellectual foundations for the formation of the new constitution of a citizens-centred state.This was possible mainly because a vision of reform had already been conceived and had been long developing in the minds of a number of distinguished persons. This project of self-government reform constituted an original example of engagement of Polish intellectuals in state affairs and their taking responsibility for the common good.The reform also turned out to be one of the most effective methods of de-communisation of Polish public life. This could be best seen in the results of the first election to self-governing structures in 1990, and the role which the Solidarity citizens' committees played in it. It was indeed the same people, the co-founders and members of the Solidarity movement, who have successfully carried out the restoration of self-government in Poland.'We marched for power to return it to the people' was the motto of the Polish government in 1997, a government which I had the honour of heading for the subsequent four years, and which articulated the goals and the sense of political and social transformation of those times. We called it a Four Reform Programme, and its objective was a fundamental transformation of public life in Poland. On the one hand we intended to create favourable conditions for the development of the public civic space, while on the other we strove to activate and make more dynamic the processes of economic, political and cultural development in the country.We believed that acceleration of this development and modernisation was contingent upon active participation of self-government structures. Hence the creation of strong self-government had gradually become our conscious choice and an urgent 'civilising task.' This task was grounded equally in the need to manage properly our recently regained independence, and in the need to make efficient use of the pre-accession period preceding Poland's membership of the European Union, which was then imminent.Thus the administrative reform undertaken by my government in 1999 introduced districts (powiat) as self-governing level of administration, allowing it, in conjunction with communes and municipalities (gmina), to take effective control of matters directly affecting local communities and their citizens. The self-governing structures formed at the level of strong voivodships, or regions, allowed at the same time to decentralise responsibility for regional economic development, competitiveness and modernisation strategies.Today, after over 10 years of EU membership, it is worth reflecting on the impact the political reforms which we carried through then have had on Poland's functioning in the system of European integration. We were proven right in our conviction that decentralisation and differentiation of various state functions would allow for a better and more effective use and management of EU funds.The three-tier self-government structure created solid foundations helping to satisfy better the aspirations of citizens, local communities and regions with regard to their modernisation and development. Today it is those local self-governing units, those closest to citizens, those most familiar with and with the best understanding of their needs, which are responsible for the drafting of regional development projects and the management of funds available for those projects. Self-government structures have become the real centres for formulating and implementing development strategies.This is the context in which the key challenge facing self-government is set, namely the fostering of entrepreneurship, ensuring proper conditions for innovation and mobilising citizens to engage in economic and social initiatives. The role of self-government in shaping of the state's development policy is not limited to dividing available means and resources. Much more important is its ability to effectively multiply the available means, to support partnership ventures, including public-private projects, to form strong business to business relationships as well as partner relations between research centres and local administrative bodies, or promote and support innovations and civic initiatives serving the common good. After all, all these are key factors for the long-term stability and development of our communities and our country, which is today the key measure of the responsibility for public matters, so deeply rooted in the idea of self-government.The self-government reform originated from the ideas developed in the 1980s of the twentieth century as part of the Solidarity movement, but was implemented in an already independent Poland, when laying the foundations for a transformation of the state and the democratisation of the citizen-state relationship. It also had, however, and maybe predominantly, a deep idealistic dimension, so easy to forget when we focus on the current and most urgent challenges of the present.In my opinion, it is in self-governance, as well as in the political and administrative culture, that opportunities for building our freedom lie: freedom, the sense of which we feel best if given a chance to share in the responsibility for it. In times of independence this means the possibility of personal engagement public issues based on the pro publico bono principle: issues pertaining to our family life, our local community, or the whole country.Today, in the context of our shared responsibility for the European Union, such an understanding of self-governance should also inspire us to seek new directions of development, and to participate in the shaping of Europe-wide standards of public life. In the same way as 25 years ago in Poland we founded a political community on the basis of self-governance, we should today look at self-governance as a chance to create a true political community of all European citizens.
