Suchergebnisse

The article deals with the theory of deliberative democracy, which is considered from an analytical perspective. Its main aim is to identify the primary directive of the rationality of pluralism, which forms the meta- -argumentative level of discourse on deliberative democracy. In the article, we investigate the theoretical path that the idea of deliberative democracy has passed from Rawls' works through those of Cohen to Brian Barry's impartiality. We also refer to critical voices which highlight topics of interest. The main directives that we distinguish within the rationality of pluralism are: equality, justifi cation, procedure and impartiality. We also point out that these directives may lead to inconsistencies in theories of deliberative democracy. We indicate that the plurality of rationalities is an alternative approach to the rationality of pluralism; however, this is not within the scope of our argument in this article.

This article is devoted to the theory of sustainable development in version presented in the report of the Brundtland Commission announced thirty years ago. The material object of this article is the specific group of assumptions of this theory. These are external assumptions, i.e. discourse requirements forced by the circumstances determining the conditions of leading it. The main focus was concentrated on assumptions involving affiliation of the Brundtland Commission to the United Nations (systemic), the realisation of goals set by the General Assembly (task) and changes happening in the conditions of the United Nations functioning under the influence of international situation in the world of this time (compatible). The formal object of this article is the answer for the question concerning the relevance of this theory in contemporary political conditions determined by the end of the Cold War, globalisation and the growth of economic position of international concerns. In this article the process of deduction was used to bring to daylight the latent assumptions and the analysis of documents to expose the overt assumptions. J. Rawls' remarks concerning the topic of difference between theoretical status of state representative and representative of people were also used. The final conclusion confirms the relevance of the analysed version of the sustainable development theory. ; Projekt Operacyjny Polska Cyfrowa POPC.02.03.01-00-0039/18

Publikacja recenzowana / Peer-reviewed publication ; Pojęcie obywatelskiego nieposłuszeństwa wiąże się tradycyjnie z postacią Henry`ego Davida Thorea, którego słynny esej z 1848 roku pt. Resitance to Civil Government, stał się inspiracją dla rozwoju współczesnej refleksji nad obywatelskim nieposłuszeństwem, a także źródłem nieustannych poszukiwań jego istoty. Rozważania nad nieposłuszeństwem obywatelskim prowadzili też Hannah Arendt, a także John Rawls, Joseph Ratz oraz Ronald Dworkin. Stworzone przez tych autorów definicje obywatelskiego nieposłuszeństwa zawierają pewien katalog cech składających się na to pojęcie. Najważniejszymi spośród nich są zakaz stosowania przemocy oraz gotowość poddania się karze. Na gruncie polskim problematyka ta omawiana była przez Andrzeja Rzeplińskiego, Ewę Łętowską, a ostatnio przez Artura Szutę i Michała Rocha Kaczmarczyka. W historii Polski symbolem obywatelskiego nieposłuszeństwa jest Tadeusz Rejtan. Ostatnio działania wykazujące cechy obywatelskiego nieposłuszeństwa podejmują Obywatele RP. Obywatelskie nieposłuszeństwo może być mylone z takimi pojęciami jak prawo do oporu, sprzeciw sumienia lub nieposłuszeństwo rewolucyjne. Niezależnie od wielu kontrowersji związanych z samym pojęciem, nie ma wątpliwości, że instytucja ta ma do spełnienia szereg bardzo pozytywnych ról. Pozwala na zainicjowanie niezależnej, niekontrolowanej przez władzę dyskusji. Zapewnia partycypację polityczną oraz stwarza warunki sprzyjające możliwości oddziaływania na władzę. Odgrywa też niebagatelną funkcję informacyjną. Ale przede wszystkim przyczynia się do rozwoju społeczeństwa obywatelskiego. ; Over the past few decades, civil disobedience has become one of the most widely studied subjects in jurisprudence. The name which is widely recognized and associated with the term is that of Henry David Thorea for it was his essay, published in 1849 under the title "Resistance to Civil Government" and later renamed "Essay on Civil Disobedience" that first brought this idea to the public attention. After his landmark lectures were published in 1866, the term began to appear in numerous sermons and lectures relating to civil or social oppression in its many forms. In 1866, four years after his death, the term had achieved fairly widespread usage. Among Thorea's numerous followers were Hannah Arendt, John Rawls, Joseph Ratz and Ronald Dworkin who all, in their own way and method, contributed to the catalog of features associated with the term as we know it today: the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands or commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is relatively often defined as essentially and profoundly nonviolent. Actions or undertakings which strive to be labelled as such will, therefore, have to be equated with nonviolent resistance and prepared to suffer the penalties set out in the law. In Poland civil disobedience has been discussed in the works of Andrzej Rzepliński, Ewa Łętowska and, most recently, by Artur Szuta and Michał Roch Kaczmarczyk. The most symbolic depiction of the issue held dear in the sentiments of Polish patriots will be the 18th century Polish parliamentarian Tadeusz Rejtan. Today, Polish civil disobedients have chosen a variety of different methods to manifest their discontent. Civil disobedience is often mistaken for the right of resistance, conscientious objection, revolutionary disobedience. But, regardless the confusion those terms might cause, their social standing and significance remain undisputed. It gives rise to independent and spontaneous public debate, free of authoritarian intrusion or imposition. It acts as a free and independent public platform. And, last but not least, it helps to build civil society in its own right.