Suchergebnisse

Replicirajući na tekst Riječ Uredništva u Šumarskome listu br. 3-4/2016., predsjednik Uprave Hrvatskih šuma d.o.o. mr. sc. Ivan Pavelić u svojoj poruci poslanoj elektroničkom poštom na adresu predsjednika i tajnika HŠD-a zaključuje, da "kao Uprava društva, ne želimo podržavati "naklapanja" i "razračunavanja" podvedena pod znanost, a time nećemo financijski potpomagati izlazak tog vašeg takozvanog znanstvenog časopisa".Mi nećemo na ovaj tekst dati paušalno mišljenje, kao što je to učinio odnosni gospodin, umjesto da je argumentirano odgovorio na postavljena pitanja u našem tekstu i otklonio sve sumnje ako one ne stoje. Ponajprije odgovor na pitanje o znanstvenom statusu časopisa. Na temelju mišljenja tada nadležnog Ministarstva informiranja RH br. 523-91-2 od 6. 3. 1991.g., a potom Ministarstva znanosti i tehnologije od 2000 g., Šumarski list se označava znanstvenim časopisom. Za reći što je, a što nije znanstveno, posebice u biotehnološkoj znanosti, koja je ovdje u pitanju, trebaju i neke reference koje gosp. Pavelić nema, kao što nema ni stručnih referenci za rukovođenje tako zahtjevnom gospodarskom granom kojoj nije samo cilj proizvodnja drvne mase, što on svojim rukovođenjem potvrđuje. Osim toga znanstveni status časopisa potkrijepljen je citiranjem članaka u relevantnim međunarodnim znanstvenim časopisima, a posljednjih godina i sa značajnim Impact faktorom, koji potvrđuje visoku kvalitetu časopisa. No, Šumarski list nije samo znanstveno, on je Znanstveno-stručno i staleško glasilo Hrvatskoga šumarskoga društva, kako stoji u podnaslovu, što znači da svi tekstovi imaju isključivo znanstveno-stručnu i stalešku podlogu, a ne političku. Postavljena pitanja u odnosnome tekstu nije "izmislilo" Uredništvo časopisa, nego je samo uobličilo mišljenja struke putem Upravnog odbora HŠD-a koji je ujedno i Uređivački savjet, a kojega između ostaloga čine predsjednici 19 ogranaka, ne postavljeni od središnjice, nego izabrani od svojega članstva (oko ukupno 3000 članova), te delegiranih predstavnika Šumarskoga fakulteta, Akademije šumarskih znanosti, Hrvatskog šumarskog instituta, HKIŠDT i resornog ministarstva. Prema tome, kompetencije ovdje nisu upitne, posebice kada navedenima pridodamo i članove Uredničkoga odbora koji su specijalisti iz pojedinih znanstveno-stručnih područja. No, gosp. Pavelić i ne treba odgovoriti na postavljena pitanja, jer je on predstavnik državnog "kocesionara" kojemu je povjereno upravljanje i gospodarenje nacionalnim bogatstvom, a kojega treba kontrolirati resorno ministarstvo tijekom cijeloga mandata. Da li je ono to činilo ili čini, i da li su odgovorni u resornom ministarstvu i Vladi RH svjesni što je sve "žrtvovano" da bi se ostvarila hvaljena "papirnata" dobit (profit) i naravno, polučili menadžerski bonusi, to je upitno? Glede spomenutih menadžerskih bonusa o kojima je bilo dosta riječi u medijima svih vrsta, interesantno je napomenuti kako se raspravljalo samo o tome, da li su u podjeli te nazovi dobiti trebali adekvatno sudjelovati i svi zaposlenici Hrvatskih šuma d.o.o. Niti jedne riječi o tome koje su štete nešumarskim gospodarenjem učinjene na šumi i šumskom staništu. Nitko, pa ni šumarski inženjeri iz rukovodstva sindikata, nisu tražili odgovore na pitanja koja smo postavili u Riječi Uredništva u Šumarskome listu br. 3-4/2016., a koja su "razljutila" arogantnog predsjednika Uprave Hrvatskih šuma d.o.o.Glede financijskog potpomaganja časopisa, moramo odgovoriti da to nije financijsko potpomaganje, nego pretplata na časopis, pa dotični gospodin svojom odlukom zaključuje da šumarskim stručnjacima nije potrebno cijelo-životno obrazovanje, te otkazuje pretplatu kao prvi rukovoditelj koji je to učinio nakon 140 godina tiskanja časopisa, upravo u godini kada obilježavamo ovu značajnu obljetnicu.Osim toga, analiza postavljenih pitanja nije tema za "komunikaciju na placu ili možda razgovor uz kavicu" kako navodi gosp. Pavelić, nego upravo za ozbiljnu raspravu na najvišoj znanstveno-stručnoj pa i političkoj razini, jer ovdje je riječ o nacionalnom bogatstvu neprocjenjive vrijednosti. Uredništvo ; Reacting to the Editorial published in the Forestry Journal No 3-4/2016, Ivan Pavelić, MSc, President of the Management Board of Croatian Forests Ltd, sent an e-mail to the President and Secretary of the Croatian Forestry Association, in which he stressed that "the Management Board does not wish to get involved in "idle prattle" and "score-settling" under the pretence of science. In other words, we will not continue to financially support your so-called scientific journal".We will not follow suit of the gentleman in question and give our opinion on this email, unlike the gentleman in question, who failed to use arguments to answer the questions raised in our text and remove all doubts if they are groundless. We would first like to clarify the scientific status of the journal. According to the decree of the Croatian Ministry of Information No. 523-91-2 of 3rd March 1991 and the decree of the Ministry of Science and Technology of 2000, the Forestry Journal is denoted as a scientific journal. To say what is and what is not scientific, particularly in the biotechnological sciences, requires some references, which Mr Pavelić, judging from his manner of management, does not possess. Neither does he possess professional references for managing such a demanding economic branch, whose primary goal should not be the production of wood mass only. The scientific status of the journal is confirmed by articles cited from relevant international scientific journals, and more recently, by the important Impact Factor, which further exemplifies the high quality of the journal. The Forestry Journal is not only a scientific magazine; it is a scientific-specialist and professional journal of the Croatian Forestry Association, as stated in its sub headline. This means that all the texts are based on exclusively scientific-specialist and professional foundations rather than on political ones. The questions raised in the subject text were not "concocted" by the Journal's Editorial Board. The Editorial Board only formulated the opinion of the profession via the CFA Management Board, which is also the Journal's Editorial Council. The Editorial Council is comprised of presidents of 19 branches (who were not appointed by the Headquarters but were elected from a membership of about 3,000 members in all), and of representatives of the Faculty of Forestry, Academy of Forestry Sciences, the Croatian Forest Research Institute, HKIŠDT (Croatian Chamber of Forestry and Wood Technology Engineers) and the competent Ministry. The above confirms the unquestionable status of competences. Moreover, the list can further be widened by members of the Editorial Board who are specialists in different scientific-specialist fields. Mr Pavelić does not have to answer all the questions raised in the journal because he is a representative of the state "concessionaire", who has been entrusted with the administration and management of the national treasure and who should be supervised by the competent Ministry throughout his term of office. Whether the competent Ministry has done so or is doing so, and whether those responsible in the Ministry and the Government of the Republic of Croatia are aware of what has been "sacrificed" in order to achieve the glorified profit "on paper" and probably obtain managers' bonuses remains doubtful. As for the bonuses, a topic on which much has been written in different media, it is interesting to point out that the discussions focused only on whether the distribution of so-called profit should have involved all those employed in the company Croatian Forests Ltd. Not one word was said about the enormous damage inflicted on the forests and forestland by inadequate forest management. No one, not even forestry engineers, union members, sought answers to the questions raised in the Editorial of Forestry Journal 3-4/2016, which so incensed the arrogant President of the Management Board of Croatian Forests LtdRegarding the financial support to the journal, we should just point out that this is not financial support but subscription to the journal. By declaring his decision, the gentleman in question concludes that forestry experts do not need life-ling learning and cancels the subscription, thus becoming the first manager to do so after 140 years of the publication of the Journal, precisely in the year in which we celebrate this important anniversary.To sum up, the questions raised in the journal are not the topic of "street chit-chat or coffee shop small talk", as Mr Pavelić says. On the contrary, it is the topic that requires serious and qualified discussions at the highest scientific-specialist and political level. After all, what is at stake here is national treasure of immeasurable value. Editorial Bord

The ethical distress of the (post)modern world stimulates and directs us to reflect our ethical and cultural grounds. Man is a transcendent being. He cannot reach or put in order immediate goods he needs if he is not prepared to acknowledge the grounds of his person and develop the virtues of prudence, love, hope, faith, wisdom, justice, courage, temperance etc. These are ethical questions concerning different worldviews and cannot be solved only by scientific methods. Many people who in the past did not care for religion as such, now take seriously religious personal and societal aspects of humane life. The fundamental crucial questions of man are ethical questions. They are in various ways related or perplexed with the question of faith and of science.

Dugo je vremena koncept suvereniteta smatran kamenom temeljcem domaćeg i međunarodnog prava te političke misli. Koncepcija suvereniteta blisko je povezana s koncepcijom države. Bilo je to »normalno« stanje države, u kojem ona ima vrhovnu ili konačnu vlast u unutarnjim političkim i pravnim pitanjima, a svojstvo neovisnosti prema drugim državama. Međunarodnu zajednicu činile su ravnopravne i neovisne države. Danas, na početku 21. stoljeća, koncept suvereniteta izložen je mnogim izazovima, od kojih je najznačajniji proces globalizacije koji je doveo do sve veće međupovezanosti ljudi širom svijeta vidljive na svim poljima: političkim, vojnim, ekonomskim, kulturnim i pravnim. U ovom radu usredotočit ćemo se na pitanje kako globalizacija utječe na državni suverenitet te da ti pregled argumenata korištenih u novijoj literaturi. ; The concept of sovereignty was for a long time considered as one of the cornerstones of national and international law, and of political thought. The concept of sovereignty was closely connected with the concept of the state. It was a »normal« situation of a country where it had supreme or final power in political and legal matters in its domestic affairs, while at the same time it was independent in relation to all other countries. The international community used to consist of equal and independent states. At the beginning of the 21st century, the concept of sovereignty is faced with many challenges, both in theory and in practice. What happens within a country's territory and to its inhabitants is now less a consequence of national politics than the result of international circumstances – the difference between internal and foreign affairs is becoming increasingly vague. Several processes are happening simultaneously: globalisation (the development of information and communication technology; increase in foreign investments, the development of multinational corporations, and strengthening of the international economic and trade organisations' role), the process of European integration, the development of international protection of human rights (the development of cogent rules of international law, humanitarian interventions, the role of transnational non- governmental organisations), and the phenomenon of »failed states«. All the above mentioned has created a need to redefine the concept of sovereignty.

Dugo je vremena koncept suvereniteta smatran kamenom temeljcem domaćeg i međunarodnog prava te političke misli. Koncepcija suvereniteta blisko je povezana s koncepcijom države. Bilo je to »normalno« stanje države, u kojem ona ima vrhovnu ili konačnu vlast u unutarnjim političkim i pravnim pitanjima, a svojstvo neovisnosti prema drugim državama. Međunarodnu zajednicu činile su ravnopravne i neovisne države. Danas, na početku 21. stoljeća, koncept suvereniteta izložen je mnogim izazovima, od kojih je najznačajniji proces globalizacije koji je doveo do sve veće međupovezanos- ti ljudi širom svijeta vidljive na svim poljima: političkim, vojnim, ekonomskim, kulturnim i pravnim. U ovom radu usredotočit ćemo se na pitanje kako globalizacija utječe na državni suverenitet te dati pregled argumenata korištenih u novijoj literaturi. ; The concept of sovereignty was for a long time considered as one of the corner- stones of national and international law, and of political thought. The concept of sovereignty was closely connected with the concept of the state. It was a »normal« situation of a country where it had supreme or final power in political and legal matters in its domestic affairs, while at the same time it was independent in relation to all other countries. The international community used to consist of equal and independent States. At the beginning of the 21st Century, the concept of sovereignty is faced with many challenges, both in theory and in practice. What happens within a country's territory and to its inhabitants is now less a consequence of national politics than the result of international circumstances - the difference between internal and foreign affairs is becoming increasingly vague. Several processes are happening simultaneously: globalisation (the development of information and communication technology; increase in foreign Investments, the development of multinational corporations, and strengthening of the international economic and trade organisations' role), the process of European integration, the development of international protection of human rights (the development of cogent rules of international law, humanitarian interventions, the role of transnational non/governmental organisations), and the phenomenon of »failed States«. All the above mentioned has created a need to redefine the concept of sovereignty.