Suchergebnisse

Prinos se bavi istraživanjem korištenja pojma rata u djelu Michela Foucaulta. Obrćući poznatu Clausewitzovu izjavu o ratu kao nastavku politike drugim sredstvima, Foucault je kroz 1970-e godine na ambivalentan način govorio o politici kao nastavku rata drugim sredstvima. U analizi društvenih odnosa kao odnosa moći, obilato se služio ratnim metaforama poput strategija i taktika, povremeno koristeći ratno pojmovlje bez metaforičkog odmaka, kasnije se distancirajući od njega kao od specifičnog povijesnog diskursa koji retrospektivno podliježe analitički hladnijoj arheologiji diskursa odnosno, u fukoovskom smislu, nominalno angažiranoj dinastijskoj/genealogijskoj analizi moći, ili pak normativno odbacujući ratnu metaforiku u nekim specifičnim područjima poput problematiziranja uloge intelektualaca. Ovaj se prigodni prinos ograničava na dvije svrhe. Primarna je, u žanru hermeneutike Foucaulta, vjerno rekonstruirati i tentativno klasificirati diskurs rata u Foucaultovom bogatom i raznolikom opusu. Sekundarna je svrha preliminarno ga analitički vrednovati, sažeto u pitanju što se diskursom rata uopće dobiva a što gubi u analizi društvenih kretanja, imajući u vidu naslovnu figuru Lakoffa i Johnsona o pojmovnim metaforama koje, kako oni tvrde, oblikuju naše misaone i stvarne svjetove? Drugim riječima: što je doista Foucault govorio i pisao i što nam to znači danas u analizi društva i politike? ; Cet article examine l'utilisation du concept de guerre dans l'œuvre de Michel Foucault. En renversant la célèbre déclaration de Clausewitz selon laquelle la guerre n'est qu'un prolongement de la politique par d'autres moyens, Foucault parle de manière ambivalente dans les années 1970 de la politique comme d'un prolongement de la guerre par d'autres moyens. Au sein de son analyse des rapports sociaux en tant que rapports de pouvoir, il se sert abondamment des métaphores de guerre telles que la stratégie et la tactique, mais utilise aussi une terminologie de guerre en abandonnant la métaphore. Il se distancie plus tard de ce discours qu'il qualifie de discours historique spécifique qui, de manière rétrospective, est soumis au discours analytiquement plus froid d'archéologie, à savoir, dans le sens foucaldien, à l'analyse dynastique/généalogique du pouvoir nominalement engagé. Il rejette également d'un point de vue normatif la métaphore de guerre dans certains domaines spécifiques, telle que dans sa problématisation du rôle des intellectuels. Cet article se limite à deux buts particuliers. Le but premier est, suivant le genre de l'herméneutique de Foucault, de reconstruire en tentant de classer de manière fidèle les différents genres de discours de guerre présents dans son œuvre riche et variée. Le but second consiste, quant à lui, à valoriser ce discours d'un point de vue analytique, travail résumé en la question de savoir ce que l'on gagne et ce que l'on perd à travers le discours de guerre dans l'analyse des mouvements sociaux, tout en ayant à l'esprit l'intitulé de Lakoff et Johnson concernant les métaphores conceptuelles, qui, comme ils l'affirment, façonnent notre pensée et nos mondes réels. En d'autres mots, il s'agit de savoir ce que nous a réellement dit Foucault et ce qu'il a vraiment écrit, mais aussi, ce que cela signifie pour nous aujourd'hui au sein de l'analyse de la société et de la politique.

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

U ovome radu bavimo se pitanjem kako preferencije skupine individualaca spojiti u jednu preferenciju koja bi najbolje opisivala preferenciju društva. Na početku, u prvom poglavlju upoznajemo se s nekim od najpoznatijih načina glasovanja i problemima koji se javljaju prilikom primjene istih. U drugom poglavlju razmatramo funkciju društvenog blagostanja koja profile preferencije svih individualaca u društvu preslikava u jednu relaciju preferencije. Pokazujemo da kada postoje tri ili više alternative, ne postoji funkcija društvenog blagostanja koja zadovoljava određene uvjete. Zatim u trećem poglavlju se bavimo funkcijom društvenog izbora koja sve profile preferencije skupine individualaca preslikava u jednu alternativu, i to onu koja bi društvu bila najpoželjnija. Tu također pokazujemo da takva funkcija ne postoji u slučaju kada imamo tri ili više alternativa i određene uvjete koje bismo htjeli da funkcija zadovoljava. U četvrtom poglavlju, u obzir uzimamo i mogućnost manipulativnosti, odnosno gledamo što se događa ako individualci iskažu preferencije koje se razlikuju od njihovih stvarnih preferencija. Na kraju, u petom poglavlju razmatramo slučaj ponderiranog glasovanja, gdje svaki individualac na raspolaganju ima određen broj glasova koji mu je dodijeljen prema nekim pravilima te proučavamo dva načina na koja možemo odrediti koliku moć ima odredeni individualac u takvim sustavima glasovanja. ; In this thesis we deal with the question of how to aggregate preferences of a group of individuals into a single preference that would best describe preference of the society. At the beginning, in the first chapter we meet some of the most famous voting systems and problems encountered when applying them. In the second chapter, we consider the social welfare function which maps profile preferences of all individuals into one preference relation. We show that when there are three or more alternatives, there is no social welfare function that meets certain conditions. Then, in the third chapter, we're dealing with a social ...

The history of the Order of Saint Augustine in Rijeka links the city and its region with Central Europe – more particularly to Bavaria, Bohemia, Austria, Slovenia and Italy. Unfortunately, the past of the Augustinian convent of St. Jerome is mostly unknown. The Order of St. Augustine was in fact the first religious community in Rijeka. The monastery, founded by the noble families of Devin and Walsee, existed from the 14th century till 1788, when it was dissolved by Joseph II. The archive suffered two main disasters: in 1509, when the Venetians partially destroyed it, and in 1788, the year of its closure. The Augustinian archive remained partially in the State Archives in Rijeka, but the largest part of its precious holdings was displaced. However, part of the archive disappeared. Cimiotti-Steimberg, a historian from Rijeka, speaks of that fact as incuria et vandalismus (negligence and vandalism). Part of the convent's archive returned to Croatia during the 19th century, but the Hungarian politics of centralization, led by Khuen-Héderváry, displaced again the Augustinian documents to Budapest. Finally, the 1958 restitution replaced the holdings back to Croatia. We can only partially assess the content of the archival holdings because many sources mention inventories, registries and urbaria that the convent in Rijeka once possessed. After its dissolution, the documents of a number of Augustinian fraternities disappeared. The most important of them was the Fraternity of Immaculate Conception, that convened in the Augustinian chapel and whose members were some of the most important citizens from Rijeka. The most important contribution to the archive of the Augustinian convent took place in 1958, when the Augustinian books and documents were restituted from Budapest. They have been kept in the State Archives in Rijeka ever since. The most important source preserved in Rijeka is Protocollum conventus Fluminensis Ordinis eremitarum s. patri Augustini ad s. Hieronymum. It was made by the Austrian Augustinian provincial Joseph Achinger, who in 1704 made an inventory of the archive of the Convent of St. Jerome. A smaller part of the archival holdings is preserved in the State Archives in Zagreb. It is not clear how the 16th century cartulary from the Augustinian Convent in Rijeka ended up in the University Library in Vienna. This Diplomatarium monasterii sancti Hieronimi ordinis eremitarum sancti Augustini in terra Fluminis sancti Viti is a source that still needs to be researched. During the last hundred years of its existence, the Augustinian convent makes part of the Austrian Province that preserved well the archives during the 18th century. It had nominated historians for every convent and documented local history. The historical research of the Convent of St. Jerome in Rijeka requires the knowledge of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine. They are grouped in provinces that are under the authority of the general prior with a seat in Rome. The Central Archives of the Order in Rome preserve the major part of the correspondence between generals and the provinces. The Austrian National Library in Vienna hosts the archives of the Augustinian Province of Austria since the Augustinians of St. Jerome were part of it from 1669 to 1788. There are manuscripts from Vienna Augustinian convent of St. Sebastian and St. Rocco, mostly records and excerpts from various sources from the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. An important source for the Rijeka Convent is the Codex latinus monacensis 8423 from the Bavarian State Library, which is related to the period from 14th to 16th century, when the convent was part of the Augustinian Province of Bavaria. The work of Rijeka Augustinians can be reconstructed only through historical sources of those provinces, the central Order structures in Rome and the remains of once rich convent archive, parts of which are preserved today in Rijeka, Zagreb and Vienna.

Javne su politike, kao višedimenzionalan i izrazito kompleksan fenomen, nužno multidisciplinaran predmet istraživanja. Cilj je rada istražiti što je specifično politološko znanje o javnim politikama, odnosno koji je jedinstveni doprinos politologa izučavanju i upravljanju javnim politikama u svrhe profiliranja te mlade politološke discipline u Jugoistočnoj Europi. Rad je nastao kao rezultat pregleda temeljnih udžbenika javnih politika u svijetu i regiji, te literature o metodologiji i pristupima istraživanju u društvenim znanostima i politologiji. Kreće se od određivanja što su javne politike i što je politički aspekt javnih politika. Propituju se pristupi istraživanju javnih politika (policy studije). Zatim se identificiraju vrste profesionalne uporabe tih istraživanja (policy analize). Ključna je pretpostavka kako je politologija prvenstveno kompetentna za analizu aktera stvaranja politika. Osnovni je nalaz da temelj profesionalnog profiliranja politologa u javnim politikama, s obzirom da jedini rabe istraživačku perspektivu usmjerenu na aktere, reprezentativnost i legitimnost stvaranja politika, može biti jedan oblik participatorne policy analize. ; Public policies, as a multi-dimensional and highly complex phenomenon, necessarily make a multidisciplinary research subject. The aim of this paper is to examine what is specific political science knowledge about public policy, and what is the unique contribution of political scientists to policy research and governance to enhance consolidating this young discipline in Southeastern Europe. This paper is a result of a review of policy textbooks in Southeastern Europe and worldwide, and literature on approaches and methodologies in social sciences and political science. It starts with determining public polices and their political aspect. Then it explores approaches of policy studies. Finally, it identifies types of professional policy research or policy analysis. The key assumption is that political science is primarily competent to analyze policy actors. The main finding of the paper is that the basis of political scientist professionalization in policy research, given that they are best in actor-centered research, and issues of representativeness and legitimacy of policy-making, can be a form of participatory policy analysis.