Suchergebnisse

Cilj rada je pružiti uvid u specifične izazove vezane uz međunarodno posvojenje te ukazati na situacije kršenja prava djeteta u kontekstu međudržavnog posvojenja. Iako se međunarodnom posvojenju pribjegava tek u okolnostima kada djetetu nije moguće pružiti skrb u državi porijekla, nerijetko u tom procesu dolazi do zloupotrebe instituta međunarodnog posvojenja. Posebice u vremenima kriza kao što su ekonomske i političke krize, ratovi i prirodne katastrofe, kada su zakonske kontrole oslabljene. Nadalje, stvarnost međunarodno posvojene djece karakterizira proživljavanje mnogih gubitaka, emocionalnih i kulturalnih, te je velik izazov s kojim se susreću međunarodni posvojenici formiranje identiteta kao kombinacije kulturalnog nasljeđa države iz koje potječu i države u koju se dijete posvaja. Kako će taj proces teći uvelike ovisi o posvojiteljima i njihovom prihvaćanju različitosti, te spremnosti i vještinama komuniciranja o djetetovoj povijesti i porijeklu, ali i o podršci sustava socijalne skrbi koji ima važnu ulogu u zaštiti prava djeteta. ; The aim of this paper is to provide insight in the specific challenges of international adoption, and to point to situations of violation of the rights of the child in the context of international adoption. Although international adoption is used only in circumstances where a child cannot be cared for in a country of origin, in that process abuses of this institute often occur. Especially in times of crisis such as economic and political crises, wars and natural disasters when legal controls are weak. Furthermore, the great challenge facing all international adoptees is the formation of identity as a combination of the cultural heritage of the country of origin and the country they actually live in. How will this process going on depend not only on adoptive parents and their acceptance of diversity, their willingness to communicate about child history and origin and communication skill they have, but also on the support of the social welfare system, which have an important role in protecting the rights of the child.

Teritorijalna rasprostranjenost samoupravnih lokalnih zajednica od bitnog je značenja za njihovo uspješno djelovanje. Za Sloveniju su tijekom povijesti karakteristična veoma različita rješenja uređenja samoupravnih lokalnih jedinica, a poznavanje tog uređenja može ponuditi značajne podatke pri prosuđivanju rješenja za sadašnjost i budućnost. Najslo­ženije pitanje budućeg dograđivanja sustava lokalne samouprave u Sloveniji, po mišljenju autora, jest uspostava pokrajina. Autor posebice ističe daje svakoj značajnijoj promjeni potreban kompleksan i konceptualan pristup. ; There is a uniform standpoint that local self-government is an essential element of democratic order, but there are significant differences in its implementation in particular countries which are also evident in the territorial structure of local self-government units. In Slovenia, in different periods in the past (after 1849 when the first legislation in this area was passed within Austria-Hungary) there were great differences with regard to the kind and number of local self-government units. Thus before the First World War there were more than 1,200 municipalities, and in the period between the two world wars in the Slovenian part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (particularly after the land consolidation in the Drava Province (Banovina) in 1933) the number of municipalities was considerably reduced - to 362 (after the land consolidation in 1926 and 1927). The number of municipalities which were at that time within the Kingdom of ltaly was also reduced - to 62 municipalities. After the Second World War, the number of municipalities, that is localities which were organized according to the world model of government, was significantly increased. After the establishment of the "socialist community" as a commune, which represented a specific "socio-political and economic community" in the socialist self-management system of that time and whose tasks were primarily to carry out deconcentrated state activities, the number of municipalities was considerably decreased (in 1952 to 370, in 1955 to 130 and in 1965 to 62). After the recognition of the Republic of Slovenia as an independent state (in 1991 ), foundations for the introduction of the system of local self-government comparable to Europe were established by passing the new Constitution and the Local Self-government Act, as well as other regulations (and later also by ratification of the European Charter of Local Self-government). It has been shown that in Slovenia, like in other countries, according to the political (but also the professional) point of view, municipalities have to be large enough in order to perform local activities efficiently and economically and ensure a high standard of public services, but at the same time small enough in order to enable citizens to cooperate more closely in pursuing their interests and offer them a possibility to influence decisions. After new municipalities (147 of them in 1994 and 45 more in 1998) have been established, it can be said that the new System of self-government has started operating properly. The most complex issue of developing the system of local self-government in Slovenia will be the establishment of larger local self-government units - provinces. Among other things, because the Constitution contains a specific provision according to which provinces are established on the basis of independent orientation of municipalities, which voluntarily associate in order to regulate and perform local activities of wider significance

Autori članka propituju zašto je pojam postdemokracije postao sporan iako je tek nedavno uveden u raspravu. Ovaj pojam se koristi kao model intepretacije aktualne krize demokracije. Collin Crouch uvodi ovu poziciju u svojoj knjizi Postdemokracija. Na istom je tragu Sheldon Wolin koji drži da je postdemokracija vrsta demokracije koji je na djelu u postmoderno doba. Neovisno o njihovim razlikama, obojica smatraju da je aktualna kriza demokracije poseban fenomen. Međutim, izgleda da ona i nije toliko posebna pojava, prije svega, u europskim kontinentalnim demokracijama. Tako je još pedesetih godina prošlog stoljeća Hans Kelsen pisao o autorima koji su tada pokušavali redefinirati demokraciju na isti način na koji to rade današnji teoretičari postdemokracije. Isto diskurs kao i isti lijek (više demokracije u ekonomskoj sferi) može se pronaći mnogo prije Drugog svjetskog rata. Štoviše, ima mnogo primjera u kojima je narod u zadnjih 200 godina, u ime demokracije, tražio novu ravnotežu s predstavničkom demokracijom. Autori članka smatraju da Jacques Rancière nudi prikladnije objašnjenje ovog problema. On naime ne pronalazi postdemokraciju samo u postmodernom dobu ili u poretku koji nastupa nakon predstavničke demokracije nego uvijek kad se javlja 'legitimiranje demokracije nakon demosa'. ; The authors try to show why the concept of post-democracy has already become contestable even though it was only introduced recently. The concept of post-democracy has been used as a critical model to interpret the crises of democracy in last twenty years or so. Collin Crouch outlines this attitude in his book Post-democracy. Sheldon Wolin also occupies a similar position. He speaks about post-democracy as a democracy functioning in the postmodern era. Regardless of their differences both authors believe that today's crises of democracy is specific. It seems that today's crises of democracy is not particularly new, especially for the continental European democracies. Even in the 1950s Hans Kelsen was writing about such authors who tried to redefine democracy because of its crises between the two world wars. They used a similar discourse on democracy as that which is been used by some theoreticians of post-democracy. We can also find the same discourse on 'the crises of democracy' and the same cure (greater democracy in the economic sphere) much before the 2nd World War. Moreover, there are a lot of examples in which people, in the name of democracy, try to find a new balance with representative democracy in last 200 years. The authors find that Jacques Rancière offers a more appropriate explanation of this problem. He doesn't find post-democracy only er in the postmodern era, or in an order that comes after representative democracy but every time when there is 'legitimization of a democracy after demos'.