Plebiscites, or referendums, are epitomes of direct democracy and the right of self-determination. While direct democracy has always been a key subject in the theory and practice of western liberal democracies, the issue of self-determination has been propelled to the fore by the hegemonistic moves of Russia. By providing a historical analysis of the post-World War One plebiscites, this book deals with enduring, painfully contemporary, and in in any case fundamental, concepts.
The contributors to this edited volume approach the referendums comparatively. After grounding the analysis theoretically, the authors look at detailed aspects of individual cases, with the two plebiscites held in the Danish-German border region of Schleswig in the winter of 1920 as points of departure. They then extend the exploration through the inter-war period and address the effects of border delimitations on everyday life or gender roles in the context of ethnic mobilization. Finally, the book places the post-World War One plebiscites in a long-term perspective. The concluding essays assess, among others, the applicability of plebiscitary solutions to contemporary conflicts, taking into consideration issues of borders, religion, language, identity, and minority rights.
Mindretallet under Corona-pandemien 2020-2021. Mogens Rostgaard Nissen (ed.), Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig, 2022, 52 pp.
Discriminación y Comunidad Gitana – Informe Anual FSG 2021. A Fondo: El Impacto de la Pandemia en la Discriminación y el Antigitanismo. Cristina de la Serna et al., Fundación Secretariado Gitano, FSG, 2021, 228 pp.
Newsletter ObCig (Observatório das Comunidades Ciganas), 24 de junho 2020.
Organizacje mniejszości narodowych i etnicznych w dobie pandemii. Piotr Kwapisiewicz (ed.), Żydowskie Stowarzyszenie Czulent, n.d., 23 pp.
At the beginning it has to be stressed that it is not at all common for an insightful, experienced and renowned observer of politics to decide to take a risky leap in order to begin a new life in the world of real politics (in this particular case Canadian).
Research objective:The present article is focused upon the problem signalled in its title: to what extent the multicultural/plurinational nature of Indian and Nigerian federations is influencing the distribution of sovereignty in those polities.The research problem and methods:The present research is related with two articles written by the same author, dealing with the problem of divisibility/indivisibility of sovereignty in federal systems of government. Both of them have lead towards the conclusion that sovereignty is indivisible in federal systems of government and that it rests solely with the people (i.e. political nation). The method applied in the present article is a comparative one (see remarks below too).The process of argumentation:First, both the basic concepts indicated in the article's title (i.e. federal system of government; plurinationalism combined with multiculturalism; sovereignty) as well as the analytical framework are clarified (all those elements taken together constitute the methodological spine of the text). What follows, is the inspection of both federal systems of government, structured by the analytical categories and analytical framework indicated above.Research results:The research conclusion is: sovereignty is indeed indivisible in the analyzed variants of federal system of government and it is associated with the political nation. Nevertheless, the multicultural/plurinational nature of both federations is not irrelevant for their general evolution, also involving the distribution of competences constituting sovereignty and vested in the sovereign. That process (more advanced in India) can be described as a cautious decentralization.Conclusions, innovations and recommendations:Further research should involve comparisons with other federal systems of government and the permanent inspection of Indian and Nigerian federations in order to verify if the above interpretations (and trends) would remain valid in mid- to long-terms.
Celem badawczym artykułu jest udzielenie odpowiedzi na pytanie, gdzie uplasować suwerenność w ustrojach federalnych Argentyny, Stanów Zjednoczonych i Szwajcarii? Zarazem jest to pytanie o to, kto (jaki podmiot) jest nośnikiem suwerenności (a więc suwerenem) w analizowanych ustrojach. W artykule posłużono się następującą metodą. Najpierw analizie poddane zostały dwie główne kategorie – suwerenność oraz ustrój federalny. W odniesieniu do pierwszej z nich, obok ujęć teoretycznych, przedyskutowane zostały także jej definicje filologiczne, celem możliwie najbardziej precyzyjnego ustalenia jej znaczenia. Analiza drugiej spośród kluczowych kategorii, poza ustaleniem jej zakresu znaczeniowego, miała także na celu wskazanie wpływu kategorii suwerenność na konceptualizacje kategorii ustrój federalny. W ostatniej części tekstu kategorie suwerenność i ustrój federalny wykorzystane zostały do zwięzłej analizy trzech wspomnianych ustrojów federalnych, celem udzielenia odpowiedzi na zasadnicze pytanie badawcze. Skutkiem przeprowadzonej analizy jest teza stwierdzająca, że suwerenność nie może być dzielona w ramach tego samego systemu federalnego na kilka podmiotów. Ustalenie to prowadzi jednocześnie do zakwestionowania poprawności stosunkowo częstych definicji ustroju federalnego, opartych o założenie dopuszczające dzielenie suwerenności. Dalsze badania powinny polegać na poszerzeniu porównawczej analizy o kolejne ustroje federalne, celem wykazania, czy poczynione ustalenia mogą być uogólnione. Bazę źródłową dla niniejszych rozważań stanowiły w przeważającej mierze źródła drukowane, w postaci aktów prawnych (przede wszystkim konstytucji) oraz opracowań dotyczących suwerenności, ustroju federalnego w ogóle oraz jego trzech wymienionych wariantów. Wykorzystano także pewną ilość źródeł internetowych (głównie słowniki).The research objective of the present study is to answer the following question: where can sovereignty be placed in the federal systems of Argentina, the United States of America and the Swiss Confederation? It is also a question relating to the sovereign: which subject, in the indicated federal systems, can be described in this way. To achieve the aforementioned aim, the following method has been used. First, the two main categories are analyzed, i.e. sovereignty and a federal system. With regard to the first of them, to achieve the most precise understanding of it, not only the theoretical interpretations of the concept of sovereignty are discussed, but also its various philological definitions. The analysis of the second of the main categories, besides leading towards its definition, has also revealed, how various conceptualizations of the federal system are influenced by the concept of sovereignty. In the final part of the article these categories are applied in a concise analysis of the three mentioned federal systems, in order to answer the central research question. As a result, the following conclusion can be drawn: sovereignty cannot be divided among various subjects in a single federal polity. Subsequently, frequent conceptualizations of the federal system based upon the notion of divided sovereignty must be perceived as incorrect. Additional research shall broaden the scope of the comparative analysis to include other federal systems, in order to establish if the present conclusions could be generalized. The undertaken research is based primarily on printed sources i.e. legal acts (especially the constitutions) and secondary sources concerning sovereignty, federal system in general and its three studied variants. A certain number of internet sources was also used (mostly the dictionaries).
The aim of the article is to analyze how the concept of sovereignty (the main theoretical category of this text) has been conceptualized/criticized/interpreted during the recent Scottish independence debate, which took place in the period preceding the independence referendum of 18 September 2014. This concept is closely related to the categories of independence and sovereign. The pronouncements on sovereignty present in the intellectual output of three groups are discussed: academics; politicians and political activists; and public intellectuals. An analysis of each type of discourse is produced with a concise partial conclusion, which in the final part are synthesized into a general thesis of the article. The majority of the discussed sources had been made public (i.e. published or presented) no earlier than in the Autumn of 2012. Among these sources there are non-fiction books (academic and essays), academic articles and presentations. This analysis has led to the following conclusions: sovereignty is perceived as relevant in the interdependent 21st century world, as states still remain capable (international pressures and cooperation notwithstanding) of shaping their internal and external policies. It is also generally accepted that the holder of sovereignty, especially in the Scottish case, is the Scottish nation. This assumption leads to calls for the reform of the British constitution, reconciling the existence of various sovereign nations in the United Kingdom, with the sovereignty of parliament. Celem badawczym artykułu jest przeanalizowanie, w jaki sposób pojęcie suwerenność (główna kategoria teoretyczna tekstu) było konceptualizowane / krytykowane/ interpretowane podczas niedawnej szkockiej debaty niepodległościowej, trwającej w okresie poprzedzającym referendum z dnia 18 września 2014 roku. Pojęcie to jest ściśle powiązane z kategoriami niepodległość oraz suweren. Analizie poddane zostały wypowiedzi na temat suwerenności sformułowane przez przedstawicieli trzech grup: badaczy, polityków i osób zaangażowanych w politykę oraz liderów opinii. Analiza poszczególnych typów dyskursów została zakończona zwięzłymi wnioskami cząstkowymi, które w części końcowej zostały ujednolicone, przyjmując postać zasadniczej tezy artykułu. Zdecydowana większość wykorzystanych źródeł została upubliczniona (tj. opublikowana lub wygłoszona) nie wcześniej niż jesienią 2012 roku. Wśród nich znajdują się druki zwarte (książki akademickie i eseistyczne), artykuły akademickie oraz teksty wystąpień. Podjęte badania przyniosły następujące wnioski: suwerenność zachowuje swe znaczenie w realiach gęstej globalizacji pierwszych dekad XXI wieku, gdyż państwa wciąż dysponują (niezależnie od konieczności współpracy międzynarodowej czy presji czynników zewnętrznych różnego typu) instrumentami umożliwiającymi kształtowanie ich polityki zewnętrznej i wewnętrznej. Szeroko akceptowane jest także twierdzenie wskazujące, że suwerenem w warunkach szkockich jest szkocki naród. To pociąga za sobą głosy opowiadające się za reformą brytyjskiego ustroju, godzącą zasadę suwerenności parlamentu z suwerennością poszczególnych brytyjskich narodów.
The aim of the present article is to analyse how selected minority language newspapers have been adopting to the challenges, as well as the opportunities linked to digitalization. This is approached in a long-term perspective, and thus also takes into account the most recent changes implemented as a response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The analysed outlets are Berria (a Basque language newspaper published in Spain), Der Nordschleswiger (a German language newspaper published in Denmark), Flensborg Avis (a Danish language newspaper published in Germany) and Nós Diario (a Galician language newspaper published in Spain). Each is characterized by a strong and multifaceted digital presence, in combination with the availability of a print edition albeit in varying frequency. The analysis is anchored in a broad theoretical reflection concerning the nexus between digitalization and minority language media, whereas methodologically it draws from three main sources: interviews with staff members of each newspaper, articles published by the newspapers in terms of self-reporting on the digitalization-related aspects, and available annual reports. With regard to the findings, the analysis paints a picture of the complex, long-term and continuous adaptation strategies of the considered newspapers to the digital context, with the pandemic period resulting in consolidation rather than in major modifications. Only in the case of Flensborg Avis can the issue of a relative deepening of the digital shift be mentioned, although this is also against the backdrop of previously initiated digitalization-related changes. Consequently, this comparative study offers a unique consideration of both kin and non- kin state situations, showing that certain trends can be observed in contrasting linguistic and institutional settings; however without identifying a clear best practice model.
