Suchergebnisse

This article compares two philosophical traditions and their attitudes to war and violence within the context of international relations. The first refers to Hobbes' political realism, the second to the Grotian idea of international community. Each of these traditions understands the role of violence and war at an international level differently. From the perspective of political realism, violence is part of anarchistic relations between states and a means for achieving their goals. From the perspective of international community, violence is a factor that needs to be minimized via the mechanisms of peaceful international cooperation between states. Based on the analysis of these two approaches, it is claimed that the Hobbesian perspective can be partly included in the perspective of the English School, which is based on the Grotian tradition.

The main purpose of this article is to compare the liberal and republican understanding of the role of political culture. The reconstruction of the liberal and republican elements of the political sphere demonstrates how these theories present the role of citizenship, government and democracy, thus revealing differences in the concepts of political culture. Firstly, the liberal concept of political culture is described as a practice that allows citizens to fulfil their individual interests. Liberal political culture helps to integrate people in the institutional framework, thus enabling them to realize their individual preferences without the state's pressure to choose one particular model of a good life. Secondly, the republican model of political culture is analysed. It stresses citizens' engagement in the public sphere and the role of positive freedom, based on an active search for common good and the cultivation of common practices supporting the state's paternalistic techniques of integration. This type of culture allows citizens to achieve common moral development. In conclusion, it is argued that in the age of galloping globalization, these two normative models do not fit perfectly well into the Western social and political landscape because today we live in communities which embrace both the liberal and republican elements of political culture. Thus, it is demonstrated that there is some space for compromise between these two approaches, i.e. liberal republican culture.

Niniejszy tekst pomyślany jest jako wprowadzenie do poglądów Habermasa w kwestii wzajemnych relacji rozumu i wiary oraz idei społeczeństwa postsekularnego. Ma on na celu przedstawienie najważniejszych argumentów autora Teorii działania komunikacyjnego oraz uchwycenie ewentualnych trudności w proponowanym przez Habermasa podejściu. Zdaniem niemieckiego myśliciela sekularyzacja nie prowadzi do osłabienia religii, a wzrost ważności religii nie zagraża procesowi sekularyzacji. Autor zatem, uwzględniając fakt istnienia religii i wiedzy naukowej, światopoglądu religijnego i światopoglądu laickiego, próbuje znaleźć, w ramach swojej teorii deliberatywnego państwa prawa, wspólną płaszczyznę do dialogu między nimi. Jest nią zdrowy rozsądek (common sense), który pełni w jego teorii społeczeństwa postsekulanego rolę mediatora między nauką a religią.

The author dwells on the concept of hospitality which has been replaced in our era by that of tolerance. The author introduces us to contemporary attitudes to the latter and points to its problematic nature, the counterpoint to which is the former. A description of changes in the understanding of hospitality is provided, ranging from antiquity, via the Englightenment, to modern times, with references to Kant and Derrida. Besides this, he compares the differences and similarities between the concepts of tolerance and hospitality, suggesting that it is the latter which is useful when describing a globalised and cosmopolitical world, as well as positing that the concept of hospitality can be translated into the practices of human life.

The author posits a query regarding the nature of European citizenship as expressed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. What does the European citizenship consist of? In what manner does the European Union guarantee its citizens compliance with the rights inscribed in the Charter? The main objective, as seen by constitutionalists, political scientists and philosophers is to build a coherent set of rules, acceptable by all the states, which constitutes European citizenship, as well as the criteria for access to holding it, thereby simultaneously determining the status of particular groups of inhabitants of the European Union's territory. The model underlying the provisions in respect of citizenship is aimed at a compromise, preserving the ideal of state sovereignty, and at avoiding the building of citizenship based on kinship, common territory, language or the sharing of a given ethnos. The objective of European citizenship is to create a supra-national awareness.

The author of this paper compares Kant's notion of cosmopolitan right with contemporary liberal cosmopolitanism of such theorists like James Bohman (Professor of Philosophy at Saint Louis University) and David Held (Professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science). These two theorists bring Kant's cosmopolitan right and reshape it by taking into consideration the process of globalization and the fact of pluralism. It is necessary to investigate how far these authors have changed the insight into Kant's cosmopolitan right and its implications as well as how deeply the authors reshape the classical liberal political vocabulary. ; Rafał Wonicki

The theory of a deliberative, democratic state posited by Jurgen Habermas fills the gaps in the concepts of democracy proper to liberalism and republicanism. Habermas' theory intermediates between the liberal and the republican models, avoiding the one-sidedness to which they tend. A deliberative state ruled by law is based on a discursive forming of the will (active participation in the political, social and cultural sphere), the essence of which is communicative rationality, setting out the framework of a democratic procedure legitimising the rightfully made law and a law-abiding state. Communicative rationality guarantees that all the important interests will be accounted for. In this model, the public space, in turn, is perceived and understood as a possibility whereby all the stakeholders are able to create procedures. In his theory of liberalism, Habermas refers to a higher level of intersubjectivity where the communication processes occurs, which leads on the one hand to the institutionalising of deliberations, in the form of political bodies, and on the another hand, to the establishing of an informal network of linkages in the public sphere. Contrary to the liberal and republican model, the deliberative model of a democratic, law-governed state is focussed on the discursive legitimisation of the law, while politics here is understood as a public activity being played out in the interpersonal sphere. In such politics, the attention is displaced from the fi nal act of voting to the process of agreeing the rules and arriving at an agreement.

The aim of this book is to describe human rights in philosophical categories and to compare their functions from the perspective of political realism and idealism. In this way we intend to show human rights (within the state as well as in the international relations), in conflict with civil rights and sovereignty of state. The conflict results from the universality and non-territoriality of human rights and territoriality of civil rights. The spatiality and finiteness of civil rights clash with postulated universalism and globalism of human rights. ; The Polish National Science Centre under the program SONATA BIS, grant no. 2011/01/D/HS5/01463 ; Rafał Wonicki