Suchergebnisse

The Zapatista movement is one of the most influential social movements in Latin America, which among other things raised the issue of the indigenous rights. The aim of the research is to analyse the impact of the Zapatista movement in the area of securing the rights of indigenous people within the Mexican political process. The dissertation takes the case study approach. Also comparative method, scientific literature analysis, document analysis, quantitative and qualitative media content analysis, and secondary data analysis is used in the research. The research shows that the process of recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico was largely influenced by the demands of the Zapatista movement. Indigenous peoples appeared in the discourse of political elite, they were included into Mexico's national development plans and political party manifestos. It can be argued that since early 1990s the process of recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico has had five dimensions: political recognition, policy agenda, policy response, implementation and institutionalization. Nevertheless, not every demand put forward by the Zapatista movement has been realized. The right to self-determination as well as the right to land and its resources still remain unresolved. It can be therefore stated that the Zapatista movement was very influential with regard to raising the issue of the rights of indigenous peoples, however not all of movement's demands were met.

The Zapatista movement is one of the most influential social movements in Latin America, which among other things raised the issue of the indigenous rights. The aim of the research is to analyse the impact of the Zapatista movement in the area of securing the rights of indigenous people within the Mexican political process. The dissertation takes the case study approach. Also comparative method, scientific literature analysis, document analysis, quantitative and qualitative media content analysis, and secondary data analysis is used in the research. The research shows that the process of recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico was largely influenced by the demands of the Zapatista movement. Indigenous peoples appeared in the discourse of political elite, they were included into Mexico's national development plans and political party manifestos. It can be argued that since early 1990s the process of recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico has had five dimensions: political recognition, policy agenda, policy response, implementation and institutionalization. Nevertheless, not every demand put forward by the Zapatista movement has been realized. The right to self-determination as well as the right to land and its resources still remain unresolved. It can be therefore stated that the Zapatista movement was very influential with regard to raising the issue of the rights of indigenous peoples, however not all of movement's demands were met.

The Zapatista movement is one of the most influential social movements in Latin America, which among other things raised the issue of the indigenous rights. The aim of the research is to analyse the impact of the Zapatista movement in the area of securing the rights of indigenous people within the Mexican political process. The dissertation takes the case study approach. Also comparative method, scientific literature analysis, document analysis, quantitative and qualitative media content analysis, and secondary data analysis is used in the research. The research shows that the process of recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico was largely influenced by the demands of the Zapatista movement. Indigenous peoples appeared in the discourse of political elite, they were included into Mexico's national development plans and political party manifestos. It can be argued that since early 1990s the process of recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico has had five dimensions: political recognition, policy agenda, policy response, implementation and institutionalization. Nevertheless, not every demand put forward by the Zapatista movement has been realized. The right to self-determination as well as the right to land and its resources still remain unresolved. It can be therefore stated that the Zapatista movement was very influential with regard to raising the issue of the rights of indigenous peoples, however not all of movement's demands were met.

The concept "Socialism of XXIst century" was first used by German sociologist, Professor Heinz Dieterich Steffan. In his two books "El Socialismo del Siglo XXI" and "Hugo Chávez y el Socialismo del Siglo XXI" as well as in many articles and interviews he described what new socialism should look like. It is mainly consist of 4 institutions. First of all, Equivalence economy, which should be based on Marxian labor theory of value and which is democratically determined by those who directly create value, instead of marketeconomical principles. Second institution of Socialism of XXIst century is majority democracy, which makes use of plebiscites, referendums to decide upon important questions that concern the whole society. Majority democracy is also based on democratic state institutions as legitimate representatives of the common interests of the majority of citizens, with a suitable protection of minority rights. The third component of new socialism is the critical and responsible subject, the rationally, ethically and aesthetically self-determined citizen. The last part of the Socialism of XXIst century is classless society. In foreign policy it is very important regional cooperation. On January 30, 2005, in a speech to the 5th World Social Forum, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez announced that he supported the creation of socialism of the XXIst century in Venezuela. According to Chavez, this socialism would be different from the socialism of the XXth century. While Chavez was vague about exactly how this new socialism would be different, he implied it would not be a state socialism as was practiced in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe or as is practiced in Cuba today. Rather, it would be a socialism that would be more pluralistic and less state-centred.[.].

The concept "Socialism of XXIst century" was first used by German sociologist, Professor Heinz Dieterich Steffan. In his two books "El Socialismo del Siglo XXI" and "Hugo Chávez y el Socialismo del Siglo XXI" as well as in many articles and interviews he described what new socialism should look like. It is mainly consist of 4 institutions. First of all, Equivalence economy, which should be based on Marxian labor theory of value and which is democratically determined by those who directly create value, instead of marketeconomical principles. Second institution of Socialism of XXIst century is majority democracy, which makes use of plebiscites, referendums to decide upon important questions that concern the whole society. Majority democracy is also based on democratic state institutions as legitimate representatives of the common interests of the majority of citizens, with a suitable protection of minority rights. The third component of new socialism is the critical and responsible subject, the rationally, ethically and aesthetically self-determined citizen. The last part of the Socialism of XXIst century is classless society. In foreign policy it is very important regional cooperation. On January 30, 2005, in a speech to the 5th World Social Forum, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez announced that he supported the creation of socialism of the XXIst century in Venezuela. According to Chavez, this socialism would be different from the socialism of the XXth century. While Chavez was vague about exactly how this new socialism would be different, he implied it would not be a state socialism as was practiced in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe or as is practiced in Cuba today. Rather, it would be a socialism that would be more pluralistic and less state-centred.[.].

The concept "Socialism of XXIst century" was first used by German sociologist, Professor Heinz Dieterich Steffan. In his two books "El Socialismo del Siglo XXI" and "Hugo Chávez y el Socialismo del Siglo XXI" as well as in many articles and interviews he described what new socialism should look like. It is mainly consist of 4 institutions. First of all, Equivalence economy, which should be based on Marxian labor theory of value and which is democratically determined by those who directly create value, instead of marketeconomical principles. Second institution of Socialism of XXIst century is majority democracy, which makes use of plebiscites, referendums to decide upon important questions that concern the whole society. Majority democracy is also based on democratic state institutions as legitimate representatives of the common interests of the majority of citizens, with a suitable protection of minority rights. The third component of new socialism is the critical and responsible subject, the rationally, ethically and aesthetically self-determined citizen. The last part of the Socialism of XXIst century is classless society. In foreign policy it is very important regional cooperation. On January 30, 2005, in a speech to the 5th World Social Forum, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez announced that he supported the creation of socialism of the XXIst century in Venezuela. According to Chavez, this socialism would be different from the socialism of the XXth century. While Chavez was vague about exactly how this new socialism would be different, he implied it would not be a state socialism as was practiced in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe or as is practiced in Cuba today. Rather, it would be a socialism that would be more pluralistic and less state-centred.[.].

Colombia's internal conflict is one of the longest running and the most challenging and violent conflicts in Western hemisphere. It has killed about 400 000 civilians, and displaced more than 3 million people. All the spheres of the state and society were affected by violence. Conflict also has impact beyond Colombia's borders, spilling into the region with consequences for migration, borders, regional relations as well as international policy and engagement. Moreover, it is closely related to illicit drug industry. This conflict broke out because of many reasons. First of all, there were political causes. Democracy was limited; only two parties could have participated in the politics. Moreover, they always competed with each other. Also institutions were weak and corrupt. Secondly, it is very important to take into account economical and social causes. Almost all arable land belonged to a small group of rich people and the poor ones didn't have any of it. 70 % of people lived below poverty line, there was a big gap between rich and poor, unemployment rates were very high. So for these reasons guerilla groups were formed. The main fighters of the conflict are ELN (Ejército de Liberación Nacional) and FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia). They are the oldest guerilla groups in the world. Since the mid-1980's they have become financially dependant on criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, extortion and kidnapping. In 1996 paramilitary group AUC (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia) was formed. Now it is demobilized, but still there are a lot of problems related with it. There are different opinions about this conflict. Mostly it is agreed that Colombian conflict is a very serious civil war and that it is necessary to take measures to solve it. However, some scientists believe that this conflict is internal but not civil war. Still they agree that it is very dangerous.[.].

Colombia's internal conflict is one of the longest running and the most challenging and violent conflicts in Western hemisphere. It has killed about 400 000 civilians, and displaced more than 3 million people. All the spheres of the state and society were affected by violence. Conflict also has impact beyond Colombia's borders, spilling into the region with consequences for migration, borders, regional relations as well as international policy and engagement. Moreover, it is closely related to illicit drug industry. This conflict broke out because of many reasons. First of all, there were political causes. Democracy was limited; only two parties could have participated in the politics. Moreover, they always competed with each other. Also institutions were weak and corrupt. Secondly, it is very important to take into account economical and social causes. Almost all arable land belonged to a small group of rich people and the poor ones didn't have any of it. 70 % of people lived below poverty line, there was a big gap between rich and poor, unemployment rates were very high. So for these reasons guerilla groups were formed. The main fighters of the conflict are ELN (Ejército de Liberación Nacional) and FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia). They are the oldest guerilla groups in the world. Since the mid-1980's they have become financially dependant on criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, extortion and kidnapping. In 1996 paramilitary group AUC (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia) was formed. Now it is demobilized, but still there are a lot of problems related with it. There are different opinions about this conflict. Mostly it is agreed that Colombian conflict is a very serious civil war and that it is necessary to take measures to solve it. However, some scientists believe that this conflict is internal but not civil war. Still they agree that it is very dangerous.[.].

Colombia's internal conflict is one of the longest running and the most challenging and violent conflicts in Western hemisphere. It has killed about 400 000 civilians, and displaced more than 3 million people. All the spheres of the state and society were affected by violence. Conflict also has impact beyond Colombia's borders, spilling into the region with consequences for migration, borders, regional relations as well as international policy and engagement. Moreover, it is closely related to illicit drug industry. This conflict broke out because of many reasons. First of all, there were political causes. Democracy was limited; only two parties could have participated in the politics. Moreover, they always competed with each other. Also institutions were weak and corrupt. Secondly, it is very important to take into account economical and social causes. Almost all arable land belonged to a small group of rich people and the poor ones didn't have any of it. 70 % of people lived below poverty line, there was a big gap between rich and poor, unemployment rates were very high. So for these reasons guerilla groups were formed. The main fighters of the conflict are ELN (Ejército de Liberación Nacional) and FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia). They are the oldest guerilla groups in the world. Since the mid-1980's they have become financially dependant on criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, extortion and kidnapping. In 1996 paramilitary group AUC (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia) was formed. Now it is demobilized, but still there are a lot of problems related with it. There are different opinions about this conflict. Mostly it is agreed that Colombian conflict is a very serious civil war and that it is necessary to take measures to solve it. However, some scientists believe that this conflict is internal but not civil war. Still they agree that it is very dangerous.[.].