Suchergebnisse

The world of the beginning of the 21st century was shocked by dramatic and very tragic terrorist attacks. On September 11, 2001, the WTC towers in New York collapsed. Three years later, bombs exploded in Madrid and then in London. Years 2015-2016 were marked by a series of attacks in Europe. Each subsequent incident brought a change in the sense of threat to terrorism in the communities of all European countries. The radicalization of human views and attitudes regarding ways to combat terrorism has become noticeable. This also translated into the perception of others – foreign nations in each country. Taking the fight against terrorism, individual countries introduced law changes. On the one hand it's giving new and powerful opportunities for security services, on the other hand, significantly limiting civil rights and freedoms. ; Światem początku XXI w. wstrząsnęły dramatyczne i jakże tragiczne w skutkach zamachy terrorystyczne. 11 września 2001 r. runęły wieże WTC w Nowym Jorku. Trzy lata później bomby wybuchły w Madrycie, a następnie w Londynie. Lata 2015–2016 to cała seria zamachów w Europie. Każdy kolejny incydent niósł za sobą zmianę w poczuciu zagrożenia terroryzmem we wszystkich państwach europejskich. Zauważalna stała się radykalizacja poglądów i postaw ludzkich co do sposobów walki z terroryzmem. Przełożyło się to także na postrzeganie innych, obcych nacji w poszczególnych państwach. Podejmując walkę z terroryzmem poszczególne państwa po kolei wprowadzały zmiany prawa, z jednej strony dające nowe, duże możliwości działania służbom odpowiedzialnym za bezpieczeństwo, z drugiej zaś w dużym stopniu ograniczające prawa i wolności obywatelskie.

The terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 by the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, initiated a series of changes in U.S. security policy. The amount of power the executive government, special services and police had was greatly extended in the name of the war on terror. A country that used to be characterized by openness, commitment to freedom and civil liberties, has become a country that spies on its own citizens. It has turned out that "the police of the world" do not comply with international law themselves and use torture against people suspected of terrorist activities. ; The terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 by the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, initiated a series of changes in U.S. security policy. The amount of power the executive government, special services and police had was greatly extended in the name of the war on terror. A country that used to be characterized by openness, commitment to freedom and civil liberties, has become a country that spies on its own citizens. It has turned out that "the police of the world" do not comply with international law themselves and use torture against people suspected of terrorist activities.

This article examines security policy of the European Union in securing democratic order and preventing universal values and individual liberties against major threats, such as terrorism and crime. The analytical concept employed here is governance of internal security of the EU conceived of as a complex set of political activities undertaken by the member states, assisted by EU institutions, bodies and agencies, to secure high level of safety to EU citizens and legal aliens as well as to respect civil liberties and fundamental rights. For the EU's identity as a security community is built on a common perception of threats and risks, EU security governance consists of complex, multitiered, geographically overlapping structures embedded into multilayered security regimes. Security policy is no longer state-centric, no less important is security generated on the societal level. However, the institutionalization of securitization processes, indispensable to accommodate state objectives with civic engagement and responsibility for maintaining democratic order, alters radically the perspective of security making in the face of new threats

Zamachy terrorystyczne przeprowadzone 11 września 2001 r. przez organizację Al-Kaida na World Trade Center i Pentagon, zapoczątkowały szereg zmian w polityce bezpieczeństwa USA. Poszerzono uprawnienia władzy wykonawczej, służb specjalnych i policji w zakresie wojny z terroryzmem. Z państwa charakteryzującego się otwartością, przywiązaniem do wolności i swobód obywatelskich, Stany Zjednoczone Ameryki przekształciły się w kraj inwigilujący własnych obywateli. Jak się okazało "policjant świata" sam nie przestrzegał prawa międzynarodowego i stosował tortury wobec osób podejrzanych o prowadzenie działalności terrorystycznej. ; The terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 by the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, initiated a series of changes in U.S. security policy. The amount of power the executive government, special services and police had was greatly extended in the name of the war on terror. A country that used to be characterized by openness, commitment to freedom and civil liberties, has become a country that spies on its own citizens. It has turned out that "the police of the world" do not comply with international law themselves and use torture against people suspected of terrorist activities.

The article discusses the electoral system in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. Elections are the process of citizens electing their representatives for specific positions. In this context, the method and principles of conducting the election are important, so that its fundamental rule - universality - is preserved. Although more than a dozen electoral regulations were in force since 1989 and the traditional model of voting at a polling station was still in place, the Polish legislator also provided for postal and proxy voting. Due to the risk related to the COVID-19 pandemic, it would seem that changes to the Polish Electoral Code will be necessary. The adaptation of the new provisions to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 1997, however, turned out to be too ambitious a task for the domestic legislator. Therefore, the Act of April 6, 2020 on the special rules for holding general elections for the President of the Republic of Poland, ordered in 2020, did not enter into force finally, because the functioning of a democratic state ruled by law requires that fundamental rights and civil liberties, including electoral ones be guaranteed. This study is empirical in nature - it is a case study of a specific legislative action shown in a comparative approach on the example of Poland and the United States of America.

The article discusses the electoral system in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. Elections are the process of citizens electing their representatives for specific positions. In this context, the method and principles of conducting the election are important, so that its fundamental rule - universality - is preserved. Although more than a dozen electoral regulations were in force since 1989 and the traditional model of voting at a polling station was still in place, the Polish legislator also provided for postal and proxy voting. Due to the risk related to the COVID-19 pandemic, it would seem that changes to the Polish Electoral Code will be necessary. The adaptation of the new provisions to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 1997, however, turned out to be too ambitious a task for the domestic legislator. Therefore, the Act of April 6, 2020 on the special rules for holding general elections for the President of the Republic of Poland, ordered in 2020, did not enter into force finally, because the functioning of a democratic state ruled by law requires that fundamental rights and civil liberties, including electoral ones be guaranteed. This study is empirical in nature - it is a case study of a specific legislative action shown in a comparative approach on the example of Poland and the United States of America. ; W artykule omówiono jedną z instytucji systemu wyborczego w dobie pandemii COVID-19. Wybory to proces wybierania przez obywateli przedstawicieli na określone stanowiska. Istotne w tym kontekście są sposób i zasady przeprowadzania elekcji, tak by zachowana została jej fundamentalna reguła - powszechność. Chociaż od 1989 r. obowiązywało kilkanaście ordynacji wyborczych, a tradycyjny model oddania głosu w lokalu wyborczym nadal funkcjonował, to polski ustawodawca przewidział także głosowanie korespondencyjne oraz za pośrednictwem pełnomocnika. Z uwagi na ryzyko związane z pandemią COVID-19 wydawać by się mogło, że dalsze zmiany w polskim Kodeksie wyborczym będą niezbędne. Dostosowanie nowych ...

In multiculturalism, "exit", or to be more precise, "right to exit" is very often thought of in terms of a condition of state's non-interference in the minority groups. However popular, this account seems to be flawed with a number of controversial assumptions, questionable theoretical and practical implications and can lead to significant paradoxes. First of all, treating "exit" as a state's non-interventionism condition also means that in fact representatives of minority groups should actually leave their communities in order to obtain all of the civil rights and liberties – be treated as "full", not "partial" citizens. Various other problems connected with this account (i.a. the issue of general function of "right to exit" and civil rights and liberties or mutual relations between these two categories) presented and discussed in the paper justify a proposal of change of approach towards concept of "exit". Either one should take really seriously the assumed normative character of it and construct a whole separate theory of "right to exit" from scratch, or maybe one should simply stop treating leaving one's oppressive culture in terms of "right" or "freedom" and understand it only in descriptive manner. ; In multiculturalism, "exit", or to be more precise, "right to exit" is very often thought of in terms of a condition of state's non-interference in the minority groups. However popular, this account seems to be flawed with a number of controversial assumptions, questionable theoretical and practical implications and can lead to significant paradoxes. First of all, treating "exit" as a state's non-interventionism condition also means that in fact representatives of minority groups should actually leave their communities in order to obtain all of the civil rights and liberties – be treated as "full", not "partial" citizens. Various other problems connected with this account (i.a. the issue of general function of "right to exit" and civil rights and liberties or mutual relations between these two categories) presented and discussed in the paper justify a proposal of change of approach towards concept of "exit". Either one should take really seriously the assumed normative character of it and construct a whole separate theory of "right to exit" from scratch, or maybe one should simply stop treating leaving one's oppressive culture in terms of "right" or "freedom" and understand it only in descriptive manner.

In multiculturalism, "exit", or to be more precise, "right to exit" is very often thought of in terms of a condition of state's non-interference in the minority groups. However popular, this account seems to be flawed with a number of controversial assumptions, questionable theoretical and practical implications and can lead to significant paradoxes. First of all, treating "exit" as a state's non-interventionism condition also means that in fact representatives of minority groups should actually leave their communities in order to obtain all of the civil rights and liberties – be treated as "full", not "partial" citizens. Various other problems connected with this account (i.a. the issue of general function of "right to exit" and civil rights and liberties or mutual relations between these two categories) presented and discussed in the paper justify a proposal of change of approach towards concept of "exit". Either one should take really seriously the assumed normative character of it and construct a whole separate theory of "right to exit" from scratch, or maybe one should simply stop treating leaving one's oppressive culture in terms of "right" or "freedom" and understand it only in descriptive manner. ; 3 ; 1 ; 103 ; 124 ; 6 ; Filozofia Publiczna i Edukacja Demokratyczna

The main objective of security policy is to prevent threats, which means to fight certain phenomena at their very source. Governments of many countries threatened by a terrorist attack are still searching for an effective way to prevent attacks on intended terrorist targets and to uncover them in time. It is now recognised that monitoring telephone and internet communications is one of the most effective ways to combat terrorism. In recent years, international security has become one of the most debated issues due to, among other things, the coronavirus pandemic and numerous terrorist attacks. An important factor in preventing these threats is how the state and its services function through the use of a variety of tools and techniques, thus creating new and unique ethical and legal problems. The force and impact of state policy measures are often excessive and disproportionate to the threats posed. In this case, civil rights and liberties are most often violated. Doubts that arise when analysing these two values also stimulate reflection on the question to what extent the state is the victim of threats and to what extent it itself is the aggressor. Contemporary threats such as terrorism or the coronavirus pandemic are a major source of public fear that has far-reaching implications for public governance. The analysis carried out in this study examines the use of digital technologies for surveillance and control of the public by governments as a means to combat contemporary threats. The article describes both cases highlighting the importance of digital technology in maintaining security and cites evidence showing the threats that electronic surveillance poses to democratic norms. In other words, digital control over society promotes security but also restricts civil rights and liberties. The article emphasizes the worrying tendency for governments to implement technology rapidly without sufficient concern for the consequences for socio-political life.