Suchergebnisse

زمینه و هدف: آموزش علاوه بر این‌که یکی از مصادیق مهم حقوق بشر است، ابزاری مهم برای تحقق سایر مصادیق حقوق بشر نیز به شمار می‌رود. تضمین و اجرای حق آموزش مقدمه تضمین و اجرای سایر مصادیق حقوق بشر می‌باشد. حق بر آموزش ابتدعاً در قامت یک اصل کلی و منعطف که فاقد تعهدات حقوقی مشخص و الزام‌آور بود، در قالب اعلامیه جهانی حقوق بشر پذیرفته شد. به علت تفاوت‌های بنیادینی که در نظام‌های حقوقی ـ سیاسی دولت‌ها وجود داشت، توسعه و تقویت حق مزبور به نظام‌های حقوقی منطقه‌ای و داخلی سپرده شد. مواد و روش‌ها: در این مطالعه با روش تحلیلی ـ توصیفی، ابتدا مفهوم شهروندی و اهمیت آموزش بحث و بررسی خواهد شد. پس از مشخص‌شدن وضعیت متغیر مزبور، اهداف فرآیند آموزشی و مفهوم «حق بر آموزش» برای تبیین دقیق‌تر چارچوب کلی مسأله اصلی پژوهش حاضر و سپس آموزش دموکراسی، تسامح و تساهل به عنوان معیار اصلی برای ترویج شهروندی دموکراتیک مورد بحث و بررسی قرار خواهد گرفت. ملاحظات اخلاقی: در تمام مراحل نگارش پژوهش حاضر، ضمن رعایت اصالت متون، صداقت و امانتداری رعایت شده است. یافته‌ها: در چارچوب حق بر توانمندسازی، آموزش سازکاری است که با استفاده از آن، افراد می‌توانند ابزارهای لازم را برای مشارکت کامل در جوامع به دست آورند. آموزش نقش بسیار مهمی را در توانمندسازی اقشار آسیب‌پذیر، ترویج حقوق بشر و دموکراسی، فراهم کردن زمینه‌های لازم برای توسعه پایدار و. ایفا می‌کند، در نتیجه آموزش به عنوان یکی از بهترین سرمایه‌گذاری‌های مادی و معنوی محسوب می‌شود که یک دولت می‌تواند در راستای توسعه، پیشرفت و رفاه شهروندان خود، انجام دهد. نتیجه‌گیری: تحولات حق بر آموزش و اجرا و تضمین آن در چارچوب دکترین شهروندی دموکراتیک و در نتیجه، ارتباط آن با توسعه و تقویت مفهوم حکومت قانون و عناصر تشکیل‌دهنده آن، در فرآیند تربیت شهروندان پایبند به دموکراسی و ایجاد یک نظام حقوقی ـ سیاسی که اصلی‌ترین و کارآمدترین ضمانت اجرای آن فشار واقعی افکار عمومی و مطالبه‌گری عموم مردم خواهد بود، نقش اساسی ایفا کند. ; Background and Aim: Education is not only one of the important examples of human rights but also an important tool for the realization of other examples of human rights. The guarantee and enforcement of this right is a prelude to the guarantee and enforcement of other instances of human rights. The right to education was initially recognized as a general and flexible principle that had no clear and binding legal obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Due to the fundamental differences that existed in the legal-political systems of governments, the development and strengthening of this right was entrusted to regional and domestic legal systems. Materials and Methods: In this study with analytical-descriptive method, first the concept of citizenship and the importance of education will be discussed. After determining the status of this variable, the objectives of the educational process and the concept of "right to education" will be considered to explain more precisely the general framework of the main issue of the present study. In the third step, the teaching of democracy, tolerance and tolerance as the main criteria for promoting democratic citizenship will be discussed. Ethical Considerations: In order to organize this research, while observing the authenticity of the texts, honesty and fidelity have been observed. Findings: Within the framework of the right to empowerment, education is a mechanism by which individuals can acquire the tools necessary for full participation in society. Education plays a very important role in empowering the vulnerable, promoting human rights and democracy, providing the necessary conditions for sustainable development, and so on. As a result, education is considered as one of the best materials and spiritual investments that a government can make for the development, progress and welfare of its citizens. Conclusion: Developments in the right to education and implementation and its guarantee within the framework of the doctrine of democratic citizenship and, consequently, its relationship with the development and strengthening of the concept of rule of law and its constituent elements can in the process of educating citizens committed to democracy and creating a legal-political system. The main and most effective guarantee of its implementation will be the real pressure of public opinion and public demand, to play a key role. Please cite this article as: Rostami S, Soleymanzadeh T. A Rethinking of the Concept of Right to Education in the Light of Democratic Citizenship. Bioethics Journal, Special Issue on Bioethics and Citizenship Rights 2020; 173-186.

Nikos Potamianos, The Radical Right and the Agrarian Question in the Early 20th Century. The Case of Christovassilis and the "Hellenism Asosociation"The subject of this article is an aspect of the history of the radical right in Greece, namely its intellectual and political response to the agrarian question which emerged in Greece at the end of the 19th century after the incorporation of new provinces where large landownership was predominant. In particular, the arguments and theses of a cadre of the biggest nationalist league of Athens in 1907 are examined, in contrast to its earlier views on the agrarian question and in contrast to the discourse of the radical supporters of the sharecroppers as well as the landowners. Christovassilis adopts a pro-peasant stand, attacking capitalist landowners and indirectly proposing the purchase of the land by its cultivators with the assistance of the state. However, his main aim was to prove that parliamentary democracy was incapable of improving the sharecroppers' situation, a task which only an authoritarian state could accomplish. Crucial in Christovassilis' arguments was the use of nationalist discourse in order to legalize sharecroppers' demands: he linked the peasants' struggle for land in the past with the national conflict with the Ottoman conquerors, equating land with fatherland and, therefore, the ownership of land of Thessaly with the peasants' participation in the nation. Christovassilis' earlier views which put emphasis on the social aspects of the agrarian question gave way to the pre-ponderance of the nationalist argument, which was in turn related to other aspects of the ideology of the radical right. "Hellenism" followed a strategy of appealing to the mobilized subordinate classes — but without totally adopting their point of view. It was always clear that the viewpoint of the association was that of paternalism, not of emancipation. One of the points of its criticism against the democratic state was that the latter was not powerful enough torepress the impending peasant revolt. The restoration of law and orderwas for the radical right more important than the improvement of the living conditions of the lower strata. And the adoption of popular demands, in general, proved to be merely rhetoric: when the class struggle became more intense, especially in the case of the agrarian movementof 1910, "Hellenism" remained aloof. ; Nikos Potamianos, The Radical Right and the Agrarian Question in the Early 20th Century. The Case of Christovassilis and the "Hellenism Asosociation"The subject of this article is an aspect of the history of the radical right in Greece, namely its intellectual and political response to the agrarian question which emerged in Greece at the end of the 19th century after the incorporation of new provinces where large landownership was predominant. In particular, the arguments and theses of a cadre of the biggest nationalist league of Athens in 1907 are examined, in contrast to its earlier views on the agrarian question and in contrast to the discourse of the radical supporters of the sharecroppers as well as the landowners. Christovassilis adopts a pro-peasant stand, attacking capitalist landowners and indirectly proposing the purchase of the land by its cultivators with the assistance of the state. However, his main aim was to prove that parliamentary democracy was incapable of improving the sharecroppers' situation, a task which only an authoritarian state could accomplish. Crucial in Christovassilis' arguments was the use of nationalist discourse in order to legalize sharecroppers' demands: he linked the peasants' struggle for land in the past with the national conflict with the Ottoman conquerors, equating land with fatherland and, therefore, the ownership of land of Thessaly with the peasants' participation in the nation. Christovassilis' earlier views which put emphasis on the social aspects of the agrarian question gave way to the pre-ponderance of the nationalist argument, which was in turn related to other aspects of the ideology of the radical right. "Hellenism" followed a strategy of appealing to the mobilized subordinate classes — but without totally adopting their point of view. It was always clear that the viewpoint of the association was that of paternalism, not of emancipation. One of the points of its criticism against the democratic state was that the latter was not powerful enough torepress the impending peasant revolt. The restoration of law and orderwas for the radical right more important than the improvement of the living conditions of the lower strata. And the adoption of popular demands, in general, proved to be merely rhetoric: when the class struggle became more intense, especially in the case of the agrarian movementof 1910, "Hellenism" remained aloof.

Δεν παρατίθεται περίληψη στα ελληνικά. ; Eleni Fournaraki, «Wherefore deprive her of the vote?». Universal male suffrage and the exclusion of women from politics in 19th century Greece Through study of the Greek case, this article tries to explore the exclusion of women from political rights in the context of liberal democracy as a historiographical problem. In contrast to the vast majority of representative states at the time, political circumstances prevailing in Greece led to the constitutional establishment of universal male suffrage in 1864, though not without provoking the discontent of a sizeable portion of the political scene for several years thereafter. According to «conventional» historical accounts, there can be no doubt that women's exclusion from «universal suffrage» in 1864, while not explicity articulated in the Constitution or any pertinent legislation, was regarded as self-evident. Furthermore, prior to 1910-20 the possibility of attributing the vote to women did not preoccupy party politics, while a suffragist movement did not appear before the Inter-war period. Our own approach can be summarized as follows: exploration of the meaning of women's exclusion from political rights in a democratic conjuncture that assured those rights to all adult men may reveal the full dimensions of the conflict dynamic that democratic conquests presuppose. In the first place, this dynamic applies to men themselves, or more precisely to the less privileged among them. As empirical data reveal, the question of women's political rights, even if acquiring those rights was not an existing possibility, could appear as a constructive element of the political discourse: women's exclusion could have been put forward as one of the issues in the argument against universal male suffrage. It is precisely the self-evident and trivial nature of this exclusion together with that of children which could offer a more convincing argument against the conception of suffrage as a natural right. A lack of internal coherence and consistency in the argument of the advocates of «universal suffrage», could be pointed out through the emphasis, conversely, on the irrationality of a regime that guaranteed political participation down to the very last «illiterate» or «vagrant» man, while depriving all women of the vote, especially those who had the ability to possess and administrate property. Support for suffrage for those women was not totally absent from such argumentation, which served to reveal the contradictions that women's exclusion from political rights brought to the heart of the modern system for the legitimization of sovereignty. Through examination of the arguments employed by the science of constitutional law to justify exclusion, we observe a broader process of redefinition and rationalization of the existing gender hierarchy, in modern terms. Crystallized in the last quarter of 19th century, this process appealed to the notion of the biological and psychological «specificity» of «female nature)) in order to legitimize the incompatibility of women as a whole with politics.