Suchergebnisse

By "collective" human rights we understand the ones that belong to a collective. We should distinguish the individual rights, which can be exercised only collectively (suffrage). The demands for "collective" human rights lead to misconceptions & explanatory problems since the universal, egalitarian, & categorical postulate of human rights cannot be equally valid for collectives & individuals. Thus, the protection of minorities' interests can be solely procured by adopting a restricted definition of individual human rights, which necessitates more & better respected social human rights. In some cases, collective rights were designed to protect endangered minorities but were justified by means of equalizing fairness. However, such collective rights are not possible at the level of human rights; they are regulated by special by-laws at the state level. Thus, they are restricted by the requirement that they do not violate individual human rights. Adapted from the source document.

U"terra interior", u BiH, kao i u njezinom okruženju, zaplelo se u izvitoperene forme demokracije, u demokrature, u ne-pravne i prazne države koje su porazile svoje građane. U njima se u osnovi i danas kontraproduktivno slijede modeli "nacije države", iluzija o preklapanju teritorijalnog i nacionalnog, identitarne jednosti, dok se u svijetu slijede logike transnacionalnih umreženja i jednakopravnosti građana svih oformljenih identiteta. Posebice u BiH se ne razumije vlastita identitarna višestrukost, te iz nje logična nužnost ukotvljenosti skupnih prava u individualna ljudska prava i slobode, pa potom skrb i o jednima i drugima u svakoj administrativnoj jedinici. Radi se o samoj suštini novog liberalizma i kulturološkog senzibilizma putem kojih se djeluje i u mnogonacionalnim državama s autohtono oformljenim identitetima i u polietničkim zajednicama s tzv. useljeničkim identitetima na formiranju političkih zajednica jednakopravnih građana svih identiteta. I u jednima i u drugima se primijenjuju demokratske metode upravljanja razlikama, u koje se ubrajaju: hegemonistička kontrola; arbitraža (intervencija treće strane); kantonizacija i/ili federalizacija; te konsocijativizam kao sporazumna podjela moći. U BiH i nije uopće moguće primijeniti iskustva tzv. hegemonističke kontrole ili ravnoteže, ma koliko sve tri ko-nacije rado izigravaju "hegemona", pa je nužna paradigma nenasilja i u mišljenju zasebitosti, navlastitosti i zajedništva u javnim politikama. Nažalost, takvo što nije u izgledu, jer skoro nitko ne razmišlja u kategorijama "svjetskog ethosa", ćudorednosti u unutarnjoj i vanjskoj politici, o balansima konsocijativne i većinske demokracije, o institucionalnoj jednakopravnosti, o ravnotežama nacionalnog i građanskog. Do toga bi se, pak, moglo i moralo stići putem međunacionalnih dijaloga, a ne unutar nacionalnih monologa, te nužnim kompromisom, jer se do održivih rješenja i ne može stići "ratom referata" i politikama sukobljavanja i zgađivanja (containment policy) međusobno bliskih identiteta u kulturološkom pogledu. I zbog toga bi se moralo žurno prestati oglušavati o odluke Europskog suda za ljudska prava u Strasbourgu, o rezolucije Europskog parlamenta i o poruke europskih čelnika o potrebi "zajedničkog upravljanja" i govora jednim glasom u ime BiH u odnosima i s EU i cijelim svijetom. BiH potrebuje "treći modus": alternativan pristup i etnonacionalističkom i tzv lijevo-građanskom redukcionizmu. Ma koliko bili majušni, možda bi Hrvati u BiH trebali - posvuda gdje su u većini - pokazati da je u BiH moguće napraviti "političku zajednicu" jednakopravnih građana svih ko-nacija i građana svih drugih identiteta. Možda bi ih potom i drugi slijedili? ; In "terra interior", in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in its surroundings, unnatural forms of democracy are imposed in the non-legal and empty states that have defeated their citizens. In them are followed contradictory models of "nation-states", an illusion of overlapping territorial and national, unity of identities, while in the world there are logics of transnational networking and equality of citizens of all created identities. Particularly in BiH, one does not understand its own plurality of identities, and the logical necessity of integrating collective rights into individual human rights and freedoms and then caring for one another in every administrative unit. It is about the very essence of the new liberalism and cultural sensibility through which it is operated in many multiethnic states with indigenous identities and in the polyethnic communities with the so-called immigrant identities on the formation of political communities of equal citizens of all identities. In both are applied democratic methods of government, which include: hegemonic control; arbitration (third party intervention); cantonization and/or federalization; and consociation as an agreement power division. In BiH, it is not possible to apply the so-called experiences of hegemonic control or equilibrium, no matter how much the three nations would gladly play "hegemons", so the paradigm of nonviolence is necessary in the thinking of detachment, peculiarities and common public policies. Unfortunately, this is unlikely because almost no one is thinking of the categories of "world ethos", of morality in internal and external politics, of the balances of the consociational and majority democracy, of institutional equality, of national and civil equilibrium. This could be achieved through inter-ethnic dialogues, not within national monologues, and with the necessary compromise, as sustainable solutions cannot be achieved through "verbal warfare" and politics of conflict and aggravation (containment policy) of mutually close identities in the cultural sense. And it should be promptly stopped with the denying of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the resolutions of the European Parliament and the messages of European leaders about the need for "shared rule" and speak through one-voice on behalf of BiH in relations with the EU and the world as a whole. In as much as they might be small in numbers, perhaps Croats in BiH should first - wherever they are majority- show that in BiH it is possible to create a "political community" of equal citizens of all co-nations and citizens of all other identities. Maybe the others would then follow them?

This paper deals with Bhikhu Parekh's theory of intercultural evaluation. Parekh's approach to multiculturalism is based on an open dialogue between minorities & the majority on cultural practices that should be tolerated. In the first part, author criticizes Parekh's concept of operative public values, which Parekh uses as a starting point for intercultural debate. In the second part, author deals with the problem of consistency between Parekh's theoretical arguments & their application to particular cases. In the conclusion, author argues that Parekh's aspiration to avoid both claims of liberal universalism & cultural relativism is unsuccessful because he fails to provide a convincing theoretical argument on how to resolve disputes on cultural values & practices. References. Adapted from the source document.

By "collective" human rights we understand the ones that belong to a collective. We should distinguish the individual rights, which can be exercised only collectively (suffrage). The demands for "collective" human rights lead to misconceptions & explanatory problems since the universal, egalitarian, & categorical postulate of human rights cannot be equally valid for collectives & individuals. Thus, the protection of minorities' interests can be solely procured by adopting a restricted definition of individual human rights, which necessitates more & better respected social human rights. In some cases, collective rights were designed to protect endangered minorities but were justified by means of equalizing fairness. However, such collective rights are not possible at the level of human rights; they are regulated by special by-laws at the state level. Thus, they are restricted by the requirement that they do not violate individual human rights. Adapted from the source document.

The paper poses the question: is multiculturalism, in the situation of posttraditional social pluralization, an appropriate theoretical & practical model of integration in multiethnic & multicultural societies? In order to provide an answer, the author first analyzes the social processes responsible for speeding up contemporary social & cultural changes. The starting point of the analysis are the key insights of the theory of reflexive modernization. This is followed by an outline of the model of multiculturalism; the author explains why the demands for the group-specific protection of cultural minorities are focal to it. Particular attention is given to the ideas of C. Taylor & W. Kymlicka, & J. Habermas' criticism. The assumption is that in the posttraditional social conditions, juxtaposing collective vs. individual rights misses the point because in the circumstances of constant change & growing social reflexivity only the cultures capable of reflexive self-transformation can survive. Each project of culture protection that is comparable to the protection of "endangered species," which presupposes collective rights & duties, saps culture of its vitality & hinders the individuals in their critical reflexion of their identities. & contrary, in case of radical multiculturalism & rigid assimilationism -- in both cases cultures are understood as natural species outside social context -- posttraditional/reflexive reconstruction of identity can assume fundamentalist character. The author claims that the recognition of cultural minorities remains one of the central issues of present-day liberal democracies; however, the recognition of diversity ought to be based on democratic public debate through which individuals can work out their relationship towards different cultural traditions. 25 References. Adapted from the source document.

The paper poses the question: is multiculturalism, in the situation of posttraditional social pluralization, an appropriate theoretical & practical model of integration in multiethnic & multicultural societies? In order to provide an answer, the author first analyzes the social processes responsible for speeding up contemporary social & cultural changes. The starting point of the analysis are the key insights of the theory of reflexive modernization. This is followed by an outline of the model of multiculturalism; the author explains why the demands for the group-specific protection of cultural minorities are focal to it. Particular attention is given to the ideas of C. Taylor & W. Kymlicka, & J. Habermas' criticism. The assumption is that in the posttraditional social conditions, juxtaposing collective vs. individual rights misses the point because in the circumstances of constant change & growing social reflexivity only the cultures capable of reflexive self-transformation can survive. Each project of culture protection that is comparable to the protection of "endangered species," which presupposes collective rights & duties, saps culture of its vitality & hinders the individuals in their critical reflexion of their identities. & contrary, in case of radical multiculturalism & rigid assimilationism -- in both cases cultures are understood as natural species outside social context -- posttraditional/reflexive reconstruction of identity can assume fundamentalist character. The author claims that the recognition of cultural minorities remains one of the central issues of present-day liberal democracies; however, the recognition of diversity ought to be based on democratic public debate through which individuals can work out their relationship towards different cultural traditions. 25 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author first gives a short account of those German scientific institutions that study the history of Eastern or Southeastern Europe, including the history of Croatia. Then he lists the leading researchers & outlines the fundamental tenets of two major works of German historiography on the national identities in Dalmatia. The focus is on the research method & the used "tools." The author thinks that an interdisciplinary approach should be designed in historiographic, political science, & sociological research of the process of the formation of the Croatian national identity but also of other national identities & other modernization processes in Dalmatia. 4 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author has tried to prove that interethnic relations in democracy cannot be handled solely by means of legal, economic, & institutional means; political culture, ie, civic democratic political culture, can have a significant role. The analysis shows that there is room for the build-up of a transnational democratic citizenry, free from all ascriptive criteria & identities such as religion, ethnicity, etc. It also reveals how classic liberalism neglects various identities (ethnic, national, etc) while communitarian liberalism overlooks the excluding force of various identities. It has also demonstrated that there are several concepts of civic identities (liberal, communitarian, & social/group) & that each of these concepts can exert profound influence on the relationship between citizens & their political community. Finally, the relation between patriotism & interethnic relations in democracy are reviewed. Patriotism, in the circumstances of growing social pluralization, & despite a plethora of political integrations, can play a prominent role in bridging the political & cultural atomizations & conflicts in society. It can undertake this role only if constituted in the civic & not the crude (fixed) ethnic sense -- though the national defines the limits & the meaning of this constitution -- provided it evolves into loyalty to one's homeland & goes hand in hand with the development of democracy & human rights. In short, the purpose of this paper is to provide evidence that it is necessary to expand democratic political culture that might aid in resolving intricate & sensitive relations among various ethnic & cultural communities. Patriotism can assume a decisive role in this. It lays down the limits & legitimacy of each meaningful political discourse & each genuine political subject. Adapted from the source document.