Suchergebnisse

Interesovanje za teoriju i praksu rane intervencije u Srbiji je intenzivirano poslednjih desetak godina. U praksi su odavno zastupljeni različiti oblici rada sa decom sa smetnjama u razvoju ranog uzrasta, dok su teorijsko uobličavanje znanja i sistemski pristup ranoj intervenciji, sagledani kroz donošenje državnih odluka, uključivanje sadržaja iz ove oblasti u studijske programe fakulteta koji školuju defektologa, novijeg datuma. Cilj ovog rada je da ukaže na ključne promene i aktivnosti usmerene na razvoj nacionalnih sistema rane intervencije, s posebnim osvrtom na Srbiju. Od šest priotiteta sadržanih u dokumentu Poziv na akciju: Podrška razvoju dece u ranom detinjstvu koji je Vlada Srbije sačinila u saradnji sa UNICEFOM, a koji je zasnovan na Konvenciji o pravima deteta, Ciljevima održivog razvoja i najboljim interesima za svako dete posebno je značajan prvi podrška roditeljstvu. Izdvajanje ovog prioriteta bazirano je na činjenici da je podrška dobrobiti deteta jedan od najvažnijih ciljeva predškolskog vaspitanja i obrazovanja i da je ostvariv samo onda kada porodica može na adekvatan način da oblikuje sopstvene životne okolnosti. Osim toga takozvani model F-reči, utemeljen na odrednicama Međunarodne klasifikacije funkcionisanja, invalidnosti i zdravlja, vidi porodicu kao centralni "kontekstualni" činilac razvoja, koji ima najbolji potencijal za pružanje fizičke i emocionalne bezbednosti deteta i čija dobrobit treba da bude primarni cilj uključivanja u programe rane intervencije i obezbeđivanja usluga. Iako je rad sa porodicom, ključni činilic pozitivnih ishoda rane intervencije, dosadašnja praksa u ovom segmentu rada može da se opiše kao dugo putovanje od pristupa usmerenog na stručnjake koji donose odluke i sprovodi tretman, do pristupa u čijem fokusu je porodica Veštine uspostavljanja saradničkog odnosa su za stručnjake, koji prihvataju model usmeren na porodicu još uvek velik izazov, jer je neophodno da se uloga donosioca odluka, "prepisivača saveta", zameni ulogom partnera, slušaoca, pomagača i konsultanta. ; Interest in the theory and practice of early intervention in Serbia, has intensified in the last ten years. In practice, various forms of work with children with disabilities at an early age have long been represented, whereas theoretical shaping of knowledge and systematic approach to early intervention seen through state-decision making, inclusion of contents from this area in university programmes for educating defectologist, are of the more recent date. The aim of this paper is to point out the key changes and activities directed to development of national early intervention systems, with special reference to Serbia. Considering the six priorities contained in the document Call to Action: Support to children development in early childhood, created by Government of Serbia in cooperation with UNICEF, based on Convention on the rights of the child, Sustainable development goals and best interest for each child individually, the first one is especially important, parenting support. The selection of this priority is based on the fact that supporting the welfare of the child is one of the most important goals of preschool education and that it is achievable only in case when the family can adquately shape their own life circumstances. Besides, the so-called F-word model based on the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health, recognizes the family as the central "contextual" factor, with best potential for providing physical and emotional security to the child, whose welfare should be the primary goal of inclusion in early intervention and service providing programmes. Although, the work with family is the key factor in positive outcomes of early intervention, current practice in this segment of work can be described as a long journey from and approach focused on decision-making and treatment professionals, to the family-oriented approach. Collaborative skills are still the great challenge for professionals who accept family-oriented model, as it is necessary to replace the role of decision-maker, "advice transcriber" with the role of partner, listener, assistant and consultant.

The article explores the process that led to Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence and argues that the willingness of many countries to contribute to the creation of Kosovo as cannot be explained solely by humanitarian concerns, and the remedial understanding of the right to self-determination. What seems to have motivated the Western powers was also the recent memory of the UN's failure to stop the internecine wars which characterised the SFRY's dissolution (particularly the war in Bosnia), as well as the rejection on the part of the international community with the way in which Kosovan autonomy, previously entrenched in the SFRY constitution of 1974, had been emasculated from 1989 onwards by both Serbia and the FRY in a process which served to deny Kosovo Albanians both the minority rights and the right of internal self-determination. Finally, the article speculates on the long-term implications of the Kosovo intervention. Instead of being seen as a 'unique case', the intervention in Kosovo may be seen as the consolidation of a growing European commitment to the rights of internal minorities, including the right to territorial autonomy for national minorities. Adapted from the source document.

The situation in Kosovo up to 1999, and all attempts which failed in order to find a just and lasting solution for that problem, have fully justified the above criteria for a lawful humanitarian intervention which was undertaken by the NATO forces against the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It seems, however, that the responsible persons in the NATO were not aware of the competence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to investigate to prosecute persons responsible for use of prohibited arms and for destruction of some objects. Some of these unlawful acts constitute grave breaches of the 1959 Geneva Conventions and violations of laws and customs of war. In these circumstances it is the legal duty of the Prosecutor to undertake an investigation. In case that he fails in his duty, there are no statutory limits in respect of the crimes provided in the Statute of the Tribunal. (SOI : SOEU: S. 98f.) + Most legal writers in their writings confuse notions of humanitarian intervention, intervention of a State in order to protect its citizens abroad and humanitarian relief. The use of force for protection of citizens abroad, when they are in immediate danger of losing their lives or suffering serious injury, can exceptionally be justified by a state of necessity as regulated in article 33 of Drafts Article on State Responsibility by the International Law Commission. Further conditions for such an intervention are provided in the wording of the US State Secretar, Daniel Webster in the Caroline case of 1837, relating to the self-defence. Actions of humanitarian relief have nothing unlawful in their character, but a question can arise of the obligation of parties to a conflict to receive and allow its distribution to a who are in need. The 1949 Geneva Conventions and the First Protocol of 1977, provide in this respect a legal obligation of all parties to internation armed conflicts. Such relief actions can be imposed as obligation to parties to internal armed conflicts as well, by UN Security Council resolutions based on Chap. VII of the UN Charter. + In the view of this author there is no rule of positive international law granting a right to foreign States to intervene by force, either in protection of their citizens, or when a humanitarian intervention is required. The matter can only be of exceptional circumstances precluding wrongfulness of the use of force, which otherwise remains prohibited. When the matter is of humanitarian intervention, circumstances precluding the wrongfulness would, according to this author, be the following: (1) There should be a situation of systematic, repeated and widespread commission of international crimes by a State authority against its own citizens. Special problems are created to the international community by widespread practices of ethnic cleansing. (2) Such a situation constitutes itself a "threat to the peace" calling for an enforcement action by the Security Council according to the Chap. VII of the UN Charter. (3) In case that the Security Council fails in its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security and when there are no other means, a group of States or an organization can undertake a humanitarian intervention by use of force in order to stop the commission of crimes. In these circumstances it acts as de facto organ of the entire international community of States. (4) In these extreme and exceptional circumstances, States taking part in such an action cannot obtain any advantages in their profit. (5) Collective intervention by a single State acting in the name of several other States or an organization. However, even such an intervention should have priority over humanitarian intervention undertaken by a State acting in its o name. (6) It is self-evident that in performing a humanitarian intervention there should not be committed international crimes especially against protected persons, including civilian population