Suchergebnisse

Papa Ivan Pavao II. bio je na čelu Katoličke crkve od 16. listopada 1978. do 2. travnja 2005. Od samoga dolaska na Petrovu stolicu dao je do znanja da želi biti blizak svim ljudima i svim narodima na svijetu pokazujući razumijevanje i izgrađujući povjerenje prema svima. Ubrzo su svi narodi i svi ljudi na cijeloj zemaljskoj kugli postali njegovi sugovornici. U prvoj polovici svoga papinskog služenja trudio se približiti ljude i narode jedne drugima, bez obzira kojemu su političkom bloku pripadali. Poslije promjena, devedesetih godina 20. stoljeća, u svijetu se neumorno zalagao za zaštitu malih naroda, kultura, posebnosti i svakoga pojedinca u svijetu globalizacije. Bio je čovjek ekumenizma i dijaloga. Bio je neumoran u izgrađivanju mira među narodima. Do posljednjega časa svoga života nije prestajao isticati važnost ljudskoga života i čovjekova dostojanstva. Znao je vješto komunicirati sa svim osobama, bez obzira na dob, spol, vjersku pripadnost, naciju, rasu ili društveni status. ; Pope John Paul II was the Head of the Catholic Church from October, 16th 1978 till April, 2nd, 2005. When he took over Peter's Chair he put on notice that he wanted to be close to all people and all nations in the world showing the understanding and building trust with everyone. Soon all the nations and all the people around the world became his collocutors. In the first part of his pontifical serving he tried to bring closer people and nations, regardless of which political block they belonged to. After changes in the nineteen nineties, he untiringly pleaded for the protection of "little" people, cultures, particularities and every individual in the world of globalization. He was a man of ecumenism and dialogue. He was tireless in building peace among nations. Till the last moment of his life he didn't stop with emphasizing the importance of a human life and a man's dignity. He knew how to communicate with every person, regardless of age, sex, religious affiliation, nation, race or social status.

In Hobbes' Theory of Authorization I it was shown how Hobbes, by means of his theory of authorization, managed to resolve the difficult points which, in the previous formulations of his science of politics, weighed on the issue of creation of the state conceived as a doubly impersonal apparatus relying on the representative relation between the sovereign & the subjects. In this text the author re-examines both the approach & the conclusion of his research through critical inquiry into Quentin Skinner's & Hanna Pitkin's interpretations of Hobbes' understanding of representation. In his recent works, Skinner attempted to demonstrate that it had to be interpreted, above all, as an instrument in the ideological conflict between the republicans & the monarchists in England in Hobbes' time. Hanna Pitkin, in turn, brought into question the representative character of sovereign power. As opposed to both of them, the author expounds the thesis that, in order to be understood properly, the theory of authorization must be examined within the more comprehensive framework of Hobbes' science of politics & thus brought in connection with other important elements of its problem-matter, such as the right to punish, the relation between the sovereign's rights & the subjects' freedom, & the duties of the sovereign. By interpreting the theory of authorization primarily as part of a system which is conditioned by & co-formative of the logic of the study as a whole, this text strives to show that the authorization-based relation between the sovereign & the subjects, in spite of the fact that one-sided authorization on the part of the subjects established a sovereign who has no legal obligations to them, is indeed determined by the logic of representation. Adapted from the source document.

The author takes issue with the quasi-scientific ideological manifesto that M. Kasapovic presented to the political-science community in her "revisionist text," as she herself characterized it, entitled "Leaving the Plural? The End of Internal Colonisation of Croatian Political Science?" (2007). "Leaving the Plural?" is the introductory & pivotal text in a collection encompassing works by a group of political scientists, which proffers a peculiar view on "the history & state of Croatian political science." In the first part of this article, published in the 2009 issue of Annals of the Croatian Political Science Association, the author's minute analysis unequivocally demonstrated that M. Kasapovic's belligerent manifesto, which does not meet even the minimal professional standards, is an arrogant amalgam of inequity & incomprehension, as well as an implacable attack on the Faculty of Political Science, its professors & its entire history. Here in the second part of the article the author first provides a brief review of a text which is part of M. Kasapovic's recent scientific production, with the aim of showing that the failure to meet the requirements of standard political-science discourse in "Leaving the Plural?" was not an exception. In the final section, the author reflects on the meaning & purpose of the accusations & personal slander contained in M. Kasapovic's defamatory text "Drifting Duo" (2008). In his judgment, the latter text disregards the basic rules of academic communication & is in itself a barbarization of Croatian political science. Adapted from the source document.

In a response to Vujcic's reply to the earlier polemics regarding the review of the author's Politicka i medijska kultura u Hrvatskoj (Political and Media Culture in Croatia), the question of how to define tolerance, & whether this should imply support for the minority instead of just acceptance is taken up once again. The author defends himself against Vujcic's charge that he has not analyzed his own data correctly, pointing out that public opinion & media polling show a broad & general correlation for tolerance of minority viewpoints. Disagreements over the semantics of "tolerance" continue, as Voltaire's definition is once again held up as a model. 1 Table. A. Siegel

In the last in a series of polemics the author despairs at the pointlessness of further argument with Vujevic over his review of the latter's Politicka i medijska kultura u Hrvatskoj (Political and Media Culture in Croatia). The sticking point is the question of how to interpret a survey result showing that 38% of those surveyed in Croatia were in favor of legally protecting political parties of non-mainstream viewpoints as indicating a majority of Croatians are "tolerant." Cited is international political science research that indicates the relative consistency of such views & their percentages in both Europe & the US. A. Siegel

The author's starting point is the claim that, despite integrative tendencies, the number of national states in the world is on the increase. The opposing national interests & conflicts may be mitigated or avoided if the central concepts & issues, the ways of the accommodation of interests & the features of the post-communist transitions are known. The author explains the concepts & issues such as nation, ethnic group, national state, nationalism, protection of minorities, the right to self-determination, decentralization, autonomy, federalism, consociational democracy, & non-territorial autonomy. He focuses on the issues that reflect the current controversies of the global & the national policies. He concludes that, among other things, the national issues are central to the process of transition & that they cannot be ignored (since nations are a reality which must be coped with), that there are principles & mechanisms of the regulation of the conflicting national interests, that democracy & nation-building are not incompatible but contradictory notions, that democratic societies are nationally tolerant, that the resolution of the national question is a prerequisite for democratic transition. Adapted from the source document.

The authors of this text consider the third form of representation developed in the medieval doctrine of corporation, the so-called identity or pars pro toto representation. It concerns a relationship in which a part of the corporation -- council, assembly, or some members -- is considered identical to the whole body of the corporation in terms of its activity. The main purpose of identity representation is to mediate the idea of legal unity of corporation with the multitude of its members or parts of which it consists: by the act of representation different parts of the corporation form its legal unity at the moment of reaching decisions. Unlike in agency representation, the position of the representative is thus not the consequence of authorisation or of the transfer of power of action by those represented: the representative and the represented are not two separate legal entities; rather, it is considered that with the action of its "elevated" part, the corporation acts by itself. The text presents three fundamental subtypes of identity representation: Marsilius of Padua's valentior pars, rendering majority decisions on issues concerning the corporation as a whole, and a permanent representative body. Special attention is given to the Conciliar Movement in which identity representation played an important part, and to the first association of representation through identity with the idea of authorisation in the thought of Nicholas of Cues. The text looks into estate assemblies of German Lander (provinces) in the period prior to the French Revolution as an example of historic institutionalisation of identity representation. Adapted from the source document.

(See Part I in Politika Misao, 1999, 36, 1, 113-139.) Part II seeks to prove the connection among political culture, political structure, & democracy. All arguments pointing to such a connection have been analyzed within the framework of two fundamental approaches to the relationship between culture & structure: the notion that there is a functional concordance between culture & structure; & the contemporary interactional approach, which considers democracy not as a "fixed condition" but rather as a dynamic phenomenon or end result of the combined interactional relationships between culture & structure. The analysis demonstrates how these investigations into the interaction (combined effects) between political culture & structure are extremely sophisticated & that, in the future, they are going to become the most fruitful part of political science, making possible not only a deeper understanding of the "dynamic regularities" in the functioning of democracy but also in attempts at its "innovative sustainment" & gradual development. Adapted from the source document.

Jedna od najznačajnijih obitelji hrvatsko-ugarske povijesti jest porodica Gorjanski (Garai). Podrijetlom je iz nekadašnjega sela Dorozsme, koje se danas nalazi u sastavu Szegeda, trećega po veličini mađarskoga grada. Selo je ime dobilo po rodu Drušini(Drušbi) iz kojega potječu Gorjanski. Utemeljitelj obitelji je Ivan Gorjanski koji je 1269. od hercega Bele dobio grad i utvrdu Gorjani (Gara) u tadašnjoj Vukovskoj županiji. Gorjanski su tijekom dva stoljeća zauzimali visoke državne položaje u Hrvatskoj i Ugarskoj te su uz Karla Khuen-Hedervaryja (bio je predsjednik središnje vlade u Budimpešti 1903. i 1910.–1912. godine te hrvatski ban od 1883. do 1903.) bili najviše pozicionirani državnici iz Hrvatske. Naime, oni su u tri uzastopna naraštaja nosili najviši dvorski naslov palatina (1375.-1385., 1402.–1433., 1447.–1458.), a i u njihovoj drugoj, tzv. "banskoj" lozi imali su važnu ulogu kao hrvatski i slavonski, odnosno mačvanski banovi. Najvažniju ulogu u obitelji imao je Nikola Gorjanski mlađi, šurjak i najbliži suradnik kralja Sigismunda (Žigmunda) Luksemburgovca, koji je bio kraljev zamjenik za njegovih čestih izbivanja iz zemlje, a obavljao je i najdelikatnije diplomatske zadaće u Njemačkoj, Francuskoj i Engleskoj. Za to je nagrađen ne samo golemim posjedima, nego i Redom zmaja i Redom rupca. ; One of the most notable families in Croatian-Hungarian history is the Gorjanski (Garai) family. The family hails from Dorozsma village of old, which is part of present-day Szeged, the third largest city in Hungary. The village was named after the clan of Drušina (Drušba), from which the Gorjanski family draws its lineage. The progenitor of the family was Ivan Gorjanski, who received the Gorjani (Gara) town and fortress in the Vukovska County from Duke Bela in 1269. For two centuries members of the Gorjanski family held high level court positions in Croatia and Hungary and were, along with Karoly Khuen-Héderváry (the president of the central government in Budapest in 1903 and 1910-1912 and the Croatian ban from 1883 to 1903), the most notable political figures from Croatia. Namely, they held the highest court title of palatine (1375 – 1385, 1402 – 1433, 1447 – 1458) throughout three successive generations, while their other so-called "banal/Bánfi" branch also had an important role as Croatian and Slavonian bans, as well as bans of Macsó. The most significant figure of the family was Nikola Gorjanski Junior, brother-in-law and closest associate of King Sigismund of Luxembourg, who stood in for the King during his frequent travels. He also performed the most delicate diplomatic duties in Germany, France and England, for which he was rewarded not only with huge estates, but also the Order of the Dragon and Order of the Scarf.