In administrative history of the last six hundred years, different factors & influences had played their role in the formation of middle-level offices. The reason was in management. By dividing provinces into quarters, the provincial estates primarily wanted to protect their property from Turkish raids in the middle of the 15th century. In the middle of the 18th century, the provincial prince or national authority established kresije (state administrative units) that were a prolonged hand of the central state administration. It was supposed to control landowners, enforcement of rules & to protect serfs. By establishing kresije, the Kromeriz Constitution wanted to solve nationality problems in multilingual provinces. The district boards, established after 1868, were also a prolonged hand of the central authority & the result of the hundred-year development of the state administration. The history of middle-level offices shows interests of some groups or individuals that were in power during a certain period of time. Unlike other European countries where these offices were relatively autonomous, they were always a prolonged hand of the central state bodies or at least they served them in the Austrian Empire. The Registry Office plan reflects their competence that comprised all the matters of the population in a certain district from personal to municipal, military, education, ecclesiastical & taxation matters, the result of which was that the population identified itself with a district or quarter or kresija (state administrative unit). The middle-level government name was also one of the reasons for population identification. Figures, References. Adapted from the source document.
V članku je prikazan poskus ureditve mednacionalnih odnosov na istrskem polotoku v letih pred prvo svetovno vojno v širšem kontekstu reševanja nacionalnih konfliktov v avstrijski polovici Habsburške monarhije. Poseben poudarek je na predstavitvi in analizi moravskega kompromisa leta 1905, ki je temeljil na osebnem načelu in je postal nekakšen model za urejanje mednacionalnih odnosov v Cislajtaniji ter na analizi istrskega kompromisa leta 1908, ki je temeljil na teritorialnem načelu. ; The Habsburg monarchy was an absolutist monarchy before 1848, and from the Theresian-Josephine period there was a tendency to introduce a centralised unitary state. However, this was resisted by Hungary, which was able to maintain its special position under constitutional law. In 1867, the Habsurg Monarchy accepted the Austro-Hungarian compromise to be organized as a dual monarchy, as a personal and real union of two equal and more or less centralized states. The Monarchy was renamed to Austro-Hungary, however, in both parts of the states, this caused various national groups to experience a sense of discomfort and threat and consequently revoked their historical rights and national law. After the establishment of the Dual monarchy, the Wienna governments first favoured the correctional measures plans leading to federalism, after the affirmation of the dualism and the centralization, however, the idea of compromises became the central focus of solving the national disputes in Cisleithania. In 1905, German and Czech politicians in Moravia managed to reach an agreement on how to regulate the national situation in the country. The Moravian Agreement, which was conceived by the Regional Committee, was not based on territorial but on personal principles and became a model for the regulation of international relations in Cislaitania. The Istrian peninsula was also a focal point of national conflict, where Slavic deputies, especially after 1883, strongly advocated the realisation of linguistic equality in the country. The Italian majority in the Istrian Regional Assembly consistently rejected linguistic equality in the Regional Assembly. The Italian side became more receptive to Slavic demands only after the introduction of universal male suffrage for the National Assembly (1907), when it became clear that the process of political democratisation was working in favour of the emancipation of the majority Slavic population. In 1908, the Istrian Agreement, or the Regional Electoral Reform, was signed. The Slavs on the Istrian peninsula have thus won a victory. The Istria Agreement was based on the territorial division of electoral districts according to the principle of nationality and ensured that neither side majorised the other.
V času begunske krize leta 2015 se je v Italiji in Grčiji razvil nov način hitrega upravljanja migracijskih tokov, t. i. pristop žariščnih točk, ki temelji na hitri identifikaciji, registraciji in odvzemu prstnih odtisov migrantov ter njihovi nadaljnji preusmeritvi v azilni postopek, postopek vračanja ali premestitve. Čeprav je bil pristop zasnovan kot začasni ukrep, ki naj bi se uporabljal, dokler se izredne razmere ne umirijo, je pristop v praksi implementiran kot trajni mehanizem identifikacije in registracije migrantov, s katerim je Evropska unija (v nadaljevanju: EU) dosegla spoštovanje obveznosti identifikacije migrantov s strani Italije in Grčije, že tako najbolj obremenjenih držav članic. Ker v postopkih identifikacije prihaja do hujših kršitev človekovih pravic, oviranja dostopa do azilnega postopka in diskriminacije na podlagi nacionalnosti, je določenim skupinam de facto odvzeta pravica do mednarodne zaščite. V postopkih vračanja prihaja do kršitev prepovedi vračanja in kolektivnih izgonov, postopki premestitve pa se v žariščnih točkah v praksi ne izvajajo. Uporaba pristopa žariščnih točk tako ni razbremenila Italije in Grčije in ni izboljšala položaja migrantov na poti v Evropo. Odprava sistemskih problemov pristopa, ki so v veliki meri posledica pomanjkanja celovite pravne ureditve in politične volje, bi zato morala zajemati pravno ureditev pristopa v enotnem dokumentu in odpravo spornih praks. Ker so izredne razmere, na katere se uporaba pristopa sklicuje, ob spremljanju političnih in socialnih trendov, v veliki meri predvidljive, bi moral biti poudarek pri izvajanju pristopa na zagotavljanju mednarodne zaščite in ne nadzoru zunanjih meja EU. ; During the refugee crisis in 2015 a new approach of swift migration management developed in Italy and Greece, the so called hotspot approach. The basis of the approach is swift identification, registration and fingerprinting of the incoming migrants for the purpose of redirecting them either to the asylum procedure, returns procedure or relocation procedure. Although designed as a temporary measure, used only until the emergency situation settles down, the approach is implemented as a permanent mechanism for identification and registration of migrants which helped the European union (hereinafter: the EU) achieve compliance from Italy and Greece, already the most burdened states, with their obligation to identify all incoming migrants. Serious human rights violations, obstruction of access to the asylum procedure and discrimination based on nationality occur during the identification process depriving certain groups of migrants of their right to asylum. Violations of the principle of non-refoulment and prohibition of collective expulsions occur during the returns procedures, while relocation procedures are not carried out in the hotspots. The use of the hotspot approach did not relieve the pressure on Italy and Greece nor improve the position of migrants coming to Europe. Systematic problems are largely the result of lack of legal framework and political will and should therefore be addressed with a unified regulation and the end of controversial practices. Since the emergency situation, on which the approach is based, can be largely predicted by observing the current social and political trends the main focus of the approach should be providing international protection instead of control of the EU external borders.
POVZETEK MEDNARODNI KAZENSKI PREGON IN ČLOVEKOVE PRAVICE TUJIH TERORISTIČNIH BORCEV Avtor: Rok Petročnik Mentorica: izr. prof. dr. Vasilka Sancin V magistrski nalogi sem raziskoval nastanek fenomena tujega terorističnega borca, njihov mednarodni kazenski pregon in kršitve njihovih temeljnih človekovih pravic v domačih kazenskih pregonih. Varnostni svet OZN je leta 2014 na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine OZN sprejel Resolucijo 2178, ki podaja opis tujega terorističnega borca, vendar ne loči med oboroženimi spopadi in terorizmom. Resolucija 2178 opisuje tujega terorističnega borca kot posameznika, ki potuje v tujino z namenom izvedbe ali sodelovanja v terorističnem napadu, medtem ko je tuji borec posameznik, ki odpotuje v tujino z namenom pridružitve oboroženim spopadom. V raziskavi sem prišel do sklepa, da trenutno ne obstaja mednarodni kazenski pregon tujih terorističnih borcev, saj pregon izvajajo države same pred nacionalnimi sodišči. Varnostni svet OZN je pregon tujih terorističnih borcev preložil na države članice OZN, in sicer z vzpostavitvijo različnih odborov za nadzor izvajanja sankcij Varnostnega Sveta, kot so Sankcijski odbor 1267 in Skupina za analitično podporo in nadzor sankcij. V primerih Nada, Ahmed in Abdelrazik so nacionalna sodišča zaradi kršitev temeljnih človekovih pravic s sodbami razveljavila državne upravne akte, ki so vpeljevali sprejete protiteroristične resolucije Varnostnega sveta. Podobno je naredilo sodišče EU v primeru Kadi, kjer je bila razveljavljena uredba, ki je vpeljala sankcije Varnostnega sveta. Sodbe nacionalnih in sodišč v EU so bile glavni dejavnik za spremembo mednarodnopravnega okvirja terorizma OZN in za posledično večji poudarek na spoštovanju temeljnih pravic, ki jih zagotavlja Evropska konvencija o človekovih pravicah. ; ABSTRACT INTERNATIONAL PROSECUTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF FOREIGN TERRORIST FIGHTERS Author: Rok Petročnik Mentor: Vasilka Sancin, PhD, Professor In master's thesis i explored the emergence of the foreign terrorist fighter phenomenona, international prosecution of foreign terrorist fighters, and the violation of the fundamental rights of foreign terrorist fighters in domestic prosecutions. UN Security Council in 2014 adopted Resolution 2178 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. However, while the Resolution outlines the description of a foreign terrorist fighter, it fails to distinguish between armed conflicts and terrorism. Resolution 2178 defines foreign terrorist fighters as individuals who travel to a state other than their states of residence or nationality for the purpose of the perpetration, planning, or preparation of, or participation in, terrorist acts or the providing or receiving of terrorist training, including in connection with armed conflict, while foreign fighter is an individual who travels abroad with intention to join armed conflict. The research led to the conclusion that there is currently no international prosecution of foreign terrorist fighters because states carry it out before national courts. UN Security Council has placed the burden of prosecuting foreign terrorist fighters on UN Member States by establishing different committees monitoring the implementation of the Security Council sanctions, such as the 1267 Committee and the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team. In the cases of Nada, Ahmed and Abdelrazik, national courts due to violations of fundamental rights, repealed national administrative acts that introduced the adopted UN Security Council counter terrorism resolutions. The Court of Justice of the EU made a similar decision in the case of Kadi by repealing the regulation introducing the UN Security Council sanctions. Judgements of national and EU courts were the main factor in changing the UN terrorism framework in terms of international law, thus shifting the focus on the respect of fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.