Suchergebnisse

The author discusses the concept of state neutrality through the debate led by political theorists over the last 30 years. The notion of neutrality is presented as crucial for legitimacy & the scope of liberal-democratic government & also as an institutional solution of the rising cultural, religious, & moral plurality of contemporary Western societies. Starting with Rawls's theory of justice, the article continues with Nozick's libertarian criticism, MacIntyre's criticism of liberalism, & the arguments of Sandel, Taylor, & Raz (respectively) about the incompatibility of the concepts of the common good & state neutrality. The author discusses relations between neutrality & the welfare state, plurality of values, public policy, & the common good. In conclusion, the author distinguishes neutrality of principle & neutrality of public policy, advocating for the former understanding of the notion of neutrality. 22 References. Adapted from the source document.

Switzerland's major contribution to the shaping of neutrality as an institution of international law lies in its centuries-old practice & its international recognition. However, Swiss neutrality still conforms to the classical military/political conflict, since in the past, it proved to be a successful security/political instrument in the protection of independence & territorial integrity. In the contemporary international/global constellation, there is almost no room for a neutral stance due to the global interdependence within the international community & the collective security, on the one hand, & the new threats & dangers lacking a classical military dimension, on the other. All this is conducive to the solidarity & cooperation whose purpose is protection, which requires international security/political efforts in securing peace. The Swiss government is of the opinion that participation in a collective security system such as the UN does not run counter to its permanent neutrality, since the UN Charter forbids war & does not recognize it as a means of the international regulation of conflicts. Also, the UN Charter does not oblige member countries to participate in any coercive military measure. Finally, by the admittance of the permanently neutral Austria into the UN, the practice has proved that neutrality & the collective security are compatible. On several occasions, the Swiss have raised the issue of UN membership; in the 1986 referendum, the Swiss citizens voted against this proposal, while on 3 Mar 2000, they voted in favor of it; the only other country besides Switzerland not in the UN is the Vatican. 32 References. Adapted from the source document.

The main task of the Swiss security policy up to the collapse of the bipolar system was the country's military defense. The content of its defense doctrine was elaborated on & further expanded as total defense in the non-military direction. The end of the cold war marked a departure from the classical defense doctrine & also relativized the mythological character of permanent neutrality, forcing Switzerland to redefine its security policy in the altered European security setting. The expansion of the concept of security went hand in hand with an increased interest in international peace efforts & international cooperation. In the meantime, Switzerland's instruments & activities have multiplied in both fields. In certain aspects, eg, the control of the policy of disarmament & armament, Switzerland has excelled. Concerning the new forms of threats & intimidation it has shown willingness for across-the-border cooperation, while the traditional formula security through neutrality & independence increasingly gives way to the new motto: Security through cooperation -- a shift from its time-honored foreign- & security/political course of restrictive & detached attitude towards a more intensive cooperation. Although conceptually the development of Swiss security policy & consequently its shift towards some peace policy has not been even remotely supported by a satisfactory redistribution of financial & personal resources, the Swiss military reform -- introduced in early 2004 -- is de facto a conceptual accommodation of the Swiss military force to the new plan on European security. Switzerland has become a member of the PfP although, due to its policy of neutrality, it is not planning to join the NATO. Nevertheless, Switzerland is vacillating between the EU membership & a more substantial rapprochement with the NATO, at the same time putting all its hopes into the development of global management under the direction of the United Nations & the joint security system. 2 Tables, 3 Figures, 19 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes fundamental concepts of the school of rational expectation (RATEX, an offspring of the Chicago school of economics). Theoretical foundations of the neoclassical macroeconomy are set out: the hypothesis of rational expectations in the circumstances of perfect competition & the principle of strategic interdependence. Central to these are the hypotheses of variants, misallocation of resources, & neutrality of economic policy. Outlined are rent-seeking & direct unproductive profit-seeking as well as alternative models in the new theoretical economy: economic constitutionalism, deficitarians, the theory of political business cycles, & supply-side economics. 22 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author compares the new law on higher education with the program demanded by the Croatian Social-Liberal Party. This is a two-level comparison: a direct comparison of excerpts from the text & the articles of the law, & an indirect comparison of fundamental principles & general policies. The law plays lip service to the requirements for private universities, autonomy, & ideological neutrality. In implementation of the law, the procedures as well as the law itself have been contravened. This is illustrated by a detailed outline of the unsatisfactory provisions of the law & the U of Zagreb statute regarding students. Adapted from the source document.

The author compares the new law on higher education with the program demanded by the Croatian Social-Liberal Party. This is a two-level comparison: a direct comparison of excerpts from the text & the articles of the law, & an indirect comparison of fundamental principles & general policies. The law plays lip service to the requirements for private universities, autonomy, & ideological neutrality. In implementation of the law, the procedures as well as the law itself have been contravened. This is illustrated by a detailed outline of the unsatisfactory provisions of the law & the U of Zagreb statute regarding students. Adapted from the source document.

The author thinks that liberalism, as a political doctrine, is eminently contradictory, the contradiction being embodied in its two variants. The perfectionist doctrines by William Galston & Joseph Raz advocate liberal forms of good life (autonomy, tolerance, openness to the world), while the antiperfectionist doctrine of John Rawls limits itself to defining the procedural foundations of justice. Raz's & Galston's liberal perfectionism is in danger, in the name of liberal values & virtues, of violating the principle of neutrality of political authority in relation to individual choice of values, while Rawls's concept of procedural justice cannot steer clear of the danger that the total permissiveness regarding individual value options eventually undermines the foundations of liberal society. The author concludes that the balance between perfectionism & anti perfectionism is essential for the defense of liberalism. Such argumentational strategy has to take into consideration the liberal notion of justice, the necessity of a liberating democratic politics, & the concept of a citizen as a subject who, by practicing active tolerance, accepts the responsibility for the community. Adapted from the source document.

The author thinks that liberalism, as a political doctrine, is eminently contradictory, the contradiction being embodied in its two variants. The perfectionist doctrines by William Galston & Joseph Raz advocate liberal forms of good life (autonomy, tolerance, openness to the world), while the antiperfectionist doctrine of John Rawls limits itself to defining the procedural foundations of justice. Raz's & Galston's liberal perfectionism is in danger, in the name of liberal values & virtues, of violating the principle of neutrality of political authority in relation to individual choice of values, while Rawls's concept of procedural justice cannot steer clear of the danger that the total permissiveness regarding individual value options eventually undermines the foundations of liberal society. The author concludes that the balance between perfectionism & anti perfectionism is essential for the defense of liberalism. Such argumentational strategy has to take into consideration the liberal notion of justice, the necessity of a liberating democratic politics, & the concept of a citizen as a subject who, by practicing active tolerance, accepts the responsibility for the community. Adapted from the source document.