Suchergebnisse

The title of the article refers to P. Manent's essay, describing "the return of political philosophy". Using the distinction between science and art, suggested by thinkers such as J.S. Mill, an analysis was made of the possible responses of legal theory to the so-called "political turn" in social sciences and humanities. Attempts were made to show that transplanting such terms as "politics", "the political", "polity" (in the text they function under more theoretically neutral term: "politicalness") into the field of legal discourse leads to the rejection of the so far dominant (referring to the ideal of Ch. Montesquieu) image of the activity of lawyers as "artisans" practicing the art of law and to replacing it with the image of a lawyer-artists or lawyer-scientist. ; Tytuł artykułu nawiązuje do eseju P. Manenta, opisującego "powrót filozofii politycznej". Korzystając z rozróżnienia między nauką a sztuką, zaproponowanego przez J.S. Milla, dokonano analizy możliwych reakcji prawników i teorii prawa na wyraźny "zwrot polityczny" w naukach społecznych i humanistycznych. Starano się wykazać, że przeszczepienie takich terminów jak "polityka" i "polityczność" na grunt nauk prawnych prowadzi do odrzucenia dominującego dotąd (nawiązującego do ideału K. Monteskiusza) wyobrażenia działalności prawników jako "rzemieślników" uprawiających sztukę prawniczą oraz do zastąpienia go wyobrażeniem prawnika-artysty lub prawnika-naukowca.

The paper has the objective to present public diplomacy as a discipline requiring interdisciplinary approach. At the current stage of development of the discipline, the approach rooted in the theory of international relations is dominating. The author suggests inclusion of the tools used for the analysis of political communication into the body of research on new public diplomacy. Therefore, there is nothing more as an aggregate of paradigms and tools of two disciplines implemented at the moment.Public diplomacy was defined in the paper as a symmetrical form of international, political communication targeted at foreign public opinion in order to facilitate the achievement of the goals of state abroad. Currently, the adjective "new" as added to public diplomacy, means that new public diplomacy is different from informational public diplomacy of United States before the liquidation of USIA. The new public diplomacy acknowledges non state organizations as actors of international relations and adjusts to the logic of globalization. New public diplomacy should not be equalized with political propaganda. ; The paper has the objective to present public diplomacy as a discipline requiring interdisciplinary approach. At the current stage of development of the discipline, the approach rooted in the theory of international relations is dominating. The author suggests inclusion of the tools used for the analysis of political communication into the body of research on new public diplomacy. Therefore, there is nothing more as an aggregate of paradigms and tools of two disciplines implemented at the moment.Public diplomacy was defined in the paper as a symmetrical form of international, political communication targeted at foreign public opinion in order to facilitate the achievement of the goals of state abroad. Currently, the adjective "new" as added to public diplomacy, means that new public diplomacy is different from informational public diplomacy of United States before the liquidation of USIA. The new public diplomacy acknowledges non state organizations as actors of international relations and adjusts to the logic of globalization. New public diplomacy should not be equalized with political propaganda.

Celem tekstu jest wskazanie na nową dyplomacją publiczną jako na obszar badawczy, który wymaga podejścia interdyscyplinarnego. Na obecnym etapie rozwoju tej dyscypliny dominują podejścia badawcze i narzędzia zaczerpnięte z nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych. Autorka postuluje włączenie podstawowych paradygmatów badań nad komunikacją polityczną do analizy nowej dyplomacji publicznej. Na razie jednak nie można wskazać takiego podejścia badawczego, które wychodziłoby poza prostą sumę metod stosowanych w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych i badaniach nad komunikacja polityczną. Na potrzeby artykułu dyplomacja publiczna została zdefiniowana jako symetryczna forma międzynarodowej komunikacji politycznej, której celem jest wspieranie osiągnięcia celów państwa za granicą poprzez wpływanie na opinię publiczną. Współcześnie dyplomację publiczna określa się jako "nową", aby odróżnić ją od dyplomacji publicznej Stanów Zjednoczonych, uprawianą przed 1999 r. oraz wskazać na dostosowanie tej formy komunikacji politycznej do procesów globalizacji, w tym do rosnącego znaczenia aktorów niepaństwowych w stosunkach międzynarodowych. W tym ujęciu dyplomacja publiczna nie jest tożsama z propagandą. ; The paper has the objective to present public diplomacy as a discipline requiring interdisci - plinary approach. At the current stage of development of the discipline, the approach rooted in the theory of international relations is dominating. The author suggests inclusion of the tools used for the analysis of political communication into the body of research on new public diplo - macy. Therefore, there is nothing more as an aggregate of paradigms and tools of two disciplines implemented at the moment. Public diplomacy was defined in the paper as a symmetrical form of international, political communication targeted at foreign public opinion in order to facilitate the achievement of the goals of state abroad. Currently, the adjective "new" as added to public diplomacy, means that new public diplomacy is different from informational public diplomacy of United States before the liquidation of USIA. The new public diplomacy acknowledges non state organizations as ac - tors of international relations and adjusts to the logic of globalization. New public diplomacy should not be equalized with political propaganda

The opposition between the participationist approach, which favours wide participation of the people in democratic political process, and the deliberationist model, according to which political power should be exercised by people endowed with adequate cognitive competences, remains an important theme of the present debates in the theory of democracy. The author believes that those interpretations of the deliberationist model which perceive knowledge as a primary source of legitimation of participation in the political power, are guilty of a "cognitivist fallacy", and points out to dangers stemming from ascribing a prominent role to cognitive competences. In opposition to the "epistocratic" model, he stressed the importance of political skill in the governance of democratic systems. Taking as a starting point the belief that the normative ideal of democracy is based upon an egalitarian assumption of potentially universal ability to develop the political skill, he claims that this potentiality can be actualized through the very participation in political activity. ; Opozycja między podejściem partycypacjonistycznym, zakładającym szerokie uczestnictwo obywateli w demokratycznym procesie politycznym, a modelem deliberacjonistycznym, według którego władzę polityczną winny sprawować osoby obdarzone odpowiednimi kompetencjami poznawczymi, pozostaje ważkim tematem współczesnych debat w teorii demokracji. Autor twierdzi, że interpretacje modelu deliberacjonistycznego, uznające wiedzę za wiodące źródło prawomocnego uczestnictwa w sprawowaniu władzy politycznej, są obciążone "błędem kognitywistycznym" oraz wskazuje na niebezpieczeństwa wynikające z przypisania istotnej roli politycznej kompetencjom poznawczym.W opozycji do modelu "epistokratycznego" kładzie nacisk na wagę umiejętności politycznej w zarządzaniu systemami demokratycznymi. Biorąc za punkt wyjścia normatywny ideał demokracji, oparty na egalitarnym założeniu o potencjalnie powszechnej zdolności do kształtowania umiejętności politycznej, twierdzi, że ta potencjalność może się aktualizować przez samym udział w aktywności politycznej.

The purpose of this article is to analyse the relationship between adjudication and the concept of the political. By referring to the understanding of the concept of the political developed inter alia by Carl Schmitt and Chantal Mouffe, the article posits that not all judicial decisions (individual instances of adjudication) should be treated as belonging to the sphere of the political, but only those which fulfil jointly two premises: firstly, they are true decisions, involving at least some degree of discretionality (in the sphere of facts, or in the sphere of law, or in the sphere of the legal classification of facts), and secondly, involving a conflict which is structural for the community or society within which this adjudication is performed. Political adjudication should not be perceived as per se wrong, nonetheless it should be subject to a democratic scrutiny and sustained critique to with greater attention than apolitical adjudication, which merely involves the mechanical application of unambiguous legal rules to undisputed facts.

The article aims to present the current situation in Ukraine through international relations theory that is able to provide the necessary theoretical background to analyse the complex problems that unfold in the contemporary international environment. These problems are analysed through several perspectives including realist, postmodern and socialconstructivist dimensions, as well as from the point of view of classical institutionalism. What is more, on the basis of their deliberations, the authors describe several possible scenarios of the future events, including the strategy of Russia to continue destabilization in Ukraine in order to seize control over its entire territory and the long-term effects of international sanctions on the Russian economy with the possibility of the collapse of the aggressor state. Nonetheless, the Crimean crisis reveals an important fact that, according to the authors, has deep ramifications for the entire international security system – at present, the international community is not able to exert influence on any of the nuclear powers through military means. While other, non-military means of influence can be used, such as broad economic sanctions or political isolation of an aggressor-state, they are not effective immediately thus allowing the aggressor states to violate international law with a feeling of impunity and invincibility.

The article aims to present the current situation in Ukraine through international relations theory that is able to provide the necessary theoretical background to analyse the complex problems that unfold in the contemporary international environment. These problems are analysed through several perspectives including realist, postmodern and socialconstructivist dimensions, as well as from the point of view of classical institutionalism. What is more, on the basis of their deliberations, the authors describe several possible scenarios of the future events, including the strategy of Russia to continue destabilization in Ukraine in order to seize control over its entire territory and the long-term effects of international sanctions on the Russian economy with the possibility of the collapse of the aggressor state. Nonetheless, the Crimean crisis reveals an important fact that, according to the authors, has deep ramifications for the entire international security system – at present, the international community is not able to exert influence on any of the nuclear powers through military means. While other, non-military means of influence can be used, such as broad economic sanctions or political isolation of an aggressor-state, they are not effective immediately thus allowing the aggressor states to violate international law with a feeling of impunity and invincibility.

Taking as the starting the normative ideal of democracy, grounded in an inclusive understanding of the subject point of democracy, the author argues that various concepts of democracy assign particularly important role to cognitive competences and see it as an exclusive entitlement to participate in the exercise of political power in democratic systems. The case in point is contemporary debate on the proper understanding of democracy which focuses on the dilemma between, on the one hand, the idea of broad participation of the people in the democratic governance, and, on the other, the deliberative ideal which presupposes that power in these systems should be entrusted only to people with appropriate cognitive competences. The author analyzes the main elements of "cognitocratic" or "epistocratic" conceptions and points out to potential perils resulting from the attribution of a prominent role in the theory of democracy to cognitive competences. In opposition to cognitocratic approaches, both in their universalist and elite versions, the author argues that a more adequate understanding of governance in democratic systems should instead be based on the wider category of political ability. He also claims that a novel definition of this category should be informed by the normative ideal of democracy which is based on the recognition of potentially universal capabilities to develop the political ability and that this potential may in fact be activated through the actual participation in democratic politics. ; Wychodząc od normatywnego ideału demokracji, ugruntowanego w inkluzywnym rozumieniu podmiotu demokracji, autor twierdzi, że w większości koncepcji demokracji kompetencje poznawcze są postrzegane jako podstawowy wymóg upoważniający do udziału w sprawowaniu władzy politycznej. Współczesna debata nad właściwym rozumieniem demokracji koncentruje się na próbach rozstrzygnięcia dylematu między ideą szerokiego uczestnictwa ludu w sprawowaniu władzy a ideałem deliberacyjnym, który zakłada, że władza w tych systemach winna być powierzona wyłącznie osobom o odpowiednich kompetencjach poznawczych. Autor analizuje główne elementy stanowisk kognitokratycznych i wskazuje na potencjalne zagrożenia wynikające z przypisywania kompetencjom poznawczym wyróżnionej roli. Stanowiska tego typu, zarówno w wersji uniwersalistycznej, jak i elitarnej, są według autora obciążone błędem kognitokratycznym. W opozycji do nich autor argumentuje na rzecz tezy o podstawowej roli umiejętności politycznej w systemach demokratycznych. Wskazuje również, że punktem wyjścia do rozważań nad znaczeniem tego pojęcia winien być normatywny ideał demokracji inkluzywnej, zakładający powszechność zdolności do kształtowania umiejętności politycznej oraz przekonanie, że owa zdolność może ulegać aktualizacji w samym procesie aktywności politycznej.

Wychodząc od normatywnego ideału demokracji, ugruntowanego w inkluzywnym rozumieniu podmiotu demokracji, autor twierdzi, że w większości koncepcji demokracji kompetencje poznawcze są postrzegane jako podstawowy wymóg upoważniający do udziału w sprawowaniu władzy politycznej. Współczesna debata nad właściwym rozumieniem demokracji koncentruje się na próbach rozstrzygnięcia dylematu między ideą szerokiego uczestnictwa ludu w sprawowaniu władzy a ideałem deliberacyjnym, który zakłada, że władza w tych systemach winna być powierzona wyłącznie osobom o odpowiednich kompetencjach poznawczych. Autor analizuje główne elementy stanowisk kognitokratycznych i wskazuje na potencjalne zagrożenia wynikające z przypisywania kompetencjom poznawczym wyróżnionej roli. Stanowiska tego typu, zarówno w wersji uniwersalistycznej, jak i elitarnej, są według autora obciążone błędem kognitokratycznym. W opozycji do nich autor argumentuje na rzecz tezy o podstawowej roli umiejętności politycznej w systemach demokratycznych. Wskazuje również, że punktem wyjścia do rozważań nad znaczeniem tego pojęcia winien być normatywny ideał demokracji inkluzywnej, zakładający powszechność zdolności do kształtowania umiejętności politycznej oraz przekonanie, że owa zdolność może ulegać aktualizacji w samym procesie aktywności politycznej. ; Taking as the starting the normative ideal of democracy, grounded in an inclusive understanding of the subject point of democracy, the author argues that various concepts of democracy assign particularly important role to cognitive competences and see it as an exclusive entitlement to participate in the exercise of political power in democratic systems. The case in point is contemporary debate on the proper understanding of democracy which focuses on the dilemma between, on the one hand, the idea of broad participation of the people in the democratic governance, and, on the other, the deliberative ideal which presupposes that power in these systems should be entrusted only to people with appropriate cognitive competences. The author analyzes the main elements of "cognitocratic" or "epistocratic" nconceptions and points out to potential perils resulting from the attribution of a prominent role in the theory of democracy to cognitive competences. In opposition to cognitocratic approaches, both in their universalist and elite versions, the author argues that a more adequate understanding of governance in democratic systems should instead be based on the wider category of political ability. He also claims that a novel definition of this category should be informed by the normative ideal of democracy which is based on the recognition of potentially universal capabilities to develop the political ability and that this potential may in fact be activated through the actual participation in democratic politics.

The separation of theory and practice of the European integration created a very dangerous situation for the European Union. The article presents this crisis from the points of view of philosophy, political science and journalism. The"European poison of thought" expressed by a lack of trust of citizens towards the EU institutions perceived as inadequate in addressing the most fundamental problems of the EU citizens, as well as scepticism towards the enlargement of the Union, aversion to financial solidarity with weaker Member States, and disappointment with legal overregulation and money wasting, are just a few out of a long list of problems that make people lose their trust in the European integration. The author also considers the greatest weaknesses of the European Union: preferring interests of those who are present and well-organised on the political arena and the fact that the real majority of EU citizens stays outside the formal democratic structures thus becoming a part of the process of exclusion and fragmentation. The state of affairs in the EU, following according to Karl Jaspers, is called a limit situation, where it possible either to withdraw or rise and exceed restrictions. The author considers hope and radicalism as two forces that power the European political activists; in order to unite them, a new faith, values and hope based on the traditional foundations are needed. This new way of thinking about the EU, the joined-up thinking, is possibly a response to the demand for a radical revival in the EU.

The separation of theory and practice of the European integration created a very dangerous situation for the European Union. The article presents this crisis from the points of view of philosophy, political science and journalism. The"European poison of thought" expressed by a lack of trust of citizens towards the EU institutions perceived as inadequate in addressing the most fundamental problems of the EU citizens, as well as scepticism towards the enlargement of the Union, aversion to financial solidarity with weaker Member States, and disappointment with legal overregulation and money wasting, are just a few out of a long list of problems that make people lose their trust in the European integration. The author also considers the greatest weaknesses of the European Union: preferring interests of those who are present and well-organised on the political arena and the fact that the real majority of EU citizens stays outside the formal democratic structures thus becoming a part of the process of exclusion and fragmentation. The state of affairs in the EU, following according to Karl Jaspers, is called a limit situation, where it possible either to withdraw or rise and exceed restrictions. The author considers hope and radicalism as two forces that power the European political activists; in order to unite them, a new faith, values and hope based on the traditional foundations are needed. This new way of thinking about the EU, the joined-up thinking, is possibly a response to the demand for a radical revival in the EU.

Research objective: The aim of the paper is the analysis of the impact of political participation on democratic system. The reference plane of the analysis is direct democracy (including its forms comprised in Polish constitution), in that its limits and drawbacks.The research problem and methods: The research problem is considering the issue: Is any type of participation strengthening democratic system? The overall impact of participation on democracy according to contemporary theories of democracy is also taken into account in the analysis.The process of argumentation: Majority of theories of democracy assume that intensive participation results in better performance of political system. The practice of direct democracy proves however that citizens' decisions are very often based on erroneous premises. The competence of citizens who participate in democratic procedures is thus not less important than the level of participation. According to research results, both characteristics (quantity and quality of participation) are however divergent.Research results: Contemporary democracy faces the difficult choice. We can opt for lower level of participation, thus securing more competent political decisions but at the same time accepting the absence of many social groups in the process of interests' articulation. The other choice is the stimulation of high participation level, which implies the acceptance for the growing susceptibility for populism as well as the danger that irrational political options gain legitimacy. This dilemma seems to a great extent unresolvable.Conclusions, Innovations and Recommendations: The Stimulation of participation should be preceded by previous activity aimed at the increase of political knowledge of citizens as well as the forming of civic attitudes. ; CEL NAUKOWY: Celem tekstu jest analiza wpływu partycypacji politycznej na funkcjonowanie systemu demokratycznego. Istotnym punktem odniesienia są instrumenty demokracji bezpośredniej wykorzystywane we współczesnej demokracji (w tym te zawarte w Konstytucji RP z roku 1997), a zwłaszcza ich słabości i ograniczenia.PROBLEM I METODY BADAWCZE: Problemem badawczym jest odpowiedź na pytanie, czy każdy rodzaj partycypacji wzmacnia system demokratyczny. Zasadniczą kwestią jest też wskazanie, jak do kwestii wpływu partycypacji politycznej na demokrację odnosi się współczesna teoria demokracji, a zwłaszcza podejście pluralistyczne i elitystyczne.PROCES WYWODU: Większość koncepcji demokracji uznaje wysoki poziom partycypacji za element podnoszący jakość funkcjonowania systemu politycznego. Tymczasem doświadczenia związane ze stosowaniem demokracji bezpośredniej wskazują, że decyzje są często podejmowane przez obywateli na podstawie fałszywych przesłanek. Nie mniej istotna od poziomu partycypacji jest więc jej jakość (stopień kompetencji obywateli uczestniczących w procedurach demokratycznych). Badania dowodzą, że obydwie charakterystyki mają charakter rozbieżny – wyższe uczestnictwo polityczne wiąże się z niższym poziomem kompetencji osób uczestniczących w polityce.WYNIKI ANALIZY NAUKOWEJ: Alternatywa, która stoi przed współczesną demokracją, to z jednej strony akceptacja niskiego poziomu – bardziej kompetentnej – partycypacji, przy jednoczesnym osłabieniu skuteczności artykulacji interesów dużych grup politycznych; z drugiej zaś stymulowanie wysokiego poziomu partycypacji politycznej, przy świadomości, że zwiększa to podatność na populizm i niebezpieczeństwo silnej społecznej legitymizacji dla nieracjonalnych rozwiązań politycznych. Dylemat ten jest w istocie nierozwiązywalny.WNIOSKI, INNOWACJE, REKOMENDACJE: Stymulowanie partycypacji politycznej powinno być poprzedzone działaniami zwiększającymi poziom wiedzy politycznej i kształtującymi postawy obywatelskie.

The author of the article analyses the idea of political change, focusing on the question whether this change in Poland after the year 1989 was carried out by way of revolution or reforms. he considerations characterise mainly the idea of Mirosław Dzielski and his community, as well as relations with their opponents. Several elements of the above-named theory are brought out in the text. Firstly, the necessity of making comprehensive social changes for the success of the planned change. Secondly, reality diagnosis is necessary. Thirdly, planning of the form of political change, and finally, creation of the project for 'the system of freedom'. The article shows the uniqueness of Dzielski's opinions as a liberal. The author puts special emphasis on the fact that according to him, the reforms program should be directed not at communists but communism. What's more, he perceived that in the Polish conditions there was a collision between freedom and democracy, whereas in his opinion the primacy should go the former.

The paper presents academic achievements of traditional institutionalism, the first scientific approach in political science, which was developed since the second part of the 19th century in USA, Great Britain, Germany and France. The author argues that this orientation had a creative influence on the progress of the discipline, however this impact is not appreciated by contemporary studies in the field of political science and political theory where limited understanding of the old institutionalism is promoted. The revision of this state of affairs has shown that, apart from the analysis of formal structures and institutions of state power, the traditionalists also have studied political parties (A. L. Lowell), interest groups (T. Eschenburg), public opinion (J. Bryce) and informal socio-political phenomena such as influence (C. J. Friedrich). Additionally, the first institutionalists formed the foundations for methodological self-consciousness of young political science and forged concepts that have been verified by subsequent generations of political scientists. They also conducted the first comparative studies of political systems (H. Finer, C. J. Friedrich). Many of these scholars went beyond pure theory by linking their reflections with planning and reforming political institutions. In this context, the author discusses research on relations between politics and administration (F. J. Goodnow), considerations on demonopolization of power (H. J. Laski) and refers to the debate on efficiency of different branches of government (e.g. in Poland after passing the March Constitution of 1921).

The paper presents academic achievements of traditional institutionalism, the first scientific approach in political science, which was developed since the second part of the 19th century in USA, Great Britain, Germany and France. The author argues that this orientation had a creative influence on the progress of the discipline, however this impact is not appreciated by contemporary studies in the field of political science and political theory where limited understanding of the old institutionalism is promoted. The revision of this state of affairs has shown that, apart from the analysis of formal structures and institutions of state power, the traditionalists also have studied political parties (A. L. Lowell), interest groups (T. Eschenburg), public opinion (J. Bryce) and informal socio-political phenomena such as influence (C. J. Friedrich). Additionally, the first institutionalists formed the foundations for methodological self-consciousness of young political science and forged concepts that have been verified by subsequent generations of political scientists. They also conducted the first comparative studies of political systems (H. Finer, C. J. Friedrich). Many of these scholars went beyond pure theory by linking their reflections with planning and reforming political institutions. In this context, the author discusses research on relations between politics and administration (F. J. Goodnow), considerations on demonopolization of power (H. J. Laski) and refers to the debate on efficiency of different branches of government (e.g. in Poland after passing the March Constitution of 1921).