Suchergebnisse

Dugo je vremena koncept suvereniteta smatran kamenom temeljcem domaćeg i međunarodnog prava te političke misli. Koncepcija suvereniteta blisko je povezana s koncepcijom države. Bilo je to »normalno« stanje države, u kojem ona ima vrhovnu ili konačnu vlast u unutarnjim političkim i pravnim pitanjima, a svojstvo neovisnosti prema drugim državama. Međunarodnu zajednicu činile su ravnopravne i neovisne države. Danas, na početku 21. stoljeća, koncept suvereniteta izložen je mnogim izazovima, od kojih je najznačajniji proces globalizacije koji je doveo do sve veće međupovezanosti ljudi širom svijeta vidljive na svim poljima: političkim, vojnim, ekonomskim, kulturnim i pravnim. U ovom radu usredotočit ćemo se na pitanje kako globalizacija utječe na državni suverenitet te da ti pregled argumenata korištenih u novijoj literaturi. ; The concept of sovereignty was for a long time considered as one of the cornerstones of national and international law, and of political thought. The concept of sovereignty was closely connected with the concept of the state. It was a »normal« situation of a country where it had supreme or final power in political and legal matters in its domestic affairs, while at the same time it was independent in relation to all other countries. The international community used to consist of equal and independent states. At the beginning of the 21st century, the concept of sovereignty is faced with many challenges, both in theory and in practice. What happens within a country's territory and to its inhabitants is now less a consequence of national politics than the result of international circumstances – the difference between internal and foreign affairs is becoming increasingly vague. Several processes are happening simultaneously: globalisation (the development of information and communication technology; increase in foreign investments, the development of multinational corporations, and strengthening of the international economic and trade organisations' role), the process of European integration, the development of international protection of human rights (the development of cogent rules of international law, humanitarian interventions, the role of transnational non- governmental organisations), and the phenomenon of »failed states«. All the above mentioned has created a need to redefine the concept of sovereignty.

Dugo je vremena koncept suvereniteta smatran kamenom temeljcem domaćeg i međunarodnog prava te političke misli. Koncepcija suvereniteta blisko je povezana s koncepcijom države. Bilo je to »normalno« stanje države, u kojem ona ima vrhovnu ili konačnu vlast u unutarnjim političkim i pravnim pitanjima, a svojstvo neovisnosti prema drugim državama. Međunarodnu zajednicu činile su ravnopravne i neovisne države. Danas, na početku 21. stoljeća, koncept suvereniteta izložen je mnogim izazovima, od kojih je najznačajniji proces globalizacije koji je doveo do sve veće međupovezanos- ti ljudi širom svijeta vidljive na svim poljima: političkim, vojnim, ekonomskim, kulturnim i pravnim. U ovom radu usredotočit ćemo se na pitanje kako globalizacija utječe na državni suverenitet te dati pregled argumenata korištenih u novijoj literaturi. ; The concept of sovereignty was for a long time considered as one of the corner- stones of national and international law, and of political thought. The concept of sovereignty was closely connected with the concept of the state. It was a »normal« situation of a country where it had supreme or final power in political and legal matters in its domestic affairs, while at the same time it was independent in relation to all other countries. The international community used to consist of equal and independent States. At the beginning of the 21st Century, the concept of sovereignty is faced with many challenges, both in theory and in practice. What happens within a country's territory and to its inhabitants is now less a consequence of national politics than the result of international circumstances - the difference between internal and foreign affairs is becoming increasingly vague. Several processes are happening simultaneously: globalisation (the development of information and communication technology; increase in foreign Investments, the development of multinational corporations, and strengthening of the international economic and trade organisations' role), the process of European integration, the development of international protection of human rights (the development of cogent rules of international law, humanitarian interventions, the role of transnational non/governmental organisations), and the phenomenon of »failed States«. All the above mentioned has created a need to redefine the concept of sovereignty.

U ovom se članku govori o političkome kontekstu i pravnome okviru za uspostavu suvereniteta Republike Hrvatske te se ukazuje na legalnost vojno-redarstvenih akcija s obzirom na odredbe tuzemnoga i međunarodnoga prava. Riječ je i o političkome i pravnome okviru u kojemu su nastale srpske autonomne oblasti, odnosno paradržavna tvorevina Republika Srpska Krajina na državnome teritoriju Republike Hrvatske. ; This paper speaks about political context and legal framework for establishing sovereignty of the Republic of Croatia. It points out legality of military-police actions with regard to provisions of domestic and international law. The subject is also political and legal framework in which Serbian autonomous territories were established or parastate creation Republic of Serbian Krajina in the state territory of the Republic of Croatia.

The problem with sovereignty is that it is marked by traditional paradoxes: namely, it represents a stance that presumes an institutional solution, & simultaneously empowers all institutions of a given community (& thus is above them). Sovereignty has the form of a legal instance, but it is also the prerequisite of an entire (positive) legal system of a community; it manifests itself always as a political problem, but nowhere is its solution purely political; & finally, sovereignty is considered a fundamental national categorical (constitutional) basis for existence of a nation, but simultaneously it is always considered, affirmed, &, to some degree, determined in the international context. Adapted from the source document.

In contrast with earlier formulations of Hobbes' science of politics, the theory of sovereignty in Leviathan is expounded on a completely new legal basis. It is the theory of authorization, whereby the fundamental political relation between sovereign & subject is conceived as a representative relation. This work shows that, up to Leviathan & within the conceptual framework of state theory, sovereignty was defined as might & authority, but not as power. The missing element was legal substance, without which both might & authority are insufficient to make possible permanent abandonment of the natural condition. The theory of authorization is precisely the solution to the problem of constituting the state as a single legal person interconnecting the sovereign & the subjects. At the core of the theory lies the concept of person, which covers various modalities of the representative-represented relation. It is through the concept of artificial person that Hobbes shows in what way the disconnected multitude of individuals can be transformed into an operative political unity. This comes about as a result of the sovereign being given authorization by future subjects, who pledge to accept his will as their own in matters related to preservation of peace. Thus they can be legally treated as a single legal person, to which the will of the sovereign is ascribed as its own will. By accepting the will of the sovereign -- the artificial person of their representative -- as their own, the subjects themselves become an artificial person: the state. Adapted from the source document.

In the first part of the paper the conceptual framework of the political science approach to the state is outlined using some key insights of the contemporary political theory of the state. The second part of the paper contains a critical discussion about the scope & the purpose of those insights & puts forward a possible partial reconstruction of the main types of the state as methodological grounds for the developmental & comparative research of the process of the so-called transition. As the methodological basis for a contemporary reconstruction of the theory of the state, the set of basic terms (power, government, authority) -- as identified by A. Passerin d'Entreves -- can be used. A productive elaboration of these basic terms can be carried out by critically looking into the possibilities of combining the systematic approach by Passerin d'Entreves, the genealogical approach by Barret-Kriegel & the historico-political one by Q. Skinner. Also, the author points out how a full reconstruction of the concept of the state is not possible without a parallel reconstruction of the concept of society. The state as the fundamental legal/political project of modernism is possible only as a complementary process to the creation of the civic society as the fundamental politico-economic project of modernism. The state (sovereign) & the society (civic) are modern creations whose raison d'etre is the legal, economic & political subjectivization of the individual. The co-constitutive link between the state & the society -- the precondition for the possibility of the genuine process of the individual's emancipation in modernism -- is methodologically the central assumption for understanding the state & the logic of sovereignty. This reconstructed comprehensive understanding of the state enables a valid differentiation of the types of states in comparative research. The working hypothesis of this paper is to distinguish two pure types of the (modern) state: the power state (Machtstaat) & the legal state (Rechtsstaat). The reconstruction of the modern concept of the state & its major forms offers the final opportunity to identify the methodological injunction for looking into the logic of transition as the transition in the direction of the sovereign legal state in the fullness of its contemporary definition. References. Adapted from the source document.

Different parts of state territory on land, sea, & in the airspace are explained first. The concept of territorial sovereignty is envisaged through principles of its all-inclusiveness & its exclusivity, subject to many exceptions & restrictions imposed either by rules of general international law or by specific treaty obligations that can be assumed by a state. The concept of state servitudes was not assimilated in the practice of international courts & tribunals. Besides, it can be the cause of some misconceptions & confusion in public international law. Within the explanation of territorial boundaries are discussed the so-called natural boundaries -- such as rivers, lakes, & mountain boundaries -- as well as the artificial boundaries. An explanation of the principle of uti possidetis, of procedures of fixing boundaries, & of special legal scope of boundary treaties in international law is offered in conclusion. Adapted from the source document.

The author portrays the crisis of national & state sovereignty in contemporary Europe, the consequence of economic & political integrational processes, & the creation of new supranational institutions. The question is whether these supranational institutions can be democratically structured & if they can provide for the level of social integration that used to be secured by the national state. The most recent discussions have revolved around theoretical concepts of denationalized sovereignties, international legislation, & asynchronous denationalization, which are indicative of the crisis of national sovereignty. Possible modes of the distribution of sovereign authorities among various constituents have been developed based on an extremely interesting historical parallel between the institutional structure of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation in the pivotal years from 1495 to 1576 & the existing or proposed institutions of the European Union. The prospects of the European Union, the author concludes, are not going to be determined or affected by the lack of democracy but by the lack of political efficiency & unity. Adapted from the source document.

Information technologies, free flow of information, free media & the right to communication are the pillars communicative sovereignty springs up from, relying upon them, too. This was a 20th century creation but it has been globally & more fully realised in the 21st century. Civilisational openness & acceptance ability are the key categories for prosperity of communicative sovereignty. References. Adapted from the source document.

Foreign policy & diplomatic skills played a key role in the survival & development of the Dubrovnik Republic for more than four & a half centuries. Throughout the period, the Dubrovnik Republic had foreign-policy sovereignty, which was manifest in the fact that it autonomously decided upon its relations with other states (including recognition of other states), signed international contracts, & established & maintained diplomatic & consular relations. Through timely awareness of the advantages of their geopolitical position & through their orientation towards the sea, the people of Dubrovnik entered into numerous international political & trade relations, both with countries in their continental background & with countries throughout, & beyond, the Mediterranean. They were able to assess & utilize such geopolitical & other relevant characteristics wisely & skillfully in the defense of their independence, sovereignty & economic growth, resorting almost exclusively to diplomatic means & diplomatic skill. The Dubrovnik foreign policy was based on the principle of remaining neutral in international conflicts & of stressing its position of the last Christian enclave in south-eastern Europe. As a small country with no military force, Dubrovnik managed to survive by seeking protection of powerful states, such as the Ugric-Croatian Kingdom, the Pope, the Spanish King and, finally, Turkey. In spite of the fact that first the Ugric-Croatian Kingdom, & then Turkey, provided it with "supreme protection," the Dubrovnik Republic succeeded in establishing & preserving for centuries all relevant components of state sovereignty. Adapted from the source document.

The author initiates the article with the theory that the concept of sovereignty significantly differs in the late Middle Ages & the early modern age. Bodin gave to the sovereign the competency to both legislate & command, thus creating a significant shift forward from the medieval monarchical competency. Although he connected the two competencies, he was still unable to make the sovereign master of law but only master of statutes, with some limitations. The modern age recognizes two types of sovereignty: sovereignty of the sovereign & sovereignty of the people. The first case deals with absolute monarchies, while the second is concerned with democracies. Today, only the latter case is politically relevant. The author differentiates between 'the people' as a group of autonomous individuals, & 'the people' as an organic entity. The first form of political unity comes from autonomous individuals, & sees in the government only limiting power, while the second sees the basis for political unity in the whole of the ethnic body, culture, language, religion, history, etc. The second form has its roots in the romanticism of the 19th century; since the fall of socialist systems, it is again dominant in political thought & practice. The author warns of the dangers of one-sided use of organic unity in the creation of political communities & considers a combination of national & individual elements (democratic & liberal) the only successful basis for sovereignty. Adapted from the source document.

International pressure prevented Croatia from ending the occupation of eastern Slavonia by military means. The author claims that the policy of peaceful integration & the UNTAES mandate are rife with risks that might jeopardize eventual Croatian control of that region. He points out a set of contentious issues related to the occupied territory: incomplete demilitarization, dual government (parallel UNTAES & Serbian authorities), no return for non-Serbian refugees, staying-in-place of Serbs from other parts of Croatia, Bosnia, & Serbia. Particularly risky for Croatia are the efforts of local Serbs to retain absolute ethnic majority as the grounds for establishing territorial autonomy, which would enable the militant acolytes of Greater Serbian politics to remain in the region & push for secession & annexation by Serbia -- efforts that would in all probability be given military support by Serbia, this time under circumstances that would be much more unfavorable for Croatia than in 1995. The author concludes that for Croatia, the only acceptable solution is the total integration of eastern Slavonia & the establishment of full Croatian sovereignty; the creation of a Serbian autonomous province in that region must on no account be permitted. Adapted from the source document.