Suchergebnisse

According to Paul Kahn, one of the leading American constitutional theorists, the terms 'nation' and 'national sovereignty' are beyond the moral argument. From the perspective of constitutional ontology, the nation is the community of all those who share the 'political eros' love of the nation, who are ready to respond to her call and, if necessary, lay down their lives on the altar of its self-preservation. The moral debate about the limits of nation's state is meaningless, tells us Kahn. The boundaries of all, even liberal states arise through a 'make sacrifices' they 'never just a matter of geography', and therefore 'there is no abstract drawing of borders by some principle of justice. As in the life of the individual, the limits have the same necessity: There is nothing abstract in that necessity.'. Adapted from the source document.

The author's thesis stated in the title is based on the theoretical and practical experience of modern political regimes, particularly on the example of the Croatian postcommunist experience. The author shows how the belated political constitution of the nation has occurred at the expense of political emancipation, pluralization and democratization. Small nations, which did not take part in the creation of modern state and the establishment of the contemporary political and legal culture, suffer from a double setback: they did not have a state of their own and are regarded small, "unhistorical" peoples. The fascination and obsession with the state and the identification of the nation with the state is especially visible in those postcommunist societies that have not gone through the process of political emancipation, i.e. the emancipation of the state. The author points out that the fascination with the state has had serious consequences for the development of democracy since any oppositional opinion and activity or a criticism of the government is disqualified as an attack on the state. This fascination and the identification of the nation and the state is a barrier to state building since it stands in the way of its emancipation and integrational processes. (SOI : PM: S. 109)

The author analyzes two famous critiques of the bourgeois state: Marx's thesis on the withering away of the state as an instrument of force of the economicall dominant bourgeois class which, by means of the quasi-neutral state as the higher third instance controls the the class antagonisms whose disappearance will make the state as an instrument of repression obsolete; and Carl Schmitt's thesis that the state will become unnecessary in the world in which there are no longer any enemies, only offenders who violate humanistic norms and human rights. (SOI : PM: S. 68)

This article's point of departure is that the national self-determination doctrine remains one of the most paradoxical, contested, but successful doctrines which has largely contributed to the shape of our existing international system of nation-states. It argues that the doctrine which is intended to safeguard peace and human dignity is and always has been at the heart of many conflicts. Starting with the tension between the universality of the national self-determination doctrine and the particularity of the national group whose interests it promotes, the article explores other paradoxes contained within this doctrine. They range from political and legitimacy challenges to the very nation-state it creates, through the violations of human rights contrary to its very meaning, to the fact that national self-determination doctrine, far from being a national issue, is actually an international affair. While not rejecting the doctrine, the paper concludes with the final (ninth) paradox that perhaps the success of this doctrine should not be measured by how many states it can produce, but how it can make the existing states a safe home for more self-differentiating national groups. Adapted from the source document.