Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 10

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The article discusses the problem of justification of protection of human beings’ individual rights within the solidaristic framework. Solidarists refuted the concepts of existence of innate human rights, which made the foundation for protection of a certain range of freedom of the individual, acknowledging it to be pure metaphysics that bore no relation to the reality. Only the rules that regulated interpersonal relations, existing solely and exclusively within social life, could be referred to as law. Therefore there did not exist the category of innate rights – connected with the very essence of humanity and anterior to human community. According to Solidarists, the justification of protection of a certain range of human beings’ individual freedom in their relations with others was an objective social progress, visible in the transition from mechanical into organic solidarity. The basis of protection of the individual’s rights was to be the social conviction, of the objective character, about the necessity of guaranteeing each man a certain scope of protection in order for him to perform his social function.
EN
The subject of the analysis presented in the text is an argument that tends to (and used to) be raised in the critical discourse on constitutionalism – the allegation of the so-called constitutional fetishism. The argument is to show why the constitutional discourse has lost its potential to explain and create social processes. The reason is that lawyers focus too much only on the content and interpretation of the provisions of the constitution, without considering a broader social context, which makes the constitutional discourse limited solely to legal issues with a simultaneous omission or underestimation of all other aspects of constitutionalism. This attitude of lawyers to the content of the constitution (or – in broader terms – to the provisions of law) is sometimes referred to even as idolatrous, hence the reference to the notion of fetishism in the religious sense. The aim of the text is to analyse the structure of this argument and to attempt to determine the impact it can have on constitutionalism.
EN
The article discusses the Case Method – the dominant method of teaching in American law schools, based on the analysis of judicial decisions, which was created in the 1870s by Christophus Collumbus Langdell. Langdell perceived law as a science similar to physics or chemistry, and thus as an ordered system of objective knowledge, and the method of teaching created by him was intended to prepare people dealing with law in a scientific manner. The article presents the Langdell’s concept of law, and the impact of his teaching method on streams of American legal philosophy – classical jurisprudence and legal realism.
PL
Artykuł omawia Case Method – dominującą metodę edukacyjną stosowaną w amerykańskich szkołach prawa, która polega na nauczaniu prawa poprzez analizę orzeczeń sądowych, stworzoną w latach 70. XIX w. przez Christophusa Collumbusa Langdella. Langdell postrzegał prawo jako naukę, podobną do fizyki czy chemii, a więc jako uporządkowany system obiektywnej wiedzy. Stworzona przez niego metoda nauczania służyć miała przygotowaniu osób zajmujących się prawem w sposób naukowy. W artykule przedstawiona została koncepcja prawa Langdella, oraz wpływ, jaki jego metoda nauczania wywarła na nurty amerykańskiej filozofii prawa – klasyczną jurysprudencję oraz realizm prawniczy.
EN
The article discusses the Case Method – the dominant method of teaching in American law schools, based on an analysis of judicial decisions, created in the 1870s by Christophus Collumbus Langdell. Langdell perceived law as a science similar to physics or chemistry, and hence as an ordered system of objective knowledge, and the method of teaching that he created was intended to educate people dealing with law in a scientific manner. The article presents Langdell’s concept of law and the impact of his teaching method on the trends in American legal philosophy – classical jurisprudence and legal realism
EN
The subject of the analysis presented in the text is an argument that tends to (and used to) be raised in the critical discourse on constitutionalism – the allegation of the so-called constitutional fetishism. The argument is to show why the constitutional discourse has lost its potential to explain and create social processes. The reason is that lawyers focus too much only on the content and interpretation of the provisions of the constitution, without considering a broader social context, which makes the constitutional discourse limited solely to legal issues with a simultaneous omission or underestimation of all other aspects of constitutionalism. This attitude of lawyers to the content of the constitution (or – in broader terms – to the provisions of law) is sometimes referred to even as idolatrous, hence the reference to the notion of fetishism in the religious sense. The aim of the text is to analyse the structure of this argument and to attempt to determine the impact it can have on constitutionalism.
PL
Przedmiotem analizy podjętej w tekście jest argument, jaki często bywa (i był w przeszłości) podnoszony w krytycznym dyskursie nad konstytucjonalizmem – zarzut tzw. fetyszyzmu konstytucyjnego. Argument ten ma ukazywać dlaczego dyskurs konstytucyjny utracił swój potencjał wyjaśniający i kreujący w stosunku do zachodzących procesów społecznych. Powodem jest fakt zbytniego skupiania się prawników wyłącznie na treści oraz interpretacji przepisów konstytucji, bez odwołania się do szerszego kontekstu społecznego, co skutkuje ograniczeniem dyskursu konstytucyjnego tylko do kwestii prawnych i jednoczesnym pominięciem lub bagatelizowaniem wszystkich innych aspektów konstytucjonalizmu. Ten stosunek prawników do treści konstytucji (czy szerzej – do przepisów prawa) określany jest czasami wręcz jako bałwochwalczy, stąd też odwołanie się do pojęcia fetyszyzmu w znaczeniu religijnym. Celem tekstu jest analiza struktury tego argumentu, ale także próba określenia skutków, jakie może nieść dla konstytucjonalizmu.
EN
The paper presents the analysis of totalism undertaken by Maciej Starzewski, professor of the government law at the Jagiellonian University, during the interwar period (1918–1939). The lawyer defined totalism as a system of wielding power which showed distinct similarities to the model of the absolute state and which constituted a fundamental negation of democracy. Starzewski searched for the origin of this system in the crisis of parliamentarianism which was caused by the lack of appropriate basis for the democratic form of rule. According to Starzewski, every totalism was characterized by three features: the existence of a single party which allegedly constituted a narrow elite of a nation and which existed in order to realize its ideological objectives. He distinguished two types of totalisms: nationalist (Fascism and National Socialism) and internationalist (Bolshevism) ones. Starzewski evaluated totalism negatively, regarding democracy as superior proposition. In Starzewski’s opinion, totalism was supposed to lead to artificial societal conflicts, enormous sacrifices suffered in the name of an official ideology’s realization, sharp polarization of society into the ruling privileged elite (single party) and the ruled masses. Besides, this system was also supposed to be immune to reform and intrinsically connected to a person of a leader; the second factor was supposed to make the system’s implosion after a leader’s demise unavoidable. According to Starzewski, a total system could only function efficiently in a short term and could only be implemented in order to contain some serious danger which threatened the very existence of State and society. When the peril disappears, the return to the democratic model is needed.
Roczniki Nauk Prawnych
|
2020
|
vol. 30
|
issue 4
131-148
EN
Mertitocracy, in the intention of the author of this concept Michael Young, meant entrusting the exercise of power over specific areas of social life to people with appropriate skills and competence. The implementation of meritocratic assumptions in social reality was to create a system where experts were to play a key role in managing social life. This postulate also referred to creating regulations for selected areas of social life, which should be entrusted to specialized, professional entities. The Author discusses the importance and role of meritocratic justification for legislation on the example of US independent regulatory agencies. This justification has a twofold role: 1) as a factor legitimizing the shape of the introduced regulations and 2) as a camouflage for the implementation of the interests of the agencies themselves or of specific pressure groups or group of interests.
PL
Uzasadnienie merytokratyczne w prawotwórstwie i jego krytyka na przykładzie działalności amerykańskich agencji rządowych Mertytokracja, w zamyśle autora tego pojęcia Michaela Younga, oznaczała powierzenie sprawowania władzy nad określonymi obszarami życia społecznego osobom posiadającym odpowiednie do tego umiejętności. Skutkiem implementacji założeń merytokratycznych miało być stworzenie systemu, gdzie kluczową rolę w zarządzaniu życiem społecznym pełnić mieli eksperci. Postulat ten odnosił się także do tworzenia regulacji wybranych dziedzin życia społecznego, co powinno zostać powierzone wyspecjalizowanym, profesjonalnym podmiotom. Autor omawia znaczenie i rolę uzasadnienia merytokratycznego dla prawodawstwa na przykładzie amerykańskich agencji regulacyjnych. Uzasadnienie to ma dwojakie znaczenie: 1) jako czynnik legitymizujący kształt wprowadzanych przepisów oraz 2) jako kamuflaż dla realizacji interesów samych agencji czy też określonych grup nacisku czy interesów.
EN
The article aims to provide an overview of the most popular law teaching methods in the USA (Langdell’s Case Study together with Socratic Method, Clinical Legal Education, and Problem Solving Method) with reference to the cultural context and philosophical background. First, the characteristic features of the American legal culture with regard to teaching law and ideological grounds of the American legal education are presented. Then the methods are discussed together with the context in which they were developed and the arguments for implementing them.
EN
This paper presents the notion of the protection of the rights of the Individuals on the basis of certain social processes and cultural conditions. Solidaristic, Communitarian, and Rorty’s pragmatic visions of individual rights rejected the notion of its protection on the basis of philosophical legitimation (on the Enlightment's universalistic approach towards rights of the individuals) or positivistic (on the notion that the legal acts in themselves are the sole source of individual's rights). Solidaristic approach hinges heavily on inter-personal relations and ever increasing complexity of social interactions resulting in increase in person’s individualization within the society. Communitarian approach relies on the assumption of balance between individual's rights and obligation within the society. According to this view the origins of rights of the individuals lay in the moral progress of the society. According to the Rorty's pragmatic approach protection of the rights of individuals in the Western culture has been achieved due to sense security and sympathy developed in the social life. This in turns allow for every individual to be treated on the equal footing.
PL
W artykule przedstawione zostały koncepcje ochrony praw jednostki oparte na odwołaniu do pewnych procesów społecznych lub konkretnych uwarunkowań kulturowych. Przedstawione wizje ochrony jednostki (solidarystyczna, kommunitariańska oraz pragmatyczna Rorty’ego) odrzucały uzasadnienie ochrony praw człowieka oparte na legitymacji filozoficznej (oświeceniowy uniwersalizm praw jednostki) lub pozytywistycznej (treści aktów prawnych zawierające przepisy chroniące prawa człowieka). Wizja solidarystyczna podstawy dla ochrony praw jednostki widziała w rozwoju solidarności międzyludzkiej i komplikowania się więzów społecznych, skutkujących coraz większą indywidualizacją w ramach społeczeństwa. Komunitarystyczna koncepcja ochrony praw człowieka zakładała z kolei równowagę praw i obowiązków każdej jednostki w ramach wspólnoty, genezę ochrony praw jednostek widząc w postępującym rozwoju moralnym społeczeństwa. Natomiast pragmatyczna koncepcja Rorty’ego za podstawę ochrony praw jednostki w kulturze Zachodu uznawała osiągnięty stan bezpieczeństwa oraz współczucia w ramach życia społecznego, pozwalający na traktowanie Innego w taki sam sposób, jak członków własnej społeczności.
EN
The paper presents views of Jerzy Giedroyc editor-in-chief of “Kultura” (most influential Polish-émigré literary-political journal after 1945) on the issue of Poland-Ukraine relations. From the very onset of “Kultura” in 1947 Giedroyc strongly advocates dialogue between Poland and Ukraine as a mean to achieve reconciliation between these nations. Recognition of Polish eastern border of 1945 as final, clarification of difficult past, support of Ukrainian drive to independence and wide cultural cooperation between two countries formed the pil­lar of his views. In Soviet times Gidroyc postulates the concept of federation between Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania and Belarus (ULB). Its raison d’être was to guarantee independence from both Russia and Germany. After Ukraine’s independence in 1991 Giedroyc departed from the idea of federation and turn to advocate the alliance and close Polish-Ukrainian cooperation. Giedroyc seen the role of Poland as a main link between Ukraine and Western Europe and a supporter of Ukraine independence from Russia.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.