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

Results found: 2

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
1

Myths of the European Constitution

100%
Nogal A.
Civitas. Studia z filozofii polityki (Civitas. Studies on politics philosophy)
|
2006
|
issue 9
80-98
EN
A successive stage in the coming into being of European legal order is connected with the transfer of competences previously reserved by nation states. Establishing laws whose subject is all the citizens of the member nations, adjudicating court disputes in the final instance, a common currency at last, all contribute to the coming into being of an order which might be called a constitutional one. Unfortunately, so far, discussion of the draft for a European constitution has not moved on to the philosophical level. Many elements such as the institutional separation of powers, extending the area of decisions made by the majority and the like, demonstrate that the project is a step in the direction of a European federation with single public sphere, system of representation and homogeneous, hierarchical system of authority within which the states become subordinate to decisions made by the Union and retain autonomy only within a specified extent. There does, however, exist a different vision, a community of communities within which Europe would be an area of agreed upon solutions. The public sphere would remain primarily reflected in the national parliaments and the Union institutions would solve problems signalled jointly by the member states. The draft Constitutional Treaty does not bring about revolutionary change to the legal order; the gradual evolution pursues toward the federal model. However, the community model has not been finally discarded. Thus the document is inconsistent. In it, two myths compete; the European Federation and European unity in diversity. Thanks to the rejection of the document, we may reflect on a common political future rather than once again explain something which became fact in haste.
2

Common Space

100%
Nogal A.
|
2006
|
vol. 15
|
issue 4(60)
279-287
EN
J.S. Mill argues that individual freedom is extremely important for individuals and for the humankind. Not only tyranny but also democratic government may be dangerous for individual freedom because of 'the tyranny of the majority'. Each individual needs protection from dominat emotions and sentiments but at the same time common sentiments are more fundamental than political organisation. Special sentiments connected with the feeling of belonging, are the reason to call for self-government. The rule of self-government is extremely important: the question of government ought to be decided by the governed. The governed should also decide on the composition of collective bodies they choose to associate themselves with. But the freedom of association is not an absolute prerogative. Only among a people with fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak the same language, a united public opinion necessary for the functioning of representative government can arise. These kinds of feelings are important not only for public opinion but also for other institutions of government.
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.