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

Results found: 8

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  arbitrariness
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
Taxing discretion disrupts the dichotomous nature of tax law provisions, especially if it concerns tax liabilities. This institution may even be considered arbitrary and deemed not applicable in the Czech Republic. An analysis of English and German law indicates that taxing discretion is inevitable but may be effectively limited, e.g. by introducing a legal doctrine stating that exercise of taxing discretion is bound by the purposes of an act of Parliament granting taxing discretion and by judicial review. In the Czech Republic, taxing discretion is limited by administrative guidelines and judicial review, but further improvements are advisable. This would allow to reintroduce tax cancellation based on taxing discretion into Czech law.
EN
Until recently, the question of citizenship deprivation for national security reasons had not attracted much attention among policymakers and international scholars. Things changed after some states had enacted or amended their laws so as to permit denationalization of their citizens engaged in terrorist activities at home or — which is more often the case — abroad. In most countries this shift was a response to the problem of “foreign terrorist fighters”, namely terrorist fighters who first leave their home country to join terrorist organizations abroad and then return. This article examines in detail the question of whether or not it is possible under international law to deprive a person of his/her citizenship because of involvement in terrorist activities. While answering this question affirmatively, the author wonders how far states can go in the exercise of citizenship deprivation powers and to what extent relevant norms and principles of international law limit state powers in this regard
PL
Spośród wielu niejasności dotyczących rządów prawa centralnymi są te, które zostały wskazane w tytule artykułu. Pierwsza część tekstu zawiera wstępne uwagi oraz próbę odpowiedzi na pierwsze z tytułowych pytań. Próba to jest oparta na rozróżnieniu dwóch sposobów rozumienia, czym są rządy prawa. Zgodnie z pierwszym z nich, rządy prawa są pojęciem celowościowym, tj. by wiedzieć, czym one są, trzeba znać ich cel. Drugi ze sposobów, określony jako anatomiczny, wskazuje, że najważniejszym dla zrozumienia omawianego pojęcia jest poznanie reguł i instytucji, które zazwyczaj postrzega się jako składowe rządów prawa. Autor stoi na stanowisku, że tylko pierwsza droga jest właściwa oraz proponuje własną interpretację celów rządów prawa. Celem tym jest prawne ograniczenie możliwości arbitralnego sprawowania władzy. To natomiast związane jest z czterema ważnymi redukcjami: dominacji, strachu, upokorzenia i niepewności.
EN
Central among the many obscurities that attend the rule of law are those named in the title of the article. The first part contains some preliminary remarks and attempt to answer the first question. This attempt is based on distinguishing two ways of understanding what rule of law is. By the first way rule of law is a theological concept, i.e. to know what it is we have to know its aims and by the second, anatomical one, the most important thing to understand it are rules and institutions that are usually conceived as its part. The author holds a position that only the first way is appropriate and gives his own interpretation of aims of rule of law. This aim is legal reduction of the possibility of arbitrary exercise of power that is connected with four important reductions – of domination, of fear, of indignity, and of confusion.
PL
Central among the many obscurities that attend the rule of law are those named in the title of the article. The first part contains some preliminary remarks and attempt to answer the first question. This attempt is based on distinguishing to ways of understanding what rule of law is. By the first way rule of law is a theological concept, i.e. to know what it is we have to know its aims and by the second, anatomical one, the most important thing to understand it are rules and institutions that are usually conceived as its part. The authors holds a position that only the first way is appropriate and gives his own interpretation of aims of rule of law. This aim is legal reduction of the possibility of arbitrary exercise of power that is connected with four important reductions – of domination, of fear, of indignity, and of confusion.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Rana w językach świata

63%
EN
In accordance with the saussurean principle of arbitrariness of the linguistic sign the word rana has manifold senses in the languages of the world. From among numerous examples the author pays special attention to the Romance rana ‘frog’ and the Slavonic (in particular Polish) rana ‘wound’. The discussion concerns the earliest attestations of the word in Old Polish, modern phrases and collocations, cross­‍‑linguistic literary and cultural associations and homonyms.
PL
Zgodnie z saussurowską zasadą dowolności znaku językowego słowo rana ma różnorodne znaczenia w językach świata. Spośród licznych przykładów uwagę autora przykuwa przede wszystkim rana romańska, czyli ‘żaba’ oraz rana słowiańska, zwłaszcza polska. Omówione są najstarsze wystąpienia tego słowa w okresie staropolskim, współczesne kolokacje i frazeologizmy, skojarzenia literackie i kulturowe w aspekcie komparatystycznym, a takżehomonimy.
Roczniki Nauk Prawnych
|
2023
|
vol. 33
|
issue 4
99-130
PL
Dyspensa jest jedną z podstawowych instytucji typowych dla prawa kościelnego, a doktryna kanoniczna zdefiniowała ją bardzo precyzyjnie. Ewoluowała w ramach systemu kanonicznego i jest stale modyfikowana i doskonalona przez prawodawstwo kanoniczne. Kanon 85 Kodeksu z 1983 r. definiuje tę instytucję jako pojedynczy akt administracyjny, wydany przez osoby posiadające władzę wykonawczą, którego głównym celem jest złagodzenie mocy samego prawa kościelnego w konkretnym przypadku dla duchowego dobra wiernych. Nie jest to narzędzie wymierzania sprawiedliwości, ale instrument roztropnego administrowania. Niekiedy może dochodzić do nadużyć tej instytucji kanonicznej przez same kompetentne władze lub przez podmioty ubiegające się o dyspensę. Aby pomóc ludowi Bożemu i kompetentnym władzom kościelnym docenić wartość kanonicznej instytucji dyspensy w systemie kanonicznym, autor artykułu broni idei słusznej przyczyny i ostrzega wiernych chrześcijan przed próbami uzyskania dyspensy w drodze podstępu, użycia siły lub w sytuacji ciężkiej bojaźni.
EN
Dispensation is one of the fundamental institutions which are typical of ecclesiastical law. It has been ordered and disciplined with much precision by the canonical doctrine, grown within the canonical system, and is ever modified and perfected by canonical legislations. Canon 85 of the 1983 Code defines this institution as a singular administrative act, granted by those enjoying executive power, whose main objective is to mitigate the vigor of a merely ecclesiastical law in a particular case for the spiritual benefit of the faithful. It is not an instrument of administering justice but an instrument of prudent administration. At times, there can be abuse of this canonical institution by the competent authorities themselves, or by the subjects requesting dispensation. This article, in order to help the people of God and the competent ecclesiastical authorities to appreciate the value of the canonical institution of dispensation within the canonical system, sets out to defend the need of a just cause, and to caution the Christian faithful from seeking dispensations on the basis of deceit, force or under the influence of grave fear.
EN
The Rule of Law, understood in its most general and original meaning as an absence of arbitrariness in state power, is not merely one legal principle amongst many, but has been the core of law itself in political philosophy since classical Antiquity. Although the Rule of Law has been given substance to in various different ways since the modern era, the Member States of the European Union (EU) have contractually agreed in Article 2 first sentence of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) on a Rule of Law that is an expression of the community of values within the EU. This is now not just politically but legally binding for all EU Member States, regardless of changing political majorities or national legislative acts within the Member States. However, with the recent initiation of proceedings against Poland and Hungary, to investigate the potential “risk of serious breach” of EU values according to Article 7 para. 1 of the TEU, it has become very clear that there is no longer political consensus amongst the governments of the EU Member States with regard to how the principle of the Rule of Law should be given substance to in practice. It will thus be the task of jurisprudence, not of politics, to ascertain how far-reaching the legal obligation with regard to the “value” of the “Rule of Law” on the basis of Article 2 of the TEU is and where – beyond the scope of European Law – the political prerogative for Member States to act in accordance with their own national circumstances begins.
EN
In this paper I provide a frequentist philosophical-methodological solution for the stopping rule problem presented by Lindley & Phillips in 1976, which is settled in the ecological realm of testing koalas’ sex ratio. I deliver criteria for discerning a stopping rule, an evidence and a model that are epistemically more appropriate for testing the hypothesis of the case studied, by appealing to physical notion of probability and by analyzing the content of possible formulations of evidence, assumptions of models and meaning of the ecological hypothesis. First, I show the difference in the evidence taken into account in different frequentist sampling procedures presented in the problem. Next, I discuss the inapplicability of the Carnapian principle of total evidence in deciding which formulation of evidence associated with a given sampling procedure and statistical model is epistemically more appropriate for testing the hypothesis in question. Then I propose a double-perspective (evidence and model) frequentist solution based on the choice of evidence which better corresponds to the investigated ecological hypothesis, as well as on the choice of a model that embraces less unrealistic ontological assumptions. Finally, I discuss two perspectives of the stopping rule dependence.
PL
W niniejszym artykule przedstawiam cząstkową propozycję filozoficzno-metodologicznej obrony klasycznej metodologii testowania hipotez statystycznych. Dokonuję tego poprzez próbę odpowiedzi na zarzuty wynikające z problemu stopu przedstawionego przez Lindleya i Phillipsa w 1976 roku, a osadzonego w realiach hipotezy ekologicznej związanej z pytaniem o stosunek płci u młodych osobników gatunku koala. Rozważania rozpoczynam od przedstawienia problemu, następnie omawiam aplikowalność Carnapa zasady całkowitej obserwacji i związek możliwych form obserwacji oraz modeli z hipotezą ekologiczną. W konsekwencji przedstawiam dwa rozwiązania przedstawionego problemu: pierwsze z perspektywy porównywania alternatywnych form formułowania obserwacji, drugie z perspektywy porównywania modeli. Obydwa odwołują się do ontologicznych konsekwencji klasycznej obiektywnej interpretacji prawdopodobieństwa oraz postawionej hipotezy ekologicznej. Argument kończy przedstawienie dwóch perspektyw zależności wyniku testowania hipotezy od wyboru reguły stopu.
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.