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

Results found: 3

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
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Problem of Recognition of Human Rights: Does Explicative-Existential Justification Really Work?

100%
Hapla M.
Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej
|
2021
|
issue 2(27)
5-15
PL
Artykuł analizuje eksplicytno-egzystencjalne uzasadnienie praw człowieka zaproponowane przez Roberta Alexy’ego. Autor niniejszego artykułu identyfikuje kilka problemów, które się z nim wiążą. Analiza eksplicytnego argumentu Alexy’ego wskazuje, że argument ten nie radzi sobie z problemem przejścia od faktów do norm. W szczególności nie wyjaśnia, dlaczego jego wymagania nie mogą zostać unieważnione przez jakiś inny powód moralny (na przykład zasadę użyteczności). Odpowiedź, którą Alexy proponuje w swoim argumencie egzystencjalnym, nie jest uznawana przez autora niniejszego artykułu za wystarczającą. Chociaż argument ten uzupełnia konieczne przesłanki normatywne, decyzja egzystencjalna preferowana przez Alexy’ego nie jest jedyną, konieczną. Można przyjąć, że dla wielu osób taka decyzja jest atrakcyjna. Jednak nawet jeśli przyjmiemy, że uzasadnienie eksplicytno-egzystencjalne jest w pewnym kontekście wiarygodne, to słuszne jest stosowanie go tylko do praw osób, a nie do praw istot ludzkich. W ostatniej części autor artykułu pokazuje, że twierdzenie, iż teoria ta może uzasadniać nawet prawa istot ludzkich, które nie są osobami, jest nie do obrony. [tłumaczenie Redakcja]
EN
This paper analyses Robert Alexy’s explicative-existential justification of human rights. The author identifies several problems that are associated with it. An analysis of Alexy’s explicative argument suggests that it cannot cope with the transition from facts to norms. Notably, this argument does not explain why its requirements cannot be overruled by some other moral reason (for example, the utility principle). The answer that Alexy offers in his existential argument is not considered sufficient by the author of this paper. Although this argument complements the necessary normative premises, the existential decision preferred by Alexy is not the only one necessary. It can be admitted that for many people such a decision is attractive. However, even if we accept that explicative-existential justification is credible in some context, it is correct to apply it only to the rights of persons and not to the rights of human beings. In the final part, the author shows that the claim that this theory can justify even the rights of human beings who are not persons is indefensible.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Is Separation of Powers a Useless Concept? Part II: Tripartite System Criticism and Application Problems

100%
Hapla M.
Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review
|
2019
|
vol. 9
EN
In this paper, the author raised the question of whether the separation of powers is a useless concept. It summarizes some critical arguments against the tripartite separation of powers. The paper deals with application issues related to the separation of powers and distinguishes several attitudes toward them, which it then analyses in more detail. Great attention is dedicated to formalism and functionalism. Eventually, the author wonders whether it would be better to innovate the idea of separation of powers, or to dismiss and replace it with some other principle. He concludes that the separation of powers has problems, but we need to evaluate this idea in relation to its possible alternatives. In such a light it still sounds promising.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Is the Separation of Powers a Useless Concept? The Components and Purpose of the Separation of Powers

100%
Hapla M.
Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review
|
2018
|
vol. 8
205-216
EN
In this paper, the author raised the question of whether the separation of powers is a use-less concept. It points out to insufficient reflection of its theoretical and philosophical origins. The paper also distinguishes its components, which it then analyses in more detail. Great attention is dedicated to the tension between the system of checks and bal-ances and the institutional independence. It also examines the purpose of the separation of powers, warning that we can no longer seek it exclusively in the prevention of tyranny but rather in the optimization of government. At the end of the paper is emphasized the need to examine the question of how to solve tension between these components.
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.