Pub Date : 2020-06-23DOI: 10.1163/15730352-bja10009
A. Sulikowski
The Law and Justice party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, or PiS), which has been ruling in Poland since 2015, has developed a specific narrative about the law and judiciary, which constitutes the ideological background of its stance in the conflict concerning the rule of law in the country. The main tenets of the legal ideology of Law and Justice include the views that judicial decisions are not determined by legal texts (the indeterminacy thesis), and that judges are part of an elite who are detached from society at large and are attempting to impose the liberal world-view upon a conservative society. The aim of the paper is to deconstruct those ideological constructs in a search for their possible sources in certain critical currents in the legal theory of the Polish People’s Republic, represented by Stanisław Ehrlich, Leszek Nowak and Jarosław Ładosz. The paper notes interesting parallels between the legal ideas developed by those three legal theorists and the current narrative put forward by Law and Justice. Whilst stopping short of claiming a direct and conscious inspiration, the paper nonetheless hypothesises possible avenues of influence, including the academic mentorship of Ehrlich over Jarosław Kaczyński in the early 1970s and Nowak’s involvement in the ‘Solidarity’ movement in the 1980s following his anti-Marxist intellectual and political turn. The paper concludes that legal critique in Poland, after a period of being repressed in the 1990s, is now returning; however, whilst its first appearance (in the socialist period) was a ‘tragedy’ (due to its inability to subject socialist law to any form of critique), its current return is a ‘farce’, since critical tools are used not for their original purpose (emancipation), but in order to further a populist-conservative project.
自2015年以来一直在波兰执政的法律与正义党(Prawo i Sprawiedliwość，简称PiS)已经形成了一套关于法律和司法的具体叙事，这构成了其在该国法治冲突中立场的意识形态背景。《法律与正义》的法律意识形态的主要原则包括这样的观点，即司法判决不是由法律文本决定的(不确定性论点)，以及法官是精英的一部分，他们脱离了整个社会，并试图将自由主义世界观强加给保守的社会。本文的目的是解构这些意识形态结构，并在以Stanisław埃利希、莱泽克·诺瓦克和Jarosław Ładosz为代表的波兰人民共和国法律理论的某些批判流派中寻找其可能的来源。本文注意到这三位法律理论家提出的法律思想与《法律与正义》所提出的当前叙事之间有趣的相似之处。虽然没有声称直接和有意识的灵感，但这篇论文仍然假设了可能的影响途径，包括1970年代早期埃利希在Jarosław Kaczyński的学术指导，以及诺瓦克在1980年代反马克思主义思想和政治转向后参与“团结”运动。本文的结论是，波兰的法律批判在经历了上世纪90年代一段时间的压抑之后，现在正在回归;然而，虽然它的第一次出现(在社会主义时期)是一场“悲剧”(由于它无法使社会主义法律受到任何形式的批评)，但它目前的回归是一场“闹剧”，因为批评工具的使用不是为了它们最初的目的(解放)，而是为了进一步推进民粹主义-保守主义项目。
{"title":"The Return of Forgotten Critique: Some Remarks on the Intellectual Sources of the Polish Populist Revolution","authors":"A. Sulikowski","doi":"10.1163/15730352-bja10009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-bja10009","url":null,"abstract":"The Law and Justice party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, or PiS), which has been ruling in Poland since 2015, has developed a specific narrative about the law and judiciary, which constitutes the ideological background of its stance in the conflict concerning the rule of law in the country. The main tenets of the legal ideology of Law and Justice include the views that judicial decisions are not determined by legal texts (the indeterminacy thesis), and that judges are part of an elite who are detached from society at large and are attempting to impose the liberal world-view upon a conservative society. The aim of the paper is to deconstruct those ideological constructs in a search for their possible sources in certain critical currents in the legal theory of the Polish People’s Republic, represented by Stanisław Ehrlich, Leszek Nowak and Jarosław Ładosz. The paper notes interesting parallels between the legal ideas developed by those three legal theorists and the current narrative put forward by Law and Justice. Whilst stopping short of claiming a direct and conscious inspiration, the paper nonetheless hypothesises possible avenues of influence, including the academic mentorship of Ehrlich over Jarosław Kaczyński in the early 1970s and Nowak’s involvement in the ‘Solidarity’ movement in the 1980s following his anti-Marxist intellectual and political turn. The paper concludes that legal critique in Poland, after a period of being repressed in the 1990s, is now returning; however, whilst its first appearance (in the socialist period) was a ‘tragedy’ (due to its inability to subject socialist law to any form of critique), its current return is a ‘farce’, since critical tools are used not for their original purpose (emancipation), but in order to further a populist-conservative project.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85840225","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-23DOI: 10.1163/15730352-bja10010
Milena Korycka-Zirk
The article is an attempt to trace in Wiesław Lang’s scientific research the influence of sociological jurisprudence, as initiated in Polish legal science by Leon Petrażycki: the original source of Lang’s scientific inspiration. Not only significant traces of sociological research concepts but also the broader perception of the notion of law typical for this trend in jurisprudence can be seen in W. Lang’s work; these are most visibly evidenced in his works devoted to those aspects of American legal culture that are doctrinally and judicially dominated by the analysis of ‘law in action’, not merely ‘law in books’.
{"title":"Wiesław Lang’s Legal Thought – Between Sociological and Analytical Jurisprudence","authors":"Milena Korycka-Zirk","doi":"10.1163/15730352-bja10010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-bja10010","url":null,"abstract":"The article is an attempt to trace in Wiesław Lang’s scientific research the influence of sociological jurisprudence, as initiated in Polish legal science by Leon Petrażycki: the original source of Lang’s scientific inspiration. Not only significant traces of sociological research concepts but also the broader perception of the notion of law typical for this trend in jurisprudence can be seen in W. Lang’s work; these are most visibly evidenced in his works devoted to those aspects of American legal culture that are doctrinally and judicially dominated by the analysis of ‘law in action’, not merely ‘law in books’.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80867940","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-23DOI: 10.1163/15730352-bja10011
M. Golecki, B. Wojciechowski
The article presents the issue of the judicial application of the law in contemporary Civil Law jurisdictions. This topic arouses a great deal of controversy, because it is associated with granting courts a wide range of discretionary powers, including lawmaking. In the theoretical-legal literature this issue is often dealt with by juxtaposing different ideologies on the judicial application of law: bound, free or legal and rational. This division was introduced and developed by Jerzy Wróblewski, whose concept of the judicial application of law is presented and critically analyzed in the present article, with particular attention paid to the principle of the separation of powers. In recent Polish theoretical-legal literature, discussion on this issue has tended to focus less on whether the courts in our legal system possess lawmaking competence, and more on whether they should be allowed such competence. This is due to the fact that a view now prevails in the literature which holds that, in certain cases, there is a need for creative interpretation of the law, as this can remedy the poor quality of the law enacted by the legislator.
{"title":"Conceptualising Judicial Application of Law in the Polish Theory of Legal Interpretation","authors":"M. Golecki, B. Wojciechowski","doi":"10.1163/15730352-bja10011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-bja10011","url":null,"abstract":"The article presents the issue of the judicial application of the law in contemporary Civil Law jurisdictions. This topic arouses a great deal of controversy, because it is associated with granting courts a wide range of discretionary powers, including lawmaking. In the theoretical-legal literature this issue is often dealt with by juxtaposing different ideologies on the judicial application of law: bound, free or legal and rational. This division was introduced and developed by Jerzy Wróblewski, whose concept of the judicial application of law is presented and critically analyzed in the present article, with particular attention paid to the principle of the separation of powers. In recent Polish theoretical-legal literature, discussion on this issue has tended to focus less on whether the courts in our legal system possess lawmaking competence, and more on whether they should be allowed such competence. This is due to the fact that a view now prevails in the literature which holds that, in certain cases, there is a need for creative interpretation of the law, as this can remedy the poor quality of the law enacted by the legislator.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81100295","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-03-13DOI: 10.1163/15730352-04404004
S. Sayapin
The Criminal Code of Uzbekistan, which was adopted in 1994 and entered into force in 1995, was the country’s first post-Soviet Criminal Code. In 2018, the President of Uzbekistan called for adoption of a revised edition of the Criminal Code whose provisions should correspond more closely to international law, and would be more appropriately suited to modern realities. The article offers an overview of the draft Chapter on crimes against the peace and security of mankind, as proposed by the author in his capacity as a member of the Working Group for revision of the Criminal Code. It draws upon the best practices of a number of States, and offers a concise article-by-article commentary on the draft Chapter.
{"title":"Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind in the Revised Edition of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan","authors":"S. Sayapin","doi":"10.1163/15730352-04404004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04404004","url":null,"abstract":"The Criminal Code of Uzbekistan, which was adopted in 1994 and entered into force in 1995, was the country’s first post-Soviet Criminal Code. In 2018, the President of Uzbekistan called for adoption of a revised edition of the Criminal Code whose provisions should correspond more closely to international law, and would be more appropriately suited to modern realities. The article offers an overview of the draft Chapter on crimes against the peace and security of mankind, as proposed by the author in his capacity as a member of the Working Group for revision of the Criminal Code. It draws upon the best practices of a number of States, and offers a concise article-by-article commentary on the draft Chapter.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82846603","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-03-13DOI: 10.1163/15730352-bja10001
R. Petrov, Gaga Gabrichidze, P. Kalinichenko
This article analyses the foundations of the constitutional and legal orders of selected non-recognized entities in Georgia and Ukraine, namely the so-called “Republic of Abkhazia”, the “Republic of South Ossetia” and the “Donetsk/Lugansk Peoples’ Republics”. Additionally, this article pursues the objective of clarifying whether the legal systems of these entities can ensure protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of their residents in line with standards of international public law and European law. It is argued that the constitutional orders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the Donetsk/Lugansk Peoples’ Republics are distinguished by a few undeniable similarities and “sources of inspiration”. Furthermore, residents of these entities experience similar problems regarding protection of their fundamental rights and application of international conventions on human rights.
{"title":"Constitutional Orders of Non-Recognized Entities in Georgia and Ukraine. Can façade Constitutions Ensure Adequate Protection of Human Rights?","authors":"R. Petrov, Gaga Gabrichidze, P. Kalinichenko","doi":"10.1163/15730352-bja10001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-bja10001","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the foundations of the constitutional and legal orders of selected non-recognized entities in Georgia and Ukraine, namely the so-called “Republic of Abkhazia”, the “Republic of South Ossetia” and the “Donetsk/Lugansk Peoples’ Republics”. Additionally, this article pursues the objective of clarifying whether the legal systems of these entities can ensure protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of their residents in line with standards of international public law and European law. It is argued that the constitutional orders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the Donetsk/Lugansk Peoples’ Republics are distinguished by a few undeniable similarities and “sources of inspiration”. Furthermore, residents of these entities experience similar problems regarding protection of their fundamental rights and application of international conventions on human rights.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83910243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-03-13DOI: 10.1163/15730352-BJA10002
Marin Mrčela, Igor Vuletić, Goran Livazović
This paper discusses the issue of negligent rape and liability for unreasonable belief in the victim`s consent in the context of Croatian criminal law. Modern rape law presents many challenges to both lawmakers and judges, with criminalizing negligence being only one of those challenges. This became more interesting in Croatia after amendments to the Criminal Code in 2011 (in effect since 2013), that criminalized unreasonable mistake of facts in the crime of rape. Croatian rape law has undergone significant changes related to these amendments. However, this paper focuses only on the aspect of unreasonable mistake of consent, this being both the most controversial and of great practical importance. The first section describes the elements of rape according to the Croatian Criminal Code along with an interpretation of those elements in the jurisprudence of the Croatian Supreme Court. Special attention is placed on the problem of mens rea and (un)reasonable belief in consent. The discussion also identifies the reasons for reform and the impact of the Sexual Offences Act of England and Wales (2003), which served as a model for Croatian legislators. The second section analyzes the results of research conducted by Croatian judges on the relevant status of the mistake of facts defense, as well as the importance of the victim`s resistance in terms of achieving a conviction, with special regard to the rate of rape convictions in Croatian law. The third section reviews comparative regional laws (Slovenia, Serbia, and Montenegro) with the goal of positioning the new Croatian rape law in a regional context. The last section discusses the necessity of criminalization of the negligent form of rape from the perspective of trends and standards created in Croatian theory and jurisprudence in the years prior to this amendment of the law.
{"title":"Negligent Rape in Croatian Criminal Law: Was Legal Reform Necessary?","authors":"Marin Mrčela, Igor Vuletić, Goran Livazović","doi":"10.1163/15730352-BJA10002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-BJA10002","url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the issue of negligent rape and liability for unreasonable belief in the victim`s consent in the context of Croatian criminal law. Modern rape law presents many challenges to both lawmakers and judges, with criminalizing negligence being only one of those challenges. This became more interesting in Croatia after amendments to the Criminal Code in 2011 (in effect since 2013), that criminalized unreasonable mistake of facts in the crime of rape. Croatian rape law has undergone significant changes related to these amendments. However, this paper focuses only on the aspect of unreasonable mistake of consent, this being both the most controversial and of great practical importance. The first section describes the elements of rape according to the Croatian Criminal Code along with an interpretation of those elements in the jurisprudence of the Croatian Supreme Court. Special attention is placed on the problem of mens rea and (un)reasonable belief in consent. The discussion also identifies the reasons for reform and the impact of the Sexual Offences Act of England and Wales (2003), which served as a model for Croatian legislators. The second section analyzes the results of research conducted by Croatian judges on the relevant status of the mistake of facts defense, as well as the importance of the victim`s resistance in terms of achieving a conviction, with special regard to the rate of rape convictions in Croatian law. The third section reviews comparative regional laws (Slovenia, Serbia, and Montenegro) with the goal of positioning the new Croatian rape law in a regional context. The last section discusses the necessity of criminalization of the negligent form of rape from the perspective of trends and standards created in Croatian theory and jurisprudence in the years prior to this amendment of the law.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86420981","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-03-13DOI: 10.1163/15730352-04501006
M. Antonov
This essay examines methodological nuances connected with historical research of Russian law. These nuances are studied against the backdrop of two books published respectively by Professor Ferdinand Feldbrugge and Professor William Pomeranz on Russian legal history. The methods employed by these authors reveal specific features of Russian legal language and mentality which can be helpful in explaining the dissimilarities between legal and political developments in Russia and the West. They place particular emphasis on the development of legal language and productively analyze many current issues of Russian law through the lens of history of concepts. These books are evaluated as important contributions to comparative analysis of Russian and Western legal cultures. The key events of Russian legal history are considered in a perspective that sheds light on the current challenges faced by Russian law.
{"title":"History of Russian Law and Its Interpretations","authors":"M. Antonov","doi":"10.1163/15730352-04501006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04501006","url":null,"abstract":"This essay examines methodological nuances connected with historical research of Russian law. These nuances are studied against the backdrop of two books published respectively by Professor Ferdinand Feldbrugge and Professor William Pomeranz on Russian legal history. The methods employed by these authors reveal specific features of Russian legal language and mentality which can be helpful in explaining the dissimilarities between legal and political developments in Russia and the West. They place particular emphasis on the development of legal language and productively analyze many current issues of Russian law through the lens of history of concepts. These books are evaluated as important contributions to comparative analysis of Russian and Western legal cultures. The key events of Russian legal history are considered in a perspective that sheds light on the current challenges faced by Russian law.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81118590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-03-13DOI: 10.1163/15730352-04404005
M. Mirić, T. Petrović
The subject of this paper is the special legal regime for administrative contracts under the recently enacted Serbian Law on General Administrative Procedure of 2016. We offer a comprehensive analysis of the new statutory rules, and examine their relationship to the general rules and principles of Serbian contract law. In addition, we identify the main shortcomings of the new regime, especially in the context of the lack of any statutory, scholarly and judicial typology of administrative contracts in Serbia. Furthermore, we highlight the lack of references to the notions of public interest, public purpose or public needs in the statutory definition of administrative contracts. This is cause for concern, since only the need to protect the public interest could justify the new statutory provisions, which significantly improve the contractual position of a public body as a contracting party in relation to the position of a private entity as the other party in administrative contracts. There is as yet no case law pertaining to administrative contracts in Serbia. This is why we turn to practical experience in the Croatian legal system, which is sufficiently similar and historically connected to Serbia via a shared Yugoslav heritage. We also consider German and French legal models, since they traditionally serve as comparative points of reference for Serbian legal scholars, judges and law makers.
{"title":"Administrative Contracts in Serbian Law – Specificities of the New Statutory Regime","authors":"M. Mirić, T. Petrović","doi":"10.1163/15730352-04404005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04404005","url":null,"abstract":"The subject of this paper is the special legal regime for administrative contracts under the recently enacted Serbian Law on General Administrative Procedure of 2016. We offer a comprehensive analysis of the new statutory rules, and examine their relationship to the general rules and principles of Serbian contract law. In addition, we identify the main shortcomings of the new regime, especially in the context of the lack of any statutory, scholarly and judicial typology of administrative contracts in Serbia. Furthermore, we highlight the lack of references to the notions of public interest, public purpose or public needs in the statutory definition of administrative contracts. This is cause for concern, since only the need to protect the public interest could justify the new statutory provisions, which significantly improve the contractual position of a public body as a contracting party in relation to the position of a private entity as the other party in administrative contracts. There is as yet no case law pertaining to administrative contracts in Serbia. This is why we turn to practical experience in the Croatian legal system, which is sufficiently similar and historically connected to Serbia via a shared Yugoslav heritage. We also consider German and French legal models, since they traditionally serve as comparative points of reference for Serbian legal scholars, judges and law makers.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91116294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-03-13DOI: 10.1163/15730352-bja10003
S. Jankiewicz, N. Knyaginina, F. Prina
This article traces the evolution of the debate on the balancing of federal and regional competences in regulating the use of minority languages in Russia’s education system. Taking into account relevant law and judicial practice, as well as developments in center-periphery relations since 2017, the article argues that the federal center has been increasingly depriving Russia’s republics of the ability to self-regulate in the education sphere – particularly over the question as to whether they may require the compulsory study of republican languages (recognized as co-official with Russian) in schools located within their administrative borders. These processes can be located in the context of the centralization of the education system and a corresponding reduction of multilingualism in Russia’s schools. This can, in turn, be seen as part of an underlying drive to promote national unity through uniformity, through the dilution of the country’s linguistic and cultural diversity and a concurrent emphasis on the primacy of the Russian language. The article further argues that the Russian education system’s centralization has been ongoing: while it has intensified since 2017, the trajectory of the jurisprudence shows an earlier movement towards a concern for ‘unity’ that anticipated it.
{"title":"Linguistic Rights and Education in the Republics of the Russian Federation: Towards Unity through Uniformity","authors":"S. Jankiewicz, N. Knyaginina, F. Prina","doi":"10.1163/15730352-bja10003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-bja10003","url":null,"abstract":"This article traces the evolution of the debate on the balancing of federal and regional competences in regulating the use of minority languages in Russia’s education system. Taking into account relevant law and judicial practice, as well as developments in center-periphery relations since 2017, the article argues that the federal center has been increasingly depriving Russia’s republics of the ability to self-regulate in the education sphere – particularly over the question as to whether they may require the compulsory study of republican languages (recognized as co-official with Russian) in schools located within their administrative borders. These processes can be located in the context of the centralization of the education system and a corresponding reduction of multilingualism in Russia’s schools. This can, in turn, be seen as part of an underlying drive to promote national unity through uniformity, through the dilution of the country’s linguistic and cultural diversity and a concurrent emphasis on the primacy of the Russian language. The article further argues that the Russian education system’s centralization has been ongoing: while it has intensified since 2017, the trajectory of the jurisprudence shows an earlier movement towards a concern for ‘unity’ that anticipated it.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88620288","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-04DOI: 10.1163/15730352-04404002
Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias
Recent invocations of the past in the service of ideology, based to a large extent on nationalistic motives, are a particularly disturbing phenomenon in the area of the European “duty to remember” and memory laws. One of the most telling examples of this trend was Polish legislation introduced in January 2018 (partly repealed in June 2018) that penalized defamation of the Polish State and the Polish Nation by claiming their responsibility or co-responsibility for crimes committed by German Nazis in occupied Poland. Although the idea of opposing the falsification of history appears valid, the structure of the law left room for also bringing to trial those daring to ask uncomfortable questions challenging the heroic vision of Poland’s past. This article claims that legal provisions such as the Polish law represent a dangerous tool of strengthening the feeling of national community understood very narrowly and limited to one nationally, religiously and ethnically homogeneous group. This approach is directly connected with promulgation of the narrative of a “besieged castle”, which defends itself against “the Other” and demands indisputable recognition for its past sufferings. The reasons, mechanisms and consequences of recent implementation in Poland of legal and political discourse regarding the past, are discussed here.
{"title":"Deployments of Memory with the Tools of Law – the Case of Poland","authors":"Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias","doi":"10.1163/15730352-04404002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04404002","url":null,"abstract":"Recent invocations of the past in the service of ideology, based to a large extent on nationalistic motives, are a particularly disturbing phenomenon in the area of the European “duty to remember” and memory laws. One of the most telling examples of this trend was Polish legislation introduced in January 2018 (partly repealed in June 2018) that penalized defamation of the Polish State and the Polish Nation by claiming their responsibility or co-responsibility for crimes committed by German Nazis in occupied Poland. Although the idea of opposing the falsification of history appears valid, the structure of the law left room for also bringing to trial those daring to ask uncomfortable questions challenging the heroic vision of Poland’s past. This article claims that legal provisions such as the Polish law represent a dangerous tool of strengthening the feeling of national community understood very narrowly and limited to one nationally, religiously and ethnically homogeneous group. This approach is directly connected with promulgation of the narrative of a “besieged castle”, which defends itself against “the Other” and demands indisputable recognition for its past sufferings. The reasons, mechanisms and consequences of recent implementation in Poland of legal and political discourse regarding the past, are discussed here.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81472391","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：