Unii Europejskiej (re)definicja małżeństwa i rodziny. Antropologiczne i polityczne znaczenie w kontekście starzenia się Europy.

The starting point for the article is the question: Why, in spite of the dramatic demographic situation of Europe, the EU does not establish any kind of family policy? Taking into account, the so-called, “spillover effect” and the development of other EU’s policies, the author shows that the lack of clearly stated in the EU’s primary law competence to operate in the area of family policy cannot be treated as a fully sufficient argument to explain the EU’s desinteressement for family issues. Consequently, he proposes to consider much deeper, anthropological problem of the EU’s law in that contexts. The article discusses two, interconnected, theses: (1) in the EU’s fundamental rights law are redefined fundamental anthropological premises concerning the relation of the man, marriage and family; (2) redefinition of marriage and family in the EU’s law creates important obstacles for the development of the demographically successful family policy within the EU. The sources for the analysis are the EU’s primary law, Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as chosen political documents of the EU’s institutions.Artykuł wychodzi od pytania o źródła nikłego zainteresowania UE problematyką polityki rodzinnej, mimo dramatycznej sytuacji demograficznej Starego Kontynentu. Nie podważając, ale i nie absolutyzując, prawnych ograniczeń do stworzenia takiej polityki w UE, autor ukazuje antropologiczne zawikłania prawa europejskiego, radykalnie utrudniające Unii podjęcie w skuteczny sposób tej problematyki. Hipotezami weryfikowanymi w niniejszym artykule są dwa powiązane ze sobą twierdzenia: 1) w ujęciu praw podstawowych UE dokonano redefinicji fundamentalnych, prawnomiędzynarodowych przesłanek antropologicznych w odniesieniu do relacji osoby i małżeństwa oraz rodziny, a w konsekwencji w odniesieniu do natury człowieka; 2) redefinicja ta podważa możliwość prowadzenia skuteczniej demograficznie polityki rodzinnej na poziomie UE. Źródłami analizy jest unijne prawo praw człowieka (Karta Praw Podstawowych) oraz nawiązujące do przyjętych tam rozstrzygnięć polityczne dokumenty UE

Kinetics of Chromium(III) Transport Through a Liquid Membrane Containing DNNSA as a Carrier

Kinetics of Cr(III) ions transport through a bulk liquid membrane containing dinonylnaphthalenesulfonic acid (DNNSA) as a carrier, flowing over aqueous phases, has been examined. Special attention has been paid to the effect of the membrane’s velocity flow on the chromium concentration decrease in a feed phase. For the description of relationships of chromium(III) concentration in particular phases with the time, a model based on the assumption of consecutive first-order reactions was proposed. Satisfactory compatibility of experiments and model results have been obtained both for the membrane flow velocities below 0.0034 m·s−1 when the interfaces begin to fluctuate slightly and for low initial Cr(III) concentration in the feed phase

"United in Diversity": The Church's Experience and the European Union's Identity Motto. European Diversity and Autonomy Papers. EDAP 2/2008

The paper analyses a potential relationship between religion and politics in the context of the EU’s motto, unity in diversity. It’s aimed at verifying the thesis that claims the European Union’s identity motto has its roots in the ecclesial model of identity. The following analysis is a two–stage one. First, it considers whether the Church’s and the EU’s respective “unities in diversity” mean a similar thing; secondly, it elaborates the channels (cultural, ecclesial and political) through which the ecclesial model has been transferred into European politics. In the last part of the contribution, the author considers the significance of the ecclesial experience for the current European integration debates

Quid pro quo religii i polityki. O dawnym i współczesnym zapożyczaniu kategorii religijnych przez politykę w Europie

The article quid pro quo of religion and politics focuses on the process of borrowing religious categories by the political sphere in Europe (so called quid pro quo process). The article starts from the recognition of that process in the history of European politics. By referring to the works of E. Kantorowicz on the medieval monarchy and C. Schmitt on the national state, the author also reveals the method of analyzing the process of quid pro quo. The second part of the article aims at searching for that process in the current European politics. By exploring two principles of EU (subsidiarity and unity in diversity), the author shows that also today European politics uses categories grounded in religious reflection. Nevertheless, the analysis also reveals that today usage of the religious categories is connected with important modifications in the semantic content of the used terms. That observation leads to more general conclusion, made in the third part, on the role of secularization in the political process