Religious rights in Croatia: legal regulation of culturalism

Tekst został opublikowany w: The principle of equality as a fundamental norm in law and political philosophy, Jurysprudencja 8., Wojciechowski B., Bekrycht T., Cern K.M. (eds.), Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź 2017.The project was financed by National Science Centre Poland (decision no. DEC-2012/05/B/HS5/01111)

Student rights and revival of immaturity: can jurisprudence account for coercion?

The problem of this paper is prompted by the claim of Zagreb University students residing in government subsidized dormitories that their duty to act for free as dorm night porters amounts to forced labour. After a preliminary note on the nature and types of legal scholarship, the paper restates jurisprudential arguments against student rights and analyses limitations inherent in legal scholarship in action, or jurisprudence, that make it unresponsive to student rights: a limited normative framework and a limited subject-matter, most notably a limited focus of inquiry when it comes to force or coercion. A glimpse at an analysis of force in international law indicates that the naked force typical of elementary criminal law has dissolved long ago into phenomena remotely related to naked force, such as economic pressure and ideological propaganda. Two legal and social contexts of force are of primary interest to understanding student rights. The first is legal recognition of the vulnerability of children to naked force. The second is the blind eye of jurisprudence for the vulnerability of workers to economic need. The belief in economic necessity and subjugation of the state to capital has resulted in a bizarre reversal of the roles of corporations and students. Jurisprudence cannot change the world but can interpret it more sensibly. What is required is a re-examination of maturity and emancipation within the emerging world law

IDEJA DRUŠTVENOG PRAVA U HRVATSKOJ PRAVNOJ MISLI

This paper consists of two addenda to the manuscript “Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence in Croatia in the XXth Century” for vol. 12 of A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence, devoted to 20th-century legal philosophy in civil-law countries, eds. Jan Wolenski and Alexander Broestl, gen. ed. Enrico Pattaro. The original manuscript was submitted as a work in progress to the Belgrade conference of the Centreal and Eastern European Jurisprudence Network in June 2011. The addenda were prompted by editorial comments, received in February 2013, to the original manuscript. The first concerned the statement “The hypertrophy of Western legal history had a far- reaching impact (sc. on Croatian legal thought)”. The comment was “Do you mean here the influence of Western history on Croatian culture?” The second concerned the statement “the study of legal history generated the idea of social law, which was reinforced by the experience of the conflict between Western law and Croatian tradition”. The comment was “Can you provide the Croatian expression? Moreover, it seems that this idea is crucial for understanding Croatian legal thinking. Perhaps you could give some more details to help the reader understand it. Or even a crucial quotation, possibly? We think that this idea of ’social law’ is peculiar to Croatia and hence very interesting”. The third comment concerned the statement “The idea implies that law is a unity of norms and actions created ‘from below’ (by local communes, economic markets etc.), reason and logic, imperfect and culture-bound as they may be, being inherent in law.” The addenda exceed limits of the manuscript but may function as an independent paper or its core.Rad se sastoji od dva dodatka rukopisu “Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence in Croatiain the XXth Century” za 12. svezak A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence, posvećen 20-stoljetnoj filozofiji prava u zemljama kontinentalnoeuropskog, tj. romanskogermanskog prava koji su uredili Jan Wolenski i Alexander Broestl, uz glavnog urednika Enrica Pattara. Izvorni rukopis bio je podnesen kao prethodno priopćenje beogradskom skupu Central and Eastern European Jurisprudence Network u lipnju 2011. Dodaci su potaknuti uredničkim osvrtom, primljenim u veljači 2013., na izvorni rukopis. Prvi se ticao iskaza “preuhranjenost zapadnom pravnom historijom imala je dalekosežni utjecaj” (na hrvatsku pravnu misao). Osvrt je glasio: “Mislite li ovdje na utjecaj zapadne pravne historije na hrvatsku kulturu?!” Drugi osvrt ticao se iskaza “studij pravne povijesti stvorio je zamisao društvenog prava, koja je bila osnažena iskustvom sukoba između zapadnog prava i hrvatskog nasljeđa”. Osvrt je glasio: “Možete li navesti hrvatski izraz? Štoviše, čini se da je zamisao krucijalna za razumijevanje hrvatske pravne misli. Možda možete navesti više detalja kako biste olakšali razumijevanje čitatelju ili još bolje, navedite citat, ako je moguće. Mislimo da je zamisao ‘društvenog prava’ osobitost Hrvatske i stoga veoma zanimljiva.” Treći osvrt ticao se iskaza “Misao (o društvenom pravu) uključuje da je pravo jedinstvo normi i djelovanja stvoreno ‘odozdo’ (mjesne zajednice, privredna tržišta itd.), a razum i logika su, ma koliko bili nesavršeni i određeni kulturom, od prava neodvojivi.” Dodaci su nadišli granice rukopisa, no možda mogu biti samostalni rad ili njegova jezgra

The State\u27s Authority in Religious Rights

Legal analysis of church-state relations in European countries presupposes a concept or at least a notion of the state. The concept is largely avoided in contemporary legal and political theory. Nonetheless, Western and Central European Continental legal systems, including the Croatian Draft Law on the Legal Position of Religious Communities of April 2002, tacitly presuppose the idea that the state is omnipotent in regulation of religious matters. An adequate analysis of a Central European ex-communist social system will probably find within it the following four layers of social interaction: the state, society, civil society and various communities ranging from families to religious communities. The state, far from being omnipotent, has by its nature very limited powers to regulate religious matters. When the state is dealing with religious rights it is not dealing with Truth and Transcendence; rather is it allocating its own terrestrial resources that include money, i.e. public assistance to religious communities, and access of religious communities to channels of public influence such as public schools and public media

Approaching Aliens: A Plea For Jurisprudential Recovery as a Theoretical Introduction to (Ex)Socialist Legal Systems

It might be wise to stop here. Even a reader who is sympathetic to jurisprudential imagination must regard the communicable part of my title with considerable misgiving. For he or she can hardly be unaware of the double jeopardy in which the general theorist of law places himself when dealing with socialist legal systems. The first has been aptly described by Alasdair MacIntyre in his parable of a man who aspired to be the author of the general theory of holes.\u27 The moral of the story, that the concept of a hole is a poor foundation for a general theory that would explain all holes, is, to put it mildly, not devalued by the fact that, in construing a theory of socialist legal systems, one may lack concepts of both socialism and law, not to speak of the concept of a legal system

PUBLIC LAW AND PRIVATE LAW: TRANSFER OF LEGAL THEORIES

Ako Ulpijanova dvodioba prava u javno i privatno nije valjana, nije važno da li je - i ako jest kako je - prenesena u Hrvatsku. U tu svrhu članak je usredotočen na kritiku koju Međunarodna enciklopedija poredbenog prava upućuje modernim teorijama što podržavaju diobu, nalazeći da slabosti kritike ne vraćaju valjanost dvodiobi nego, paradoksalno, otkrivaju jednostranost teorija što je podržavaju. Samo je nekoliko indicija da je dvodioba prenesena u hrvatsku pravnu kulturu. U hrvatskome pravnom sistemu Zakon o vlasništvu i drugim stvarnim pravima (NN 91/96), članak 35., propisuje da Republika Hrvatska i druge pravne osobe javnog prava kao nositelji prava vlasništva imaju u pravnim odnosima jednak položaj kao i privatni vlasnici. U hrvatskoj pravnoj doktrini nekoliko je kratkih udžbeničkih prikaza dvodiobe, od kojih je najvažniji dioba prava koju je na temelju teorija Georgesa Gurvitcha napravio Berislav Perić. Jedini je obuhvatni prinos problemu masivna doktorska disertacija Vladimira Vodinelića, koja je započeta na Sveučilištu u Splitu, a obranjena na Univerzitetu u Beogradu Članak nudi rekonstrukciju razlike javnog i privatnog prava koja polazi od Aristotelove analize pravednosti. Za razliku od teorije Ernesta Weinriba, koja poima privatno pravo kao potpuno različito od javnog prava, rekonstrukcija postulira da privatno pretpostavlja javno, ali ne i obratno. Ranije stajalište ovog autora (da je javno pravo uspostavljano zakonima, a privatno pravnim poslovima) dopunjeno je razlikovanjem tri vrste dvostranih pravnih poslova, tj. ugovora-pogodaba, ugovora-zakona i ugovora-saveza, od kojih potonji uspostavljaju socijalno pravo kao treće područje prava na istoj razini s javnim pravom i privatnim pravom. Dokazuje se da se hrvatski pravni sistem još uvijek dijeli u ista tri područja, kako je to bio pokazivao Berislav Perić. Plodnost te trodiobe pokazuje se u raščlambi hrvatskog zakona o udrugama. Trodioba prava u javno, privatno i socijalno u skladu je s evropskim naslijeđem. Štoviše, može biti držana uzornom za socijalnu demokraciju kako je nedavno analizirana od Thomasa Meyera.If Ulpian’s dichotomy of law into public and private is not valid, it is irrelevant whether - and if so how - it has been transferred to Croatia. To that end the paper focuses on the International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law’s criticism of modern theories endorsing the dichotomy, finding that weaknesses of the criticism do not reinvigorate the dichotomy but reveal paradoxically onesidedness of the theories that endorse it. There are only a few indicators that the dichotomy has been transferred into Croatian legal culture. In the Croatian legal system The Law on Ownership and Other Real Rights (1991) Article 35 provides for that the Republic of Croatia and other juridical persons of public law as bearers of the right to ownership have the same rights in legal relations as private owners. In Croatian legal doctrine there are some short textbook reviews of the dichotomy, the most important being the division of law made by Berislav Perić on the basis o George Gurvitch’s theory. The only comprehensive contribution to the problem is Vladimir Vodinelic’s massive doctoral dissertation started at Split University and defended at Belgrade University in 1986. The paper offers a reconstruction of the dichotomy that starts from Aristotle’s analysis of justice. However, in contrast to Ernest Weinrib’s theory, which conceptualizes private law as being entirely distinct from public law, the reconstruction postulates that private law presupposes public law without the reverse being the case. The present author’s earlier view of the matter (that public law is created by statutes whereas private law is created by juridical acts) is amended by a distinction between three types of two-sided juridical acts, namely, contracts of exchange, contracts of legislation and of contracts of federation, the last one creating social law as a possible third area of law on the same footing as public law and private law. It is argued that the Croatian legal system still divides into the same three areas, as demonstrated by Berislav Perić. The fruitfulness of the trichotomy is demonstrated by the analysis of the Croatian law of civic associations. The trichotomy of law into public, private and social, is in accord with the European legal tradition. Moreover, the trichotomy may be considered exemplary for social democracy as analysed by Thomas Meyer

ARISTOCRACY AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATE: FROM THE NOBILITY AND CLERGY TO THE JUDICIARY AND PROFESSIONS

Mješovita vladavina, koja se uobičajeno drži srednjovjekovnim oblikom vladavine, relevantna je također za teoriju i praksu današnjih ustavnih država: najbolji je oblik vladavine, jer aristokratski element omogućuje trajni utjecaj vrline, napose pravednosti, na donošenje političkih odluka te ograničava egzekutivu, kao monarhijski element u kojemu je koncentrirana politička moć, legislativu, kao demokratski element u kojemu je izražena volja većine, i skupine i institucije koje imaju volju i moć da se nametnu kao oligarhije. Europsko plemstvo je izvorna aristokratska institucija, po tome što je bilo sustav za prijenos i vrline i općih uvjeta života. Strukture i funkcije plemstva kasnije je preuzeo kler, koji je bio i jedna od prvih modernih profesija. U suvremenim ustavnim državama te funkcije su preuzele ostale profesije, napose pravna profesija i pravosuđe. No, u današnjim državama profesije degeneriraju u oligarhije ili više ne nastaju, a zamjenjuju ih oligarhije kapitalista i tehnokrata.Mixed government, which is commonly regarded as a distinctly medieval form of government, is relevant also to contemporary constitutional states. It is the best form of government, since the aristocratic element is a continuous source of virtue, especially of justice, and a check not only on the executive, as the monarchical element which is the seat of political power, and the legislature, as the democratic element which expresses the will of the majority, but also groups and institutions that have the might and will to impose themselves as oligarchies. Mixed government is also the form of government that is practised by most developed contemporary constitutional states: USA, UK, France, Switzerland, Germany etc. European nobility is the original aristocratic institution, by virtue of the fact that it was a system for the transfer of both virtue and general conditions of life. Three institutions that emerged in the late Middle Ages assumed structures and functions of the nobility. The first is the clergy. When, as a result of the differentiation of feudal society ethical and intellectual virtues of the nobility could no longer maintain general conditions of life, the clergy, by virtue of their abstract knowledge that ranged from philosophy and theology to law and medicine, became a class of new experts in generalities and thereby a new aristocracy. The second modern aristocratic institution is the judiciary, which has a structure and function similar to earlier aristocracies. The task of judges is to establish the highest virtue of constitutionalism. It is justice by law, which regulates general conditions of life in the state and society. What qualifies judges for the task is expertise in the new generality. The expertise includes not only education and experience in law but also impeccable private life and demonstrated professional ethics. The third modern aristocratic institution is the profession, whose most important instance is the legal profession. It shares its structure and function partly with the judiciary and partly with other professions. It seems that modern professions are degenerating. In the key area of data processing, due to rapid changes of technology, professions as systems of the transfer of virtue do not even seem to be possible. Professional aristocracies are replaced increasingly by oligarchies of capitalists and technocrats

Morals of Legal Monism

Teorija prava Marijana Pavčnika može biti poticaj za uočavanje i ispravljanje jednostranosti hrvatske teorije prava jer je monistična po tome što je sinteza ranijih teorija, pretpostavlja normativnu metodu kao temeljnu metodu spoznaje prava i drži da sve pravo pripada jednome jedinome pravnom poretku.Marijan Pavčnik’s Legal Theory is an outstanding work on the foundations of law written by an internationally renowned author. It is of special relevance to Croatian readers as an incentive to recognize and rectify the one-sidedness of Croatian legal theory. The function of history as theory in Croatian legal thought (section 1.1) explains why the Croatian mainstream legal theory has adopted an integral conception of law but leaned towards sociologization and even fully fledged naturalization of legal science (section 1.2) with consequences for both legal education (section 1.3) and legal practice (section 1.4). Analytical legal theory, which is preoccupied with the objective meaning of law-creating acts is typical of the Slovenian tradition (section 2.1), within which Pavčnik has written his Legal Theory (section 2.2). The following tenets of Pavčnik’s Legal Theory, which are typically analytical and – in one way or another – monistic, are instructive for Croatian legal theory: a sound legal theory is monistic in that it is a historical synthesis rather than an original creation that ignores or bypasses earlier theories (section 2.2.1); law is a meaning of social action that can be recognized by the normative method, which is monistic in so far as other methods can change and amend but not replace it (section 2.2.2); law is monistic in that there can be only one single legal order (section 2.2.4). Despite the differences, Croatian and Slovenian legal theory may have more in common by both being rooted, Croatian via general legal history and Slovenian via Kelsen’s pure theory, in Hegel’s philosophy

Teorija prava u socijalističkoj Jugoslaviji

Rad, nastao 1988. kao prinos nikada objavljenom priručniku o društvenim znanostima, vjerojatno je najbolji spomen na Pusićeva temeljna istraživanja prava, jer ih prikazuje u kontekstu teorije prava u Jugoslaviji. Istodobno, rad je još uvijek jedini obuhvatni pregled teorije prava u socijalističkoj Jugoslaviji. Ta je teorija zanimljiva kao stalna transformacija marksističko-lenjinističke ortodoksije, koja je u kasnim danima Jugoslavije svojim metodama i interesima odgovarala matici pravne teorije na Zapadu, no ostala je zaokupljena, u skladu s marksističkim naslijeđem, društvenim kontekstom prava. Pusić je dao najznačajniji doprinos izučavanju jugoslavenskoga socijalističkog prava. Njegova analiza socijalnih funkcija prava započinje nalazom da je pravo izvorno bilo metoda regulacije koja pojednostavnjuje socijalne probleme priznavanjem isključivih, no prenosivih prava manjini. Uključivanje prije ignoriranih interesa u vršenje političke vlasti (demokracija), u raspoređivanje ekonomskih dobara(društveno vlasništvo) i upravljanje porodičnim poslovima (jednakost spolova) umanjilo je tenziju koja je nužna za funkcioniranje društvenog sistema. Zagovornik postupnosti, Pusić je sugerirao da rješenja treba tražiti u nastajućoj mreži samoupravljanja kao i u adaptaciji pravnih institucija

Legal Science: Kantorowicz’s Division into Disciplines or Functions?

Pokrovčeva knjiga Slobodno stvaranje prava: Herman U. Kantorowicz i slobodnopravni pokret (2018) nameće pitanje izraženo naslovom ovog rada na koje rad odgovara u tri koraka: prvo, pretpostavkom da je pitanje odgovorivo samo idealnim tipovima pravnih disciplina / funkcija; drugo, upućivanjem na kontekst Kantorowiczevih gledišta, osobito na objavu presuda; treće, ocjenom da je Kantorowicz podijelio pravnu znanost u prepletene funkcije a ne u odvojene discipline. U tu svrhu rad nudi idealne tipove disciplina i funkcija pravne dogmatike, pravne historije, pravne teorije i, kao najsloženiji i najkorisniji skup funkcija, pravnopolitičku analizu. Pretpostavka je, koja se ne dokazuje, da ne postoji ni oštra granica između pravne znanosti i susjednih znanosti: sociologije, ekonomije, psihologije, filozofije.Is Herman U. Kantorowicz’s classification of legal disciplines - which includes general legal science, legal dogmatics, legal history, sociology of law, philosophy of law, and legal policy - a division of scholarly knowledge of law into distinct disciplines/sciences or into intertwined functions of a single scholarly discipline/science? The question is prompted by the book written by Zoran Pokrovac entitled Slobodno stvaranje prava: Hermann U. Kantorowicz i slobodnopravni pokret (Free Law: Hermann U. Kantorowicz and the Free Law Movement ) and published by “Breza” and the Faculty of Law of the University of Split in 2018. Answering this question may assist Croatian legal scholars in finding standards of scholarly excellence, especially of research de lege ferenda. This paper offers an answer in three steps. The first is the recognition that scholarly practices differ considerably, which means that the question may be answered only by construing and correlating ideal types of legal disciplines / functions that are compatible with Kantorowicz’s general ideas, prominent interpretations of legal scholarship, and Croatian mainstream legal scholarship since. The second step provides a context of Kantorowicz’s classification, focusing upon the publication of judicial decisions as a trigger of the Free Law Movement and a task that the Croatian legal order has yet to complete. The third step is the claim that Kantorowicz has in all probability considered scholarly knowledge of law to be a set of intertwined functions. To substantiate this claim, the bulk of the paper construes ideal types of legal dogmatics, legal history, legal theory, and, as the most complex and promising integration of the functions, legal policy modelled on Lasswell and McDougal’s Policy Oriented Jurisprudence. The assumption that is stated but not discussed is that there is no clear-cut borderline between legal scholarship and other scholarly disciplines, most notably sociology, economics, psychology and philosophy