PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THOSE WHO PERFORM PAID WORK IN THE LIGHT OF THE ACT ON TRADE UNIONS. THE AXIOLOGICAL-PHYLOSOPHICAL-PRAXEOLOGICAL ASPECT

The feature of the Polish protection of employees is both the vertical and horizontal binding force. The vertical dimension stems from the rights and duties constituted in domestic legal norms being addressed to all of its addressees. These norms, on the other hand, may take on a horizontal dimension since their specification may be the subject of detailed regulations such as normative collective agreements being a basis for seeking redress, concluded by a trade union and an employer. They may thus be the subject of normative content of collective labour agreements, work regulations and separate collective agreements.

Legal measures on vaccination against smallpox in the principality of Serbia in the 1830s–1840s

The paper addresses the legal measures regarding vaccination against smallpox in the Principality of Serbia in the 1830s–1840s. The main focus is on two normative acts – Rules for the inoculation of pox of 1839 and a Supplement to these Rules of 1842. Relying on archive material, the paper strives to show both the normative content of these acts (including a comparison with the Austrian regulations of 1836), as well as the circumstances in which they were passed and their application in practice. Particular attention is paid to the main obstacles to effective vaccination – distrust and fear of the procedure among the general population and insufficient available medical staff – and steps that were taken to overcome these difficulties.

The Concept of Matrimonial Consent in Can. 1057 CIC 1983

The article is devoted to matrimonial consent as described in Can. 1057 CIC/83, which has replaced the former Can. 1081 CIC/17. The regulation found in this canon emphasizes the importance of matrimonial consent and constitutes the basis for all reasons for the nullification of marriage. The analyzed norm, describing matrimonial consent in the positive aspect, was formulated in the personalistic spirit and adapted to Vatican II's teachings. Can. 1057 CIC/83 was placed among the norms introducing the De matrimonio of CIC/83 part, which resulted in ordering the vision of marriage in CIC/83. The studies on the normative content of Can. 1057 §1, CIC/83, focus on matrimonial consent, which establishes the matrimonial bond and is the only efficient cause of marriage, being a bilateral consensual contract and a sacrament for those baptized. The article discusses legal requirements assuring that consent will result in contracting a valid marriage. The article explains in detail the norm, according to which a defective matrimonial consent cannot be supplemented or replaced by another legal act. The article analyses the object of matrimonial consent in Can. 1057 §2, CIC/83, which was harmonized with the definition of marriage in Can. 1055 CIC/83. Ius in corpus is no longer such an object (as it narrows marriage to a communion finding fulfillment in the sexual and procreative sphere) but rather the parties to the contract, who give themselves to one another in an analogous sense (material object) and the communion for their entire life, in all its dimensions (formal object).

Prohibition on the Obligation to Disclose One’s Worldview, Religious Beliefs, or Religion in the Light of Article 53(7) of the Constitution of The Republic of Poland of April 2, 1997

The aim of this article is to present the normative content of article 53 clause 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2nd April 1997. The paper presents the subjective scope of the regulation, including the scope of subjects who enjoy the guarantee of the “right to silence” as well as the list of addressees of the prohibition. The analysis also presents the subjective scope of article 53 paragraph 7 of the Constitution, together with an indication of the legal problems that occur in the practice of law in the context of obligations to respect the “right to silence”. The research includes substantive and formal assessment of the legal provision in question.

Implementation of the normative content of the principle of ensuring the right to liberty and security of person in the course of criminal procedural evidence

Consolidation at the level of the Constitution of Ukraine of the principle of ensuring the right to liberty and security of person necessitated the study of its essence and normative content in order to assess the correctness of the legislative approach to formulating the principle at the level of sectoral regulations. The normative content of the principle is enshrined in Art. 12 of the CCP. Analysis of the wording of this article allows us to identify three components of the principle, which reflect its requirements: prohibition, protection, security. The first element of the principle is the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 12 of the CCP. The key concepts that substantively fill this element are the following: restriction of freedom in criminal proceedings is possible only by a reasoned court decision; the reason for such a restriction is the suspicion of committing a criminal offense; restriction of liberty occurs in the manner prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code. Procedures for restricting the right to liberty are corrected due to the importance of the restricted right. Judicial review proceedings on the prosecution's request to choose precautionary measures restricting liberty are characterized by its active position in proving the circumstances, which is the basis for restricting a person's liberty. The investigating judge, in the presence of a duly motivated and substantiated request, takes an active position solely to verify the information that is the basis of the request. The content of the element of protection consists of the provisions of the law on: the need to bring the detainee to the investigating judge as soon as possible and to check the legality and validity of the restriction of liberty; notification of the detention of the person of her relatives. The third element of the normative content of the principle is formulated in Part 5 of Art. 12 of the CCP. The law provides for criminal liability for knowingly illegal detention, pretext, house arrest or detention (Article 371 of the CPC), as well as the possibility of compensation for damage caused by illegal decisions, actions or omissions of the body carrying out investigative activities, pre-trial investigation, prosecution or court (Article 130 of the CPC).

The Pandemic and Shareholder Value

Shareholder value has driven corporate governance in North America for over a century. In the wake of significant financial crises and growing inequalities, corporate America decided in 2019 to embrace a more egalitarian model, in which all stakeholders matter equally. The brutal pandemic that wreaked havoc in the first half of 2020 exposed a startling disconnect between the real economy and the stock market. This disconnect is due to a gap between explicit and implicit corporate governance. While officially corporate America wants to convert to a new doctrine, the pandemic has shown that shareholder capitalism has remained the default model. Good intentions and official declarations are not enough in a system that has been specifically designed to serve the shareholders. If stakeholder capitalism is to succeed, it needs a clear normative content and perhaps a more radical reform of institutions and regulation.

(R)evolution of the Axiology of Human Rights, Political Freedom and Security as a Determinant of UN Pragmatism

The state, under the Westphalian order, was both the creator and product of international law which determined its position as the central actor of this system. The norms of international law defined the normative content of the internal security regime, where state security was identical with security as such in international relations. The reality that laid the foundation for this logical syllogism has been subject to gradual transformation that had its climax in the early decades of the 21st century. The states, previously holding monopoly of using force in international relations, which allowed for prevention of wars by means of intergovernmental agreements or maintenance of peace through institutionalized intergovernmental cooperation, lost their exclusive authority to use force. Stipulating ‘non-war’ by means of an (intergovernmental) international treaty became impossible since the non-state actors who apply force pursue counter-systemic goals and reject the international (and internal) order based on the rule of law. The state sovereignty, whose significant albeit not exclusive referent was autocracy and total power, has been transformed from the title of claim to cease the violation by the state into the personal right to protection (vested in an individual or minority/people/mankind in general). International law, which did not constitute a system until as late as the second half of the 20th century, not only obtained such character relatively quickly, but also has been subject to constitutionalization. The inherent unity of the international law as the common legal system of the international community is subject, along with this community, to fundamental divergence: into the law governing (internal) relationships between members of the, transatlantic, security community, which form a normatively and institutionally interrelated selfcontained regime on the one hand, and the international law that governs the relations between the countries of the Western Hemisphere and other subjects of the international law on the other hand. These factors determine the shift of the security paradigm: new actors, new normative content, different binding effect of the norms and, above all, new rules. The new paradigm of security in the international law dimension correlates with the shift in metaphors that build concepts significant to the international law such as state, sovereignty, security, and international treaty. These transformations set the stage for the legitimization of actions taken by the subjects of legal protection in the international law dimension.

Common concern for the global ecological commons: solidarity with future generations?

This article elaborates on ideas concerning future generations and whether they are useful in understanding some aspects of the concern for the global ecological commons. The article’s main scholarly contribution is to develop analytical tools for examining what a concern for future generations would require of current generations. It combines the scholarly literature on future generations with that of solidarity. The ideas concerning future generations are interpreted in terms of an ideal typical concept of solidarity with future generations. This concept is divided into four dimensions: the foundation of solidarity, the objective of solidarity, the boundaries of solidarity and the collective orientation. By applying these four dimensions in the context of the political process leading to Agenda 2030, the potentials and limitations of the concept are evident. The article concludes that the absence of reciprocity between current and future generations and uncertainty about the future are both crucial issues, which cut across the four dimensions. We cannot expect anything from people who have not yet been born, and we do not know what preferences they will have. This shows the vulnerability of forward-looking appeals to solidarity with future generations. Nevertheless, such appeals to solidarity may give global political processes a normative content and direction and can thereby contribute to understanding common concerns for the global ecological commons.

Indigenous patrimonialization as an operation of the liberal state

Indigenous conservation through patrimonialization is the product of political and legal decisions made by a non-indigenous agent: the liberal state, using the law to retain a form of bios. We propose that patrimonialization is the device by which liberal states have processed and integrated indigenous claims into a form of bios ultimately designed to safeguard state legal structures. We argue that, to uphold the rule of law in contexts of struggle and resistance that challenge the very understanding of the law, states respond by wielding the law in the form of the rule by law, that is, pushing the law to the limit to give normative content to the criteria by which the state conducts its affairs, without straying from the individual rights framework. We hold that the rule by law is an operation that defines the patrimonialization of indigenous peoples. It increases their visibility while imposing limits on political action to keep them from becoming sui juris subjects capable of breaching the distinction between zoe and bios. In this article, we try to understand the political–ideological intent of these decisions, the intentions beyond the letter of the law of patrimonialized peoples.

Poufność komunikacji elektronicznej w rozporządzeniu o prywatności i łączności elektronicznej: jak chronić prywatność i autonomię osobistą bez utrudniania rozwoju rozwiązań AI

This article aims to analyse Articles 5 and 6 of the draft ePrivacy Regulation put forward by the European Commission, as key rules regulating the processing of electronic communication data and metadata. The confidentiality of electronic communication is an important aspect of privacy and personal autonomy protection. Still, disproportionate regulation may hurt economic growth, particularly with regard to artificial intelligence (AI) solutions development. The article begins by briefly describing a socio-economic context in which the future regulation of electronic communication confidentiality will function, then analyses the implications of proposed norms for the protection of privacy and personal autonomy, and their potential implications for economic development, for AI solutions in particular. The article analyses which of the proposed versions of Articles 5 and 6 meet the middle ground and ensure protection of privacy and personal autonomy without at the same time hampering economic development and AI innovation. After analysing the proposed normative content of all three versions of the ePrivacy Regulation draft, some afterthoughts are shared about them and their potential impact. The goal is to find the proper balance between privacy protection as an ultimate priority and maintaining economic development and innovation as something that cannot be ignored and is a priority in its own right, to an extent where it does not harm the essential content of the fundamental right to privacy and personal autonomy.