The current EU migration and asylum policy crisis has been perceived to constitute one of the most serious challenges for European security. The attitude of fear and reluctance towards admission of cultural others (including: refugees, asylum seekers and the immigrants) has been particularly visible in the V4 countries. The aim of this paper is therefore to examine the grounds of such a position with reference to general European tendencies as well as specific features of attitudes of Poland and Slovakia as the representatives of V4 countries in the light of their particular economic and social situation. Due to volume limitations the author will focus mainly on the two presented States. The decision regarding choice of Poland arises from the fact that as the only V4 State it has voted in favour of the mandatory quota of relocation of 120.000 refugees. Instead Slovakia constitutes the most vivid example pro-European parties changing rhetoric for more national which is quite transparent for the V4 countries. The whole analysis has been conducted in the specific context of relocation of the symbolic division of Europe an replacement of ideological Iron Curtain with cultural Velvet Curtain which leads to the phenomenon of culturalisation.
There is neither consensus whether the category of linguistic rights shall be distinguished, nor international agreement on the catalogue of such rights. Nevertheless, access to education in mother tongue constitutes a core element of most of the international and national frameworks of minority protection. Academic and legal disputes are particularly absorbing in Europe, where linguistic policies frequently intertwine with politics (e.g. Cyprus, Moldova, Ukraine). Thus, it is essential to pose the question, whether the right to education in mother tongue is always granted the equal scope of protection or is such protection differentiated by any additional criteria. Most of all, it shall be considered whether the analyzed right has an independent character or its protection is associated with perception of other fundamental rights and freedoms. This paper investigates the scope of the protection of this right within the framework of the Council of Europe.
The aim of this article is to resolve an issue whether the Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights (further referred to as ECHR) contradicts the principle of legality within the judicial practice of the European Court of Human Rights (referred to as ECtHR). The significance of the presented topic does not lie solely within the sphere of academic considerations, but remains of great value for ensuring an adequate level of protection within the Strasbourg system. Moreover, the establishment of the boundaries of implementation of Article 17 ECHR is crucial for providence of legal certainty for all its addressees: individuals, states and the groups of persons. The author of presented paper poses the hypothesis that the manner of practical usage of Article 17 ECHR leads to contradiction of the principle of legality which remains the core for the rule of law concept. The article relies on the legal dogmatic method as well as elements of historic and comparative analysis.
The objective of the article hereto is to present the mechanisms of the memory rights’ protection within the Strasbourg system, based upon the literal resonance of the European Convention of Human Rights and judicial practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Such topic will be subjected to analysis through the legal-dogmatic method which relies upon the construction of the concrete provisions of the Convention as well as jurisprudence of ECHR. The basic hypothesis of the author is the existence of the double standards of memory rights’ protection against negationism, depending from the type of denied memory right.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.