Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Wyszukujesz frazę "Ryszard, Piotrowski," wg kryterium: Autor


Wyświetlanie 1-5 z 5
Tytuł:
New technologies or new human rights: the right to a government by humans and the right to one’s own thoughts?
Autorzy:
Ryszard, Piotrowski,
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/902813.pdf
Data publikacji:
2019-01-17
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego
Tematy:
new technologies
human rights
artificial intelligence
democracy
right to privacy
the right to a government by humans
the right to one’s own thoughts
nowe technologie
prawa człowieka
sztuczna inteligencja
prawo do prywatności
prawo do rządu sprawowanego przez ludzi
prawo do własnych myśli
Opis:
The rapid development of information and communication technology has made it imperative that new human rights be spelled out, to cope with an array of expected threats associated with this process. With artificial intelligence being increasingly put to practical uses, the prospect arises of Man’s becoming more and more AI-dependant in multiple walks of life. This necessitates that a constitutional and international dimension be imparted to a right that stipulates that key state-level decisions impacting human condition, life and freedom must be made by humans, not automated systems or other AI contraptions. But if artificial intelligence were to make decisions, then it should be properly equipped with value-based criteria. The culture of abdication of privacy protection may breed consent to the creation and practical use of technologies capable to penetrate an individual consciousness without his or her consent. Evidence based on such thought interference must be barred from court proceedings. Everyone’s right to intellectual identity and integrity, the right to one’s thoughts being free from technological interference, is as essential for the survival of the democratic system as the right to privacy – and it may well prove equally endangered.
Źródło:
Studia Iuridica; 2018, 76; 283-296
0137-4346
Pojawia się w:
Studia Iuridica
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, and the Limits of Popular Sovereignty: Rethinking the Polish Experience
Autorzy:
Ryszard, Piotrowski,
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/902983.pdf
Data publikacji:
2019-05-04
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego
Tematy:
separation of powers
checks and balances
rule of law
democracy
the Constitution
human rights
values
sovereign
privacy
new technologies
podział władzy
kontrola i równowaga
praworządność
demokracja
Konstytucja
prawa człowieka
wartości
suwerenność
prywatność
nowe technologie
Opis:
The principle of checks and balances counts among the most fundamental constitutional values, as it is connected with the recognition and guaranteeing of human rights – in other words is the very essence of the Constitution, an act that limits the majority rule to allow for the rights and freedoms of the individual. Also of key importance is the connection of this precept with the essence of the democratic system, understood as one where the majority rule is constrained by human rights. The principle of checks and balances could function in full only in correspondence with culture of respect for human rights. The status of the sovereign needs legitimacy, which derives from the sovereign’s subordination to the Constitution. Being sovereign means being unsubordinated to anybody. It is thus fair to conclude that the attribute of sovereignty actually belongs to the values that have been shaped by culture and linked to the timeless moral rules and principles corresponding to humanity’s eternal dilemmas – the values that create the constitutional culture, i.e. a community’s set of values. The sovereign does not exercise the supreme authority over values, and the values are embodied in the Constitution, which is inseparably linked with the people and their sovereignty. The Constitution of the Republic of Poland reflects the precepts of liberal democracy, or such kind of democracy where the sources of human rights do not stem from the will of the majority. The model of governance adopted in the Constitution could be described as consensual democracy. Constitutional practice has taken a course where the system of consensual democracy – as laid down in the Constitution of Poland, with the power of the majority being constrained by rights of the minority – is turning into a system of a majority democracy, based not on a dialogue between the majority and the opposition, but on the power of a parliamentary majority who disregards the systemic role of the opposition.
Źródło:
Studia Iuridica; 2019, 79; 78-91
0137-4346
Pojawia się w:
Studia Iuridica
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Sędziowie i granice władzy demokratycznej w świetle Konstytucji RP
Judges and the limits of democratic power in the light of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland
Autorzy:
Piotrowski, Ryszard
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/693193.pdf
Data publikacji:
2018
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
Tematy:
judiciary
constitution
democracy
constitutional interpretation
judicial independence and independence of judges
władza sądownicza
konstytucja
demokracja
wykładnia konstytucji
niezależność sądów i niezawisłość sędziów
Opis:
The essence of the democratic power established in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland is to limit this power in order to protect the rights of the individual against threats that may be posed by the rule of the majority, especially when this majority seeks to impose its values and beliefs on others. This limitation is expressed both by the principle of the separation and balance of powers and by the principle of a democratic rule of law, and  above all by the principle of the inherent and inalienable dignity of man. In the light of the Constitution, the supremacy of the nation as a constitutional value is not of an absolute nature, especially in the context of the special status of human rights which is anchored in the concept of dignity. The current Basic Law, granting the supreme authority to the Polish nation, requires that the authority of that supremacy be exercised in compliance with the principles and in forms set forth in the Constitution. This means in particular, the constitutional legitimacy of the judiciary to restrict, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution as the supreme law, the powers of other authorities, as well as the authority (sovereign) exercising its power directly. The existence of independent judiciary leads, on the one hand, to the rejection in the conception of a democratic state, of the assumption of an unlimited scope of power of the governing authority, and on the other hand, to the recognition as a determinant of democracy of only those manifestations of the will of the majority, which have a constitutional legitimacy and are therefore in line with the version of the culture of human rights as enshrined in the Basic Law and which are accepted by judges at the time of the ruling.
Istotą władzy demokratycznej ustanowionej w Konstytucji RP jest ograniczenie tej władzy po to, by chronić prawa jednostki przed zagrożeniami, jakie może stworzyć panowanie większości, zwłaszcza wtedy, kiedy dąży ona do narzucenia innym swoich wartości i przekonań. Ograniczenie to wyraża zarówno zasada podziału i równoważenia władz, jak i zasada demokratycznego państwa prawnego, a przede wszystkim zasada przyrodzonej i niezbywalnej godności człowieka. W świetle postanowień Konstytucji zwierzchnictwo Narodu jako wartość konstytucyjna nie ma absolutnego charakteru, zwłaszcza wobec zakotwiczonego w pojęciu godności szczególnego statusu praw człowieka. Obowiązująca ustawa zasadnicza, przyznając zwierzchnią władzę Narodowi, wymaga uznania za ustrojową przesłanką owego zwierzchnictwa sprawowanie go na zasadach i w formach określonych w Konstytucji. Oznacza to w szczególności konstytucyjną legitymację władzy sądowniczej do ograniczania – ze względu na postanowienia Konstytucji jako najwyższego prawa – pozostałych władz, jak też suwerena sprawującego swą władzę bezpośrednio. Istnienie niezależnego i niezawisłego sądownictwa prowadzi z jednej strony do odrzucenia w koncepcji demokracji założenia o nieograniczonym zakresie woli suwerena jako podmiotu władztwa państwowego, z drugiej zaś – do uznania za wyznacznik demokracji tych tylko przejawów woli większości, które mają legitymację konstytucyjną, a zatem zgodne są z wersją kultury praw człowieka zapisaną w ustawie zasadniczej i w czasie orzekania znajdującą akceptację sędziów.
Źródło:
Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny; 2018, 80, 1; 215-229
0035-9629
2543-9170
Pojawia się w:
Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
A Republic of distrust, fear and division. Rethinking contemporary Polish Experience
Autorzy:
Piotrowski, Ryszard
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/47397975.pdf
Data publikacji:
2021-12-12
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego
Tematy:
distrust
power
constitution
democracy
state
human rights
new technologies
judicial power
opposition
nieufność
władza
konstytucja
demokracja
prawa człowieka
nowe technologie
władza sądownicza
opozycja
Opis:
The system of governance in contemporary Poland is founded mainly on a negative narrative of distrust. That narrative brought to power the country’s present scaremongering rulers. They continue feeding the public with frightening stories of an influx of refugees, threats of war and terrorist attacks, evils of globalisation and a loss of cultural identity to foreign ways of life. A balance between distrust of rulers and trust in them is part of democracy’s constitutional identity. Those currently in power sow distrust in liberal democracy and its values – they violate the constitution, stir up distrust of elites, and make attempts at bringing the judiciary to heelwhile staging judges bashing propaganda campaigns. Distrust of European law and European institutions is part and parcel of this process. The negative narrative weakens and threatens to disenfranchise civil society, blurring the line between law and lawlessness. It also weakens those in power.
Źródło:
Studia Iuridica; 2021, 88; 312-324
0137-4346
Pojawia się w:
Studia Iuridica
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Wojna i pokój w Konstytucji RP
Autorzy:
Piotrowski, Ryszard
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/48562326.pdf
Data publikacji:
2022-11-13
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego
Tematy:
Constitution
war
peace
human rights
democracy
Opis:
Art. 116 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland provides that a state of war and the conclusion of peace are declared by the Sejm acting in the name of the Republic of Poland. These two notions, having no constitutional definition, come under the rubric of established notions, i.e. concepts whose meaning derives from doctrinal findings and provisions of law, as well as from constitutional principles and values. The Sejm’s power to declare a state of war and, consequently, declare the conclusion of peace is part of Polish system-of-governance traditions. The parliament’s power to declare war actually characterizes most of the democratic systems, even if it could be argued that waiving this prerogative in practice characterizes it as well, reflecting the preponderance of the executive power in the domain of foreign policy. The wording of Art. 116 rules out an invasive war, also in the form of a war of prevention or a preventive self-defence. The Sejm may adopt the relevant resolution only in case of armed aggression against the territory of the Republic of Poland, or if international treaties impose an obligation of common defence against aggression, i.e. as a consequence of an act of aggression. Being of key importance for the constitutional regulation of war and peace, this constraint is commensurate with international law, which the Republic of Poland is required to respect pursuant to Art. 9 of the Constitution, and is also commensurate with the Preamble to the Constitution. In a democracy, acts of war – as an important government prerogative – may only be conducted pursuant to the relevant constitutional provisions which define the conditions that must be met for such acts to be legitimate. The conduct of a war, after all, does not warrant the suspension of the Constitution. A democratic state ruled by law must not conduct a war otherwise than on the basis, and within the constraints, of law – if it is to retain its constitutional identity. For the use of armed forces abroad to be commensurate with the Constitution, such use must not represent an act of aggression, nor can it represent any acts violating the principles of the United Nations Charter. If past experience is to be a guide, democratic constitutions are not capable of preventing anti-democratic changes in the system of governance, nor are they capable of preventing wars. War represents a failure of the Constitution, by destroying its foundation, the belief in inalienable and inherent dignity of the person.
Źródło:
Studia Iuridica; 2022, 91; 300-319
0137-4346
Pojawia się w:
Studia Iuridica
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
    Wyświetlanie 1-5 z 5

    Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies