Rašyti komentarą...
Nuoroda nukopijuota
× Pranešti klaidą
Pagal kontekstą ir be originalo aišku tiek, kad ambasadorė suabejojo ar mūsų šalyje veikia įstatymų viršenybės principas. Nors šiaip - tu teisus - anglų kalboj painiavo būna:)
Na man neaišku, ką ta Ambasadorė norėjo blogo pasakyti apie Lietuvą. Interviu originalo tai nėra. vertėjais nepasitikiu. Todėl ir klausiu specialistų. Internete pvz: " The difference between "rule by law" and "rule of law" is important. Under the rule "by" law, law is an instrument of the government, and the government is above the law. In contrast, under the rule "of" law, no one is above the law, not even the government. The core of "rule of law" is an autonomous legal order. Under rule of law, the authority of law does not depend so much on law's instrumental capabilities, but on its degree of autonomy, that is, the degree to which law is distinct and separate from other normative structures such as politics and religion. As an autonomous legal order, rule of law has at least three meanings. First, rule of law is a regulator of government power. Second, rule of law means equality before law. Third, rule of law means procedural and formal justice. We will take up these meanings of rule of law one by one.
First, as a power regulator, rule of law has two functions: it limits government arbitrariness and power abuse, and it makes the government more rational and its policies more intelligent.
The opposite of rule of law is rule of person. There are two kinds of rule of person. The first kind is "rule of the few persons," examples of which include tyranny and oligarchy. The second kind of rule of person is "rule of the many persons," an example of which is the ancient Greek democracies. The common feature of rule of person is the ethos that "what pleases the ruler(s) is law." That is, under rule of person, there is no limit to what the rulers (the government) can do and how they do things.
In contrast, a key aspect of rule of law is "limitation;" i.e., rule of law puts limits on the discretionary power of the government, including the power to changes laws. This is why the western juridical tradition is Roman, not Greek. One of the major problems of ancient Greek democracy is that its conception of law does not contain the idea of limitation. The Greek word "eleutheria," commonly translated as "freedom," connotes a freedom that extends into the principle that what pleases the people is law. In other words, there were no limits to the (democratic) governments of ancient Greece, and the popular will, be it short-term passion or long-term rationality, would always become law if the demos so wished. "As soon as law lost its sacred character, popular sovereignty was placed above the law, and, by that very act, government by laws was once again fused and confused with government by men" (Sartori, 1987, p. 307).
Unlike the Greek system, the Roman system of law limited the ability of the rulers to change laws, and it greatly influenced the Anglo-Saxon version of rule of law. At the core of the Anglo-Saxon conception of rule of law is the idea that the discretionary power of the government should be limited. "[W]henever there is discretion there is room for arbitrariness, and . . . in a republic no less than under a monarchy discretionary authority on the part of the government must mean insecurity for legal freedom on the part of its subjects" (Dicey, 1982, p. 110). The solution to this problem, say liberal democrats, is rule of law".
ir tttttt
First, as a power regulator, rule of law has two functions: it limits government arbitrariness and power abuse, and it makes the government more rational and its policies more intelligent.
The opposite of rule of law is rule of person. There are two kinds of rule of person. The first kind is "rule of the few persons," examples of which include tyranny and oligarchy. The second kind of rule of person is "rule of the many persons," an example of which is the ancient Greek democracies. The common feature of rule of person is the ethos that "what pleases the ruler(s) is law." That is, under rule of person, there is no limit to what the rulers (the government) can do and how they do things.
In contrast, a key aspect of rule of law is "limitation;" i.e., rule of law puts limits on the discretionary power of the government, including the power to changes laws. This is why the western juridical tradition is Roman, not Greek. One of the major problems of ancient Greek democracy is that its conception of law does not contain the idea of limitation. The Greek word "eleutheria," commonly translated as "freedom," connotes a freedom that extends into the principle that what pleases the people is law. In other words, there were no limits to the (democratic) governments of ancient Greece, and the popular will, be it short-term passion or long-term rationality, would always become law if the demos so wished. "As soon as law lost its sacred character, popular sovereignty was placed above the law, and, by that very act, government by laws was once again fused and confused with government by men" (Sartori, 1987, p. 307).
Unlike the Greek system, the Roman system of law limited the ability of the rulers to change laws, and it greatly influenced the Anglo-Saxon version of rule of law. At the core of the Anglo-Saxon conception of rule of law is the idea that the discretionary power of the government should be limited. "[W]henever there is discretion there is room for arbitrariness, and . . . in a republic no less than under a monarchy discretionary authority on the part of the government must mean insecurity for legal freedom on the part of its subjects" (Dicey, 1982, p. 110). The solution to this problem, say liberal democrats, is rule of law".
ir tttttt
Dėl lietuvos Konstitucijos neseniai vienas teisės korifėjus didelį straipsnį atpylė veide kad KT mato Konstitucijoje tokius dalykus kurių paprastas mirtingasis neįžiūri. Todėl KT reikalingas kaip politbiuras - Konstitucijos aiškintojas runkeliams..
Žinoma, pasiėmęs sąvokų žodyną gal ir dar šimtą reikšmių ir variantų rasi, bet pagrindinis vertimas yra toks ir nežinau ko tu čia ieškai rūroj rakščių, juolab, kad visiškai aišku ką ta bobelė turėjo omeny.
O čia tai gerai: "rule of law 2007-01-07 14:15:42
Va taip tai yra angliskai". BET ar TIKRAI?------yra kitokių nuomonių: "The difference between "rule by law" and "rule of law" is important. Under the rule "by" law, law is an instrument of the government, and the government is above the law. In contrast, under the rule "of" law, no one is above the law, not even the government. "
Va taip tai yra angliskai". BET ar TIKRAI?------yra kitokių nuomonių: "The difference between "rule by law" and "rule of law" is important. Under the rule "by" law, law is an instrument of the government, and the government is above the law. In contrast, under the rule "of" law, no one is above the law, not even the government. "
Va taip tai yra angliskai.
Hi:) Tavo paties komentaras reikalauja komentaro. Gal ir semiotinės analizės.
nu vot ir issprendeme regionini konflikt
Lietuvoje po 'istatymu virsenybes' veliava regis bus bandoma implementuoti Sveicarijos pavyzdi - 'pinigai auksciau visko (tame tarpe materijos ir dvasios' modeli.
Tai reiskia kad Konstitucija bus parduodama aukcione ir kiekvienas, kuris uzstatys auksciausia kaina, gales jos paragauti.
Tai reiskia kad Konstitucija bus parduodama aukcione ir kiekvienas, kuris uzstatys auksciausia kaina, gales jos paragauti.
'istatymu visenybes' man regis ne tiek svedai kiek kitu (laisve nesanciu) specialiu greito reagavimo pajegu daliniai laukia nesulaukia ivykdyti galutine dvasios virsenybes pries materija rezistencija.
Noreciau pakomentuoti straipsnio tona ir demesi ivairioms detalems, pasizyminti emocionalumu, redirekcija i neesminius dalykus ir tuo budu slepianti nesigilinima i apklausos/pokalbio dialogo esme, kuri sudaro socialinio/legalaus gyvenimo materialines (ir kt. tame tarpe dvasines) vertybiu sistemos/bazes/pagrindo duotose salyse (Svedija/Lietuva/Lenkija) turini , kuri apibendrintai dar Marksas pavadino ekonomikos baze, kuri lygiuojasi/atitinka/suprojektuojama i ' kas auksciau' ko' =
t.y. materija ar dvasia duotos salies vertybiu sistemos hierarchijoje isivaizduojamoje salies prioritetiniu vertybiu skaleje. Atitinkamai ta hierarchija seka ir ivairios socialines klases ir ivairus (pa)sluoksniai (seseliai su sava princesiu svita), sudarantys taip vadinama 'seselines ekonomikos' socialine klase. Tas pasluoksnis turi potencija tapti antsluoksniu, jei dvasia bus pirmiau uz materija salies prioritetiniu vertybiu skaleje, bet tai dar kitas genijus Engelsas pavadino 'utopija'. Man regis jei lyginti Lietuva su Lenkija, tai Lenkijoje tvirtai materialinis pradas apzerge dvasia ir is jos padare jei ne sugulove, tai skudura purvinoms kojoms nusisluostyti kuri suprivatizave koncernai dar naudoja ir kitiems gerove kuriantiems tikslams ivykdyti. Kas link Lietuvos, tai ten vyksta 'pavojingos tendencijos', kurios dvasiskai ir kuniskai kovoja su ikvepianciu Lenkijos pavyzdziu. Na o Svedai seniai 'dejo skersa' ant sios
revoliucines kovos tarp materijos ir dvasios, ir mano nuomone, tvirtai apsiginklavo
Konstitucinemis nuostatomis ginanciomis politinemis tendencijomis 'lygybe tarp dvasios ir materijos' ir padare is to atitinkama isvada --- tegu jos (dvasia ir materija) atskirai gyvena atskiruose pastatuose . Tai kartu isiprendzia vadinama 'demokratijos' dilema, t.y. nei dvasia nei materija nedominuoja viena kitos ir tokiu budu negrasina apversti valdzios piramides aukstyn kojom.
t.y. materija ar dvasia duotos salies vertybiu sistemos hierarchijoje isivaizduojamoje salies prioritetiniu vertybiu skaleje. Atitinkamai ta hierarchija seka ir ivairios socialines klases ir ivairus (pa)sluoksniai (seseliai su sava princesiu svita), sudarantys taip vadinama 'seselines ekonomikos' socialine klase. Tas pasluoksnis turi potencija tapti antsluoksniu, jei dvasia bus pirmiau uz materija salies prioritetiniu vertybiu skaleje, bet tai dar kitas genijus Engelsas pavadino 'utopija'. Man regis jei lyginti Lietuva su Lenkija, tai Lenkijoje tvirtai materialinis pradas apzerge dvasia ir is jos padare jei ne sugulove, tai skudura purvinoms kojoms nusisluostyti kuri suprivatizave koncernai dar naudoja ir kitiems gerove kuriantiems tikslams ivykdyti. Kas link Lietuvos, tai ten vyksta 'pavojingos tendencijos', kurios dvasiskai ir kuniskai kovoja su ikvepianciu Lenkijos pavyzdziu. Na o Svedai seniai 'dejo skersa' ant sios
revoliucines kovos tarp materijos ir dvasios, ir mano nuomone, tvirtai apsiginklavo
Konstitucinemis nuostatomis ginanciomis politinemis tendencijomis 'lygybe tarp dvasios ir materijos' ir padare is to atitinkama isvada --- tegu jos (dvasia ir materija) atskirai gyvena atskiruose pastatuose . Tai kartu isiprendzia vadinama 'demokratijos' dilema, t.y. nei dvasia nei materija nedominuoja viena kitos ir tokiu budu negrasina apversti valdzios piramides aukstyn kojom.
REKLAMA
REKLAMA
Ambasadorė Malin Kärre: Švedai laukia įstatymų viršenybės Lietuvoje