Self determination, Yugoslavia Czechoslovakia Essay

Self determination, Yugoslavia Czechoslovakia - Essay Example That these unitary states would be destroyed following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union was perhaps not as important as the manner by which these nation-states disintegrated. The process in Yugoslavia was extraordinarily violent, and notions of national self-determination and territorial sovereignty led to substantial conflict and bloodshed; on the other hand, the process of state disintegration in Czechoslovakia was much more moderate and civil, leading one commentator to characterize this period of Czech history as the period of the "Velvet Revolution to the Velvet Divorce" (Bakke, 2002: 92). This essay will argue that these differences were the result of different approaches to minority rights, different demographic realities which made a more peaceful secession much more difficult in Yugoslavia, and certain ingrained philosophies regarding the legitimacy of national self-determination. As a preliminary matter, before examining how Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia viewed secession, it is necessary to examine the common understanding of the terms used. The fundamental problem, as noted by Bakke, is that "The principle of national self-determination is as ambiguous as the nation concept itself. ... This ambiguity is particularly illustrative in the instant case; it is illustrative because some people view national self-determination as a civic nation encompassing a variety of ethnic and cultural groups whereas other people have interpreted national self-determination as the right of groups with distinct cultural and ethnic characteristics to have their own autonomous state. As history has demonstrated, the Czech people generally subscribed to the civic notion before relenting and recognizing the cultural and ethnic aspects of national self-determination; Yugoslavia, on the other hand, was torn by a stubborn Serbian adherence to the Roman natio interpretation. The Serbians held steadfast to the civic notion, demanding the preservation of the multiethnic unitary state, whereas Croatia and other regions relied on the cultural ethnic interpretation of national self-determination. A reconciliation of these ambiguous interpretations was resolved peacefully in Czechoslovakia, but unre conciled in Yugoslavia. One simply cannot engage in a comparative analysis of these two formerly unitary nation-states without understanding the role which ethnicity played. Following the First World War and decolonization, national self-determination tended to represent freedom and political and economic independence; later, however, as these newly formed unitary states evolved, people with their own unique cultural and ethnic characteristics often sought to incorporate notions of cultural sovereignty and territorial integrity into their articulation of national self-determination. Indeed, as stated by Hannum, Ethnic wars of secession highlight the inherent tension between "self-determination" and

An argument on The Basic Law and the Limits of Toleration Essay

An argument on The Basic Law and the Limits of Toleration - Essay Example Liberalism strives to create justifiable criteria for determining what courses or options of actions are justifiable out of a person’s set of feasible actions, or added to improve its significance, and options that people can legally pursue (Schmitt 147). A person’s ability to make law for his or herself does not imply that the results of actions will be wise. In the name of liberty, they will begin doing weird things, in their privacies, and then complain about life being boring. According liberalism, liberty has a significant meaning only if it includes the freedom to do things that everyone does not agree with. These are the actions that the liberals have to tolerate. This is what is referred to as liberal tolerance (Schmitt 145). Annette Schmitt, in his article â€Å"The Basic Law and the Limits of Tolerance† is determined to assess whether a constitution that allows the suspension of individual rights (Art. 18GG), and the prohibition of parties (Art. 21.2 GG ) deserves to be labeled as a liberal-democratic constitution (Schmitt 149). Schmitt performs this assessment based on the analytical framework created by the liberal concept of toleration. Tolerance is only meaningful, within the liberal concept theory if it has certain limits. ... e is natural law created by Creator to, which everyone is entitled to, and it is the duty of a state (society) to protect these rights (Benvindo 333). Some of these rights include: equality before the law; freedom of expression; freedom of assembly and association; freedom of faith; of conscience, and of creed; right of property, of asylum, and of petition; right to life, and the right to privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications (Schmitt 149). These rights are stipulated in Art. 1 GG. It asserts that Human dignity shall not be violated, and it is the duty of a society (state) to respect and protect these rights (Schmitt 150). The content of Art. 1 GG, may not be altered at all, like Art.2 to 17 GG whose contents may not be altered as long as their essential content is concerned. This is because Art. 1 to 17 GG are not ordinary programmatic statements, but directly applicable laws (Schmitt 149). According to the basic law, anybody who feels that his or her rights have b een violated with a judicial ruling, a statute enacted by parliament, and a decree issued by the administration has the legal rights to present his or her complains before the Federal Constitutional Court. In this case, Schmitt feels that the parliament, local administration, and the judiciary are responsible for suspending or prohibiting an individual’s right, which the citizens feel that is not objectionable (Rogowski & Gawron 25). A state is tolerant if it accepts to puts up with its citizens doing certain objectionable things. However, it has the freedom to stop tolerating these actions. The first stage in â€Å"stopping tolerating† is â€Å"Start prohibiting†. A state may decide to prohibit certain courses of actions if it finds that certain rights are objectionable. When a state