scholarly journals Is The Principle Of Magna Carta Regarding Religious Liberties Applied In Macedonia?

SEEU Review ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-85
Author(s):  
Bekim Nuhija
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Actual Situation ◽  
Magna Carta ◽  
State Interference

Abstract Human rights were analyzed and described in many writings from older times. If we consider their fame and historical value, most important ones are: Great Charter of Freedoms (Magna Carta Libertatum) of 1215, the Law on Rights (Bill of Rights) of 1689, the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America (1776) and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789). In Chapter 1 of Magna Carta was described the freedom of religion – it established the freedom of the English church from state interference. Today, implementation of this principle, challenges the communities to examine the part they might play in the development of a liberal democracy and to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem in internal and international relations. The restitution of the expropriated congregational properties – concretely of the Islamic Community of Macedonia remains open and can reflect the level of respect of human rights in general and religious and property rights in particular. The aim of this paper is to bring some facts on actual situation regarding the implementation of religious and related rights and discuss the way this principle has found its implementation in Macedonian legislations. Also this paper will seek to identify the problems that occur regarding these rights.

Legal Aid for Children: Some Reflections

1979 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
Brian Lucas
Keyword(s):  
United States Of America ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Court System ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
The Supreme Court

In its Second Main Report, Law and Poverty in Australia, the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty expressed the view that “legal representation for children appearing before the children's court, whether in the criminal or protective jurisdiction, is necessary if justice is to be done.”This view coincides with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in In re Gault. It has been said that this decision “unleashed a frontal assault on the juvenile court system.” It confirmed that juveniles were entitled to “due process” and the same protection which the Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights afforded to adults.

scholarly journals Discarding Dariano: The Heckler's Veto and a New School Speech Doctrine

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien M. Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
New School ◽  
The Press ◽  
Spoken Words

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 26 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Of all of the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, perhaps none inspire the level of interest and debate among both scholars and laypersons as the freedom of speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and it has long been held that “speech” encompasses not merely spoken words butany conduct which is “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

scholarly journals When US Scholars Speak of ‘Sovereignty’, what do they Mean?

2007 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana Sinclair ◽  
Michael Byers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Totalitarian Regime ◽  
Political Independence ◽  
The Us ◽  
American Academic

The term ‘sovereignty’ figures prominently in international affairs and academic analysis. But does ‘sovereignty’ mean the same thing in different countries and political cultures? In this article, we examine conceptions of sovereignty as they appear in the writings of US scholars of international law and those international relations scholars who deal with international law, in order to obtain a clearer picture of what ‘sovereignty’ means in American academic discourse. At first glance, the US literature is dominated by two distinct conceptions of sovereignty: (1) a statist conception that privileges the territorial integrity and political independence of governments regardless of their democratic or undemocratic character; (2) a popular conception that privileges the rights of peoples rather than governments, especially when widespread human rights violations are committed by a totalitarian regime. On closer examination, what seem to be two conceptions are in fact different manifestations of a single, uniquely American conception of sovereignty which elevates the United States above other countries and protects it against outside influences while concurrently maximising its ability to intervene overseas.

History, Ideology, and Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-176
Author(s):  
Anthony DiFilippo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Northeast Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
South Korean ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Rights Issues

This article will analyze the connection between history, countervailing ideologies, that is, the legacy of the Cold War, and the perceived identification of human rights violations as they pertain to countries with major security interests in Northeast Asia. This article will further show that the enduring nuclear-weapons problem in North Korea has been inextricably linked to human rights issues there, specifically because Washington wants to change the behavior of officials in Pyongyang so that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) becomes a state that at least remotely resembles a liberal democracy. Although supported by much of the international community, including the United States' South Korean and Japanese allies in Northeast Asia, Washington's North Korean policy has remained ineffective, as Pyongyang has continued to perform missile testing and still possesses nuclear weapons.

Beneath International Famine Relief in Ethiopia: The United States, Ethiopia, and the Debate over Relief Aid, Development Assistance, and Human Rights

2005 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Kissi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Development Assistance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Famine Relief ◽  
Mutual Antagonism ◽  
Ethiopian Government ◽  
The Government

Abstract:This article analyzes the conflicting interpretations of famine, relief aid, development assistance, and human rights by the Ethiopian and American governments, and the complexity of each government's policy and motives. It argues that in the 1970s and 1980s, the Carter and Reagan administrations faced the moral and political dilemma of assisting people in Ethiopia who were in desperate need with-out strengthening the hostile Ethiopian government in the process. And the government of Ethiopia had to make the difficult choice of accepting American aid on American terms at a period in Ethiopian history when doing so was politically suicidal. That America provided the aid and Ethiopia accepted it exemplifies the conduct of international relations in which human dignity compels nations to accommodate one another even within the boundaries of their mutual antagonism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document