scholarly journals Notas acerca de la formación histórica de la Ciencia del Derecho Eclesiástico

2003 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 403
Author(s):  
Lourdes RUANO ESPINA

If the historical training process of the Ecclesiastic Law was begun when the State was considered legitimated to legislate in ecclesiastic matters, defending its own front sovereignty against the monopoly of the domain of the Law of the Church, at present, its consolidation as autonomous legal Science has been possible thanks to the recognition, tutela and promotion of the human rights and, in particular, of the right to religious freedom.

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (05) ◽  
pp. 145-148
Author(s):  
Ниджат Рафаэль оглу Джафаров ◽  

It can be accepted that the classification of human rights, its division, types, and groups, is of particular importance. The syllogism for human rights can be taken as follows: law belongs to man; human beings are the highest beings on earth like living beings. Therefore, the regulation prevails. The right to freedom is conditional. Man is free. Consequently, human rights are dependent. Morality is the limit of the law. Morality is the limit and content of human actions. Therefore, the law is the limit of human activities. Morality is related to law. Law is the norm of human behavior. Thereby, human behavior and direction are related to morality. The people create the state. The state has the right. Therefore, the right of the state is the right of the people. The state is an institution made up of citizens. Citizens have the privilege. Such blessings as Dignity, honor, conscience, zeal, honor, etc., and values are a part of morality and spiritual life. Morality is united with law. Therefore, moral values are part of the law. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and conscience. Space is about the law. Therefore, everyone has the right to opinion and conscience. Key words: human rights, freedom of conscience, conceptuality, citizenship


2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 266-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Leigh

This article analyses recent trends in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights concerned with the right to freedom of thought, belief and religion (Article 9, European Convention on Human Rights) and the right of parents to respect by the state for their religious and philosophical views in the education of their children (Article 2, Protocol 1).1 These developments include notable decisions concerned with protection from religious persecution in Georgia, with religious education in Norway and Turkey and with the display of crucifixes in state schools in Italy. It is apparent that the European Convention religious liberty jurisprudence increasingly stresses the role of the state as a neutral protector of religious freedom. For individuals religious freedom is now also recognised to include not only the right to manifest their religious belief but also freedom from having to declare their religious affiliation. As the religious liberty jurisprudence comes of age, other significant developments, for example in relation to conscientious objection to military service, can be anticipated.


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Novita Akria Putri

Abstract: Human rights are claims that must be met in order to maintain the existence and human dignity. Right to religious freedom in fact, is a right enshrined directly in the Constitution of Indonesia. The essence of religious freedom is the recognition that every person has the right to believe and to live worship and engage in what is believed to be the call of God demands the truth. Appreciate the identity of a group is very important, inclusion of a religious identity in residence identity cards so that no one group that is forming a new religious sects that would undermine the nation's integration. Therefore, the elimination of religion column in the ID card is not the primary reason for the creation of the concept of equality before the law that became the main feature of a state of law. However, as the concept of justice of John Rawls, that the interests of certain groups are not allowed to undermine the social justice.Keywords: Removal, Religion Column, KTPAbstrak: Hak asasi manusia adalah klaim yang mesti dipenuhi demi mempertahankan eksistensi dan martabat manusia. Hak kebebasan beragama nyatanya, adalah hak yang diatur secara langsung dalam UUD 1945. Hakikat dengan kebebasan beragama adalah pengakuan bahwa setiap orang berhak meyakini serta untuk hidup beribadat dan berkomunikasi sesuai dengan apa yang diyakini sebagai panggilan tuntutan Tuhan yang mutlak. Menghargai adanya identitas sebuah golongan amatlah penting, pencantuman sebuah identitas agama dalam kartu identitas kependudukan agar tidak ada suatu golongan yang membentuk suatu sekte-sekte agama baru yang justru akan merusak integrasi bangsa. Oleh karena itu, penghapusan kolom agama dalam KTP tidaklah menjadi alasan utama untuk terciptanya konsep equality before the law yang menjadi ciri utama dari sebuah negara hukum. Namun, sebagaimana konsep keadilan dari Jhon Rawls, bahwa kepentingan golongan tertentu tidaklah diperbolehkan menggerus keadilan sosial.Kata kunci: Penghapusan, Kolom Agama, KTP


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
Lily Faradina ◽  
Kadek Wiwik Indrayanti

The rights of prisoners have been explicitly regulated in Act No.12 of 1995 on Corrections. The law therein outlines 13 (thirteen) rights reserved for a prisoner while in a Penitentiary. The right to get a wage or premium for the work done is a right that is often neglected in practice in the correctional institution located in our country. This happens because of the stigma of the people who still tend to assume that a prisoner is a party that deserves to be treated arbitrarily because of the crime he has committed. It is this kind of thinking that ultimately also affects officials or prison officers who end up treating incendiary people like humans who are unfit to accept the rights that have been provided by the state. Many inmates are employed in penitentiaries who are not paid for by their employers. If this continues to be done then the purpose of punishment will actually violate human rights inherent in the Prisoners as human beings. However, prisoners must also be protected by their rights as human beings.


2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romanița Elena Iordache

Abstract In January 2013, the Romanian Law on Religious Freedom and the General Status of Religious Denominations reached five years of implementation—the right time to assess the quality of the law, its fairness and enforceability, the way it responded to foreseeable challenges but, most importantly, to unexpected ones. Though, at the time of its adoption, law-makers, practitioners and religious denominations alike considered the law a working compromise doomed to be amended soon, no amendments were made so far. In spite of criticisms concerning the over-restrictive three tier system of registration for religious entities, voiced during the adoption process and subsequently, the biggest challenge for the law came however from a different direction through a little known case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in January 2012 and referred to the Grand Chamber in July 2012. The domestic proceedings as well as the chamber judgment in Sindicatul Păstorul Cel Bun v. Romania highlight that the principle of religious autonomy and the relation between state and Church still need to be defined and enforced in the Romanian context.1


2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 452-482
Author(s):  
Stojan Mićović

The neglect of freedom of religion is relevant once again. Montenegro passed its Law on Freedom of Religion, which caused tectonic disturbances in the relations between the state and the church, prescribing the nationalization of church land and shrines, inherently challenging the legal continuity of certain religious communities and with a questionable generality, i.e. the ability to apply to all. The law provoked mass litanies of Orthodox faithful as non-violent resistance, which also received recognition by the global public. A particular facet is the aspiration of the President of Montenegro and the decades-long ruling political party to form a new, independent Orthodox Church. There is thus a unique case in 21st century Europe that a government in a secular state is officially charging itself with the reorganization of an existing church organization. This article deals with the Law on Freedom of Religion in Montenegro, its concordance with the Constitution of Montenegro and the ECHR, and also analyzes the relationship between Montenegrin religious policy and the principle of state neutrality, as an indispensable principle of modern regulation of the church-state relations, bearing in mind the legislation and political situation in Montenegro until August 30, 2020.


2020 ◽  
pp. 157-179
Author(s):  
Michał Kmieć

The purpose of the article is to embed the twentieth-century teaching of the Church's Magisterium on the right to religious freedom in the Church's Tradition, showing clear evidence for the continuity of this teaching. Religious freedom is not a law that existed in the teaching of the Church fifty years ago, but one of its traditional elements, which may not have been strongly realized for centuries. It is, however, one of the elements of science about the relationship between the Church and the state that does not contradict any other elements.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 71
Author(s):  
Linda Evirianti

Everyone has the right of religious freedom or belief which becomes one of important parts of Human Rights (HAM/Hak Asasi Manusia). Thus, no one can be subjected to coercion that can interfere his freedom to adopt or embrace a religion or belief of his choice. The main characteristic of modern constitutional state is the guarantee of human rights in its constitution. In the Constitution NKRI 1945 has set human rights and the rights of citizens in the form of guarantees freedom for each citizen to embrace religion and worship according to their religion or belief. A state guarantees the freedom of each citizen to adopt a religion or belief, but the state (the government) must regulate the freedom in implementing and practicing a religion or belief so that the government can respect, protect, enforce and promote Human Right (HAM) and conserving security, order, health or public morals. Speaking of human rights in Islam is not an historical product arising from human ideology, a concept that has a theological dimension and will be accountable to God. Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief is part of the most important human rights, even have status as a right that should not be reduced and violated under any circumstances. On the other hand, religious freedom protects the phenomenon that can be controversial and dangerous for human existence, because religion and systems of ideological belief can be misused to trigger intolerance, discrimination, prejudice, hatred, and violence.[Setiap orang berhak atas kebebasan beragama atau kepercayaan yang menjadi salah satu bagian penting Hak Asasi Manusia. Dengan demikian, tidak ada yang bisa terkena paksaan yang bisa mengganggu kebebasannya untuk mengadopsi atau menganut agama atau kepercayaan pilihannya. Karakteristik utama negara konstitusional modern adalah jaminan hak asasi manusia dalam konstitusinya. Dalam Konstitusi NKRI 1945 telah menetapkan hak asasi manusia dan hak warga negara dalam bentuk jaminan kebebasan bagi setiap warga negara untuk merangkul agama dan ibadah sesuai agama atau kepercayaan mereka. Sebuah negara menjamin kebebasan setiap warga negara untuk mengadopsi agama atau kepercayaan, namun negara (pemerintah) harus mengatur kebebasan dalam melaksanakan dan mempraktikkan agama atau kepercayaan sehingga pemerintah dapat menghormati, melindungi, menerapkan dan mempromosikan Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM). Dan melestarikan keamanan, ketertiban, kesehatan atau moral publik. Berbicara tentang hak asasi manusia dalam Islam bukanlah produk historis yang muncul dari ideologi manusia, sebuah konsep yang memiliki dimensi teologis dan akan bertanggung jawab kepada Tuhan. Kebebasan berpikir, hati nurani, agama dan kepercayaan adalah bagian dari hak asasi manusia yang paling penting, bahkan memiliki status sebagai hak yang tidak boleh dikurangi dan dilanggar dalam kondisi apapun. Di sisi lain, kebebasan beragama melindungi fenomena yang bisa kontroversial dan berbahaya bagi eksistensi manusia, karena agama dan sistem kepercayaan ideologis dapat disalahgunakan untuk memicu intoleransi, diskriminasi, prasangka, kebencian, dan kekerasan.]


Author(s):  
A. A. Egorov

The article is devoted to theoretical and legal views of Aleksandr P. Kunitsyn concerning the concept offense. The author analyzes the process of emergence of law and human rights as its type, in the context of which the right to perform acts is particularly highlighted. The paper examines the scholars’ views with regard to the concept, types, elements of the offense and the circumstances excluding criminality of the act. General theoretical ideas of Aleksandr P. Kunitsyn are compared with the views of his contemporaries — representatives of the science of criminal law — in order to determine the degree of their development. In conclusion, the stance of Aleksandr P. Kunitsyn concerning the issue of punishment is given. The author notes that Kunitsyn quite objectively and naturally describes the process of emergence of law within which he places emphasis on human rights. This emphasis is particularly relevant today. The division of human rights into primary and derivative is a perfectly correct guess that has been accepted by the legal science as a whole. Formulating the concept of an act inconsistent with the law, Aleksandr P. Kunitsyn uses neither “crime” nor “wrong.” However, the word “offense” used by him only within the framework of the general definition refers to the private law interpretation of a wrongful act. Classifications of types of offenses offered by him surpass classifications offered by his contemporaries — representatives of the science of criminal law — by definition, conciseness and depth of thought. This is a very rare phenomenon, since in most cases it is the developments of the criminal law doctrine that precede the actual general theoretical ideas. His views on careless form of guilt did not have analogues among researchers of the phenomenon of crime.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 127-133
Author(s):  
Kotenko Т.

The article deals with the historical stages of the creation, development, and formation of a human rights institute. The ideological and theoretical heritage of Ancient Greece and Rome, which is the basis for the study of ideas about justice, social equality, and human freedom, is analyzed based on the analysis of the fundamental ideas of the most famous thinkers of antiquity. It was the philosophers of antiquity who initiated the concept of "natural law", which was formed over the centuries by the desire of man to understand the world, determine his place in society and politics. From the time of antiquity, the concept of human rights gradually began to emerge; Subsequently, the concept of equality, freedom of person, person, and citizen were formed. Ancient philosophers came up with the idea of law in general and the idea of human rights under the requirements of their time and conditions of social development. Over time, the ancient perception of social equality, justice, dignity, independence, and freedom of man became the starting point and benchmark of European political culture. The early period of the development of political and legal doctrines in ancient Greece is associated with the time of the formation of ancient Greek statehood. It was at this time that an attempt was made to give rationalist ideas about ethical and legal order in human affairs and relations instead of mythological ones. It should be noted that ancient Greek views on human rights were formed in mythological ideas about the origin of policies and divine justice. That is why rights come from the divine order of justice, which became the basis for the category equality. Only what corresponded to the concept of equality (within the concept of justice) was understood as right. In ancient Greek politics, customs and mono-norms gradually transformed towards protecting the dignity of citizens. The polite democracy gave impetus to the emergence of freedom, which promoted the emergence of equal political rights among the citizens of this policy. In the Greek city-state, the law first emerged as a specific phenomenon, and the life of the policy began to be compulsory for everyone. Subsequently, the Pythagoreans (VI –V centuries BC) formulated an important role in shaping the idea of legal equality and justice, using numerical proportions, that is, the ratio of certain parameters. The provision that "fair is to pay another equal" essentially introduces the coupon principle. Subsequently, this reflected Solon (7th-6th centuries BC) in his reforms. It eliminated debt slavery and, as a result of the compromise between nobility and demos, introduced a moderate censorship democracy in Athens. All citizens of the policy should equally be protected by the law and obey its mandatory rules (1). Recognized the law as a requirement of legal equality of free citizens of the policy, slaves did not apply the legal rules. Equality was considered in two respects: equality in law and equality before the law. Developed by Roman lawyers provisions in which a person acts as a subject of law, determine the legal status of a person, establish the freedom and formal equality of people under natural law, define Roman citizenship as a special legal status of a person, the distribution of the right to private and public, etc. contributed to the awareness of legal the importance of human rights in the context of the systematic doctrine of the legal nature of the relationship between the individual and the state. Roman law, extending to a state which it regarded as the object of its study along with positive law, ensured a legal relationship between the state and the individual, which was crucial for the development of the institution of the protection of individual rights in the world at that time (14, p. 119). In relation to individuals, the state was not above the rule of law, but directly its component part, which has all the basic properties of a law. The basis of a just and legal relationship between the individual and the state recognized the law, not the state. The individual and the state must be law-abiding subjects of legal relations, that is, act according to the rules of law. Conclusion. To sum up, we can point out that the first theoretical developments and statutory provisions of the law go back to ancient times. The thinkers of Ancient Greece and Rome initiated the basic concepts of justice, equality, autonomy. It was then that ideas about political rights, lawmaking, democracy, and the personal responsibility of citizens were formed. However, freedom was not universal, it did not belong to slaves, and they were not the subjects of relations in the policy. The population of the policies was divided into different social and ethnic groups and accordingly had different legal status. Such inequality was the norm, so the priority was given to a policy or state that was enshrined in legislation. However, in Ancient Greece, there were also certain individual rights of citizens such as the right to speak; private property rights; the right to participate in government; the right to hold office; to participate in national meetings; the right to participate in the administration of justice; the right to appeal against illegal acts, etc. In Ancient Rome, this list was supplemented by the right to bargain, freedom of movement, the right of the people's tribune to veto, the ban on torture, the adversarial process of the lawsuit, etc. Keywords: Antiquity period, city-policies, human rights, legal equality, society, justice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document