Legal Roots of Christian Anthropology

Purpose of the article is to reconstruct the legal sources of Christian anthropology. Theoretical basis. The methodological basis of the article is the understanding of the fundamental foundations of Christian anthropology in the context of Roman legal understanding. Originality. From the point of view of the Christian religion, man is a dual being: his body is part of the material world, but his soul is not from this world, he is born directly from God. The transcendent origin of the soul gives it the right to communicate with God, but this right can be realized only with the help of the Church, which is seen as the "bride of the Lamb" and the mystical "body of Christ". Interpretations of the essence of church organization correlate with the principles of organization of the Roman community. The principle of universal priesthood correlates with the idea of "post-Tarquinian democracy", recognizing the people of Rome as the supreme bearer of the empire of Jupiter; catholicity – with the idea of the senate as a meeting of the most deserving leaders of the community; apostolic succession – with the institution of republican magistrates, who even though received their power from the community, but through "consultations with the gods" (auspices). In essence, Christian dogmatism is Roman law applied to the Middle Eastern religion; the Bible was interpreted as a legal document, and theologians acted as lawyers. Conclusions. In the ancient Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic, etc.) the ideal of Roman law was realized as the right of impersonal law, standing outside and above the individual. The latter has no ontological value, it is a "servant of God", but the union of men into the mystical "body of Christ" makes the latter empowered to represent God on earth and to act on his behalf. The Renaissance paved the way for the Reformation, in which a powerful "Greek" ("philosophical") lobby declared itself. Despite the fact that many leaders of the Reformation had a personal dislike for philosophy, they were spontaneous philosophers, believing themselves entitled to interpret the will of God independently, regardless of the authority of the councils. They were strict rationalists who only changed the object of their reason: if the ancient Greeks tried to comprehend the world rationally, the Protestants set themselves the goal of rationally comprehending the Book. Ultimately, the main question of Christian theology is the question of man’s attitude to God, and the differences between the anthropological systems within Christianity are the options for answering this question.

Źródła i formy kontaktów z bliskimi mężczyzn odbywających karę pozbawienia wolności

Social support is essential for mental and physical health and plays an important role in reducing the risk of returning to prison. The main sources of prisoners’ social support are relatives with whom they have the right to communicate using a variety of forms. The frequency of contact depends on the type of prison. However, little research examines prisoners’ communication with their relatives. The study was conducted on 478 men between the ages of 16 and 68 (M = 35,2; SD = 9,7), who were serving a prison sentence in one of five penitentiary facilities. The analysis revealed that the majority of incarcerated men had contact with their relatives, usually in a form of phone calls. The majority of them had contact with a mother. The study also demonstrated that the percentage of contacts with relatives decreased with age and time spent in prison.

‘It is not good for the person to be alone’: The capabilities approach and the right to communicate

For decades, attempts have been made to define a ‘right to communicate’. The rise of media technologies, which are characterized by abundance of channels and information, interactivity, mobility, and multimediated messaging, has allowed to rethink this right in a context converging traditional media and telecommunications and referring to communicating as an essential human capability. Applying Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach to communications, we argue that communicating is a capability required to realize such functionings as participating in political, cultural, social, educational, and commercial life and is essential to promote belonging to a collective. The ‘negative’ right to free speech should be replaced by a positive right to communicate, which should include free speech, access to information, privacy, and utilization of communications in order to belong to a community.

Official Language Designation: Constitution-Building Primer 20

Modern constitutions typically contain a variety of provisions on language. They may designate one or more official languages, each with a different kind of legal status. Constitutions may also create language rights, usually held by minority-language speakers, granting groups and individuals the right to communicate with, and receive services from, the government in their native tongue. In systems of multi-level governance, constitutions may vest the authority to designate official language(s) for each order of government. This Primer addresses the role of language in constitutional design, and the key considerations, implications and potential challenges that arise in multilingual states. It discusses the range of claims around language as a constitutional issue, and the potential consequences of successfully addressing these claims—or failing to do so.

5 Right to Counsel

This chapter addresses the right to counsel, an important, non-derogable right designed to prevent miscarriages of justice when a defendant faces a state that has greater resources, powers, and access to evidence. Under international human rights law, the right to counsel encompasses five main components: the right to be notified of the right to the assistance of counsel; the right to prompt access to qualified counsel, paid for by the state if the defendant is indigent; the right to choose counsel; the right to communicate confidentially with counsel; and the right to act as one’s own counsel. International bodies have defined the broad scope of protection that is afforded to defendants in broadly consistent terms, but the chapter highlights divergences relating to the right to represent oneself, and the circumstances under which international bodies will find that counsel has not been ‘effective’ in a given case.

IMPLEMENTATION OF WARTELPAS BASED ON VIDEO CALL IN THE PANDEMIC COVID-19

The role and function of correctional institutions in providing the rights of prisoners, especially the right to communicate, has become a hot issue during the Covid-19 pandemic. Prisoners who are in correctional institutions / detention demands to be able to communicate with their families, this is a problem considering the face-to-face spread of the virus is prone to occur in overcrowded prisons. Referring to the Instruction of the Director General of Corrections Number: PAS-08.OT.02.02 of 2020 concerning the Prevention, Handling, Control and Recovery of Covid-19, there are efforts to replace the inmates' direct visits with video calls to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in prisons / detention centers. This study analyzes the implementation of video calls as an effort to grant communication rights to prisoners and to prevent the spread of covid-19 in prisons / detention centers.

Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan)

Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan) concerned Pakistan's arrest, detention, conviction, and death sentence of Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, asserted by India to be an Indian national, who had been convicted of engaging in acts of terrorism and espionage in Pakistan. This is the third dispute over the interpretation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) to come before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In contrast to the Applicants in the previous consular rights cases, India sought relief that included the annulment of Jadhav's conviction in Pakistan, his release from custody, and his safe transfer to India. After unanimously finding it had jurisdiction, fifteen judges of the ICJ, with only Judge ad hoc Jillani dissenting, held on the merits that Pakistan had breached VCCR Article 36 by failing to inform Jadhav without delay of his rights under that provision; by failing to notify without delay the appropriate consular post of India in Pakistan of his detention; and by depriving India of its right to communicate with Jadhav, to visit him in detention, and arrange for his legal representation. In addition, the Court, with only Judge ad hoc Jillani dissenting, found that Pakistan is under an obligation to inform Jadhav of his rights without further delay and is obliged to provide Indian consular officers access to him. The Court further found that appropriate reparation required Pakistan to provide, by means of its own choosing, effective review and reconsideration of Jadhav's conviction and sentence to ensure that full weight is given to the effect of the violation of his rights. Finally, the ICJ, again with Judge ad hoc Jillani dissenting, declared that a continued stay of execution constituted an indispensable condition for the effective review and reconsideration of Jadhav's conviction and sentence.