von Prof. Avni Mazrreku
Statistik und Sichtungsnachweis dieser Seite findet sich am Artikelende
| [1.] Ama/Fragment 066 03 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-11-02 00:43:34 Hindemith | Ama, BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Ziller 2003 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 66, Zeilen: 3-7.(7-9) |
Quelle: Ziller 2003 Seite(n): 261, Zeilen: 6-12, 19-25 |
|---|---|
| Part D Concepts of National Sovereignty
I. Different Views of National Sovereignty In France, the debate on sovereignty has been centred for two centuries around the tension between national sovereignty and popular sovereignty — souveraineté nationale et souveraineté populaire251, when sovereignty was unanimously considered as inherent to the French state and French society. Nowadays, the discussion is shifting towards a transformation of the major features; sovereignty is linked with the evolution of the European integration and of globalisation. There are different views of sovereignty. 251 Ziller, Jacques, Sovereignty in France: Getting Rid of the Mal de Bodin, in: Nail Walker (ed,), Sovereignty in Transition, Oxford 2003, pp. 261 ff., 264-268. |
1. INTRODUCTION
If we look at the French debate on sovereignty over the past decades,1 two somewhat contradictory impressions emerge. On one hand, an important trend seems to resist transformation, as demonstrated by the lasting passion with which so-called sovereignists - be they politicians, journalists or academics - persist in defending a concept of France that in their view is being endangered by the current evolution linked to European integration and globalisation. [...] Whereas for two centuries the French debate on sovereignty has been centred around the opposition between national sovereignty and popular sovereignty — souveraineté nationale et souveraineté populaire - when sovereignty was unanimously considered as inherent to the French state and French society, the discussion is nowadays shifting towards a transformation of the major features of sovereignty: is it possible to divide or share sovereignty? |
The source is given in fn. 251. |
|
| [2.] Ama/Fragment 066 09 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-11-21 13:07:29 Schumann | Ama, Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wikipedia Sovereignity 2007 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 66, Zeilen: 9-18, 20-23 |
Quelle: Wikipedia Sovereignity 2007 Seite(n): 1 (online source), Zeilen: - |
|---|---|
| Those considered as partisans of the divine right of kings argue that the monarch is sovereign by divine right, and not by the agreement of the people. Taken to its conclusion, this may translate into a system of absolute monarchy. The second book of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Du Contrat Social, ou Principes du droit politique" (1762) deals with sovereignty and its rights: sovereignty or the general will is inalienable, for the will cannot be transmitted; it is indivisible, since it is essentially general; it is infallible and always right, determined and limited in its power by the common interest, it acts through laws. Law is the decision of the general will in regard to some object of common interest. [...] Some supporters of democratic globalisation consider that nation-states should yield some of their power to a world government controlled by world citizens instead of being organized as now on an inter-governmental basis. | There exist vastly differing views on the moral bases of sovereignty. These views translate into various bases for legal systems:
|
The source is not given. |
|
| [3.] Ama/Fragment 066 18 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-11-01 23:55:26 Hindemith | Ama, Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Ziller 2003 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 66, Zeilen: 18-20 |
Quelle: Ziller 2003 Seite(n): 268, Zeilen: 6-9 |
|---|---|
| Since Bodin’s “The King is an Emperor in his Kingdom”, the French debate on sovereignty had been entirely centred on its internal dimension until the early 1950s, when European integration reopened the discussion. | 4. THE EXTERNAL DIMENSION OF SOVEREIGNTY
Since Bodin’s ‘The King is an Emperor in his Kingdom’ the French debate on sovereignty had been entirely centred on its internal dimension until the early 1950s when European integration, itself largely due to French initiatives, reopened the discussion. |
Though identical, nothing has been marked as a citation. |
|
| [4.] Ama/Fragment 066 32 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2017-11-11 13:41:30 PlagProf:-) | Ama, BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Ziller 2003 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 66, Zeilen: 32-37 |
Quelle: Ziller 2003 Seite(n): 262, 263, Zeilen: 262: 30 ff.; 263: 1 ff. |
|---|---|
| A good way to understand the traditional way of thinking about sovereignty in France is to read Jean-Jacques Chevalier's “Les Grandes Iuvres politiques de Machiavel á nos jours”, a book which has been a key to political philosophy in law faculties and at the Institute d'Etudes Politique de Paris.252 This handbook analysed sixteen classical political theorists through their major works in chronological order: Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, Bossuet, Locke, Montesquieu, [Rosseau, Siéyés, Burke, Fichte, Tocqueville, Marx, Engels, Sorel, Lenin and Hitler.]
251 Ziller, Jacques, Sovereignty in France: Getting Rid of the Mal de Bodin, in: Nail Walker (ed,), Sovereignty in Transition, Oxford 2003, pp. 261 ff., 264-268. 252 Ibid., pp. 261-277. |
Generation after generation, French academics and politicians have been educated in thinking about sovereignty according to a tradition that sees it as a Franco-English invention, with some very specific features that, in the French case, are due to the Revolution. A good way to understand this tradition is to read Jean-Jacques Chevallier’s 'Les Grandes luvres politiques de Machiavel à nos jours' ,5 a book which has been the key to political philosophy in law faculties and at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de
[page 263] Paris ( 'Sciences-po' .—the main gateway to the Ecole Nationale d’Administration) since its first edition in 1949. This handbook analysed sixteen classical political theorists through their major works, in chronological order: Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, Bossuet were presented under the heading ‘Serving Absolutism’ (Au service de l’absolutisme)-, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau and Siéyès under the heading ‘Fighting Absolutism’ (L’assaut contre l’absolutisme); Burke, Fichte and Tocqueville under the heading ‘The Revolution’s Consequences—1789-1848’ (Suites de la Révolution); Marx and Engels, Sorel, Lenin and Hitler under the heading ‘Socialism and Nationalism 1848-1927’ (Socialisme et Nationalisme). |
The source is given in fn.251 f. |
|
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:PlagProf:-), Zeitstempel: 20171111134414