The problem of politics is that nobody controls it anymore, because the social formula of its acceptance is expiring, or has already expired. There is anarchy. There exist monopolies of international corporations, which try to govern globally but do not have sufficient social legitimation to do it. The notion of economic globalisation that refers to this has been developed, but in reality there is a vacuum of global management and participation (the growth of emotions over reasons, a tribal approach, and territorialism) in the prospect of growing threats (e.g. climate change, terrorism, migrations, pandemics). An average human, full of natural envy, desires that everybody can fulfil themselves in the material world the same as them, and such equality would be satisfying for them as we know that the argument about similar stomachs is universal. He or she does not want equality in spiritual realisation; here, with ease, he or she accepts that there are smarter and more talented people than them, but they will defend fiercely their equality, treating their right to it extremely seriously. Equality is a part of human faith, and practice confirms the suggestions that traditional mythical patterns cannot be eliminated without toil. Certainly, there is no threat of the end of politics. So far, all living organisms of the human kind organise themselves. The specifics of this self-organisation depend on self-determination. People will have an interest in politics as long as politics determines their security. Nowadays, we are again witnesses to disorder, revolution, desperation, and terror, so the factors that cause fear start to dominate in the moral narrative. Finally, security and directing improvement of life chances are tasks of politics and the political character. It would be a catastrophe if a problem of security returned to its pre-political state. The basic aspect of human self-determination is the organisation of every personal life according to the norms and activities allowed by the group. Theories referring to the crisis of democracy (through e.g. the dictates of fear of nuclear war, terrorism, ecologic catastrophe, a technocratic state with an expert-driven system, entertainment justified by economic-political interest groups, and losing sovereignty through complicated institutions, external networks, and sub-political social subgroups) could become true, or have already become true. The loss of reputation, credibility, and attractiveness can happen at the same time as the decline of the meaning of internalisation in social communication, which appears in the growing discouragement towards politics and the creation of subsystems that are not predictable and steerable in a democratic way because of their complexity.

The fundamental right to freedom of speech is a central element of the rule of law in a democratic state that constantly collides with other fundamental rights. Both in court decisions and in legal literature there is a significant discussion on the limits of the freedom of speech, mainly concerning its collision with other fundamental rights, particularly personality rights. This debate has become very strong in Brazilian constitutional case law, mainly in the Federal Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal), but also in other constitutional systems and even in the domain of international law. Based on the decisions of the Brazilian Supreme Court and those of the US Supreme Court and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, this paper aims to discuss some criteria that may guide Courts when balancing freedom of speech and other fundamental rights.

The rule of law is one of the founding values of the EU, as indicated in Art. 2 TEU. This provision recognizes that the rule of law is a core value, inherent to liberal democracy, and one which characterized the Union and its Member States. Taking into account this context, as well as the deficiencies of the EU mechanism to enforce the rule of law within the Member States, European Parliament called on the Commission to establish a new tool to address rule of law backsliding in Member States. In October 2016, Parliament addressed recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights (EU pact for DRF) in the form of an international agreement. The new mechanism should integrate and complement the existing mechanism, should be evidence-based, objective, addressing the Member States and EU. The author analyzes this initiative and tries to answer why it was not fully realized. Additionally, he presents a reaction to that initiative of the Council of Europe. There is no doubt, that realization of the EU Pact for DRF would inf luence the Council of Europe and weaken its role as a main European mechanism in the area of protection of democracy, rule of law, and human rights.

This paper analyzes how the approach of the European Union to the protection of fundamental rights evolved. It focuses on primary legislation, which ranks highest in the hierarchy of EU sources of law. For this purpose, the author examines the Founding Treaties, the Reform Treaties, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The paper focuses on modifying the Treaties due to the complexity of the subject matter. The considerations discussed in this paper set the ground for the outline of the formation of a multi-level system of human rights protection in the European Union, as well as for the presentation of the current state of the law, which undoubtedly constitutes an important contribution to the regulation of the issue discussed.

Evolution of Health Rights in the European Union in the Prism of Human Rights

As an economic and political union of states, the European Union has historically focused neither on health nor on human rights. Since the adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the link between fundamental rights and human health has been noticeable. Respect for human dignity and individual decisions played an important role in the evolution of the understanding of the right to health as a human right in the EU legal system. The aim of the article is to analyze the development of health rights in EU law and answer the question: does recognizing the right to health as a human right result in a specific legal claim? The article uses a purposeful-functional and axiological interpretation, and the historical method.