coercion

  • Libertarianism, Freedom and the Problem of Circularity

    Author: Łukasz Dominiak
    Institution: Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń
    Year of publication: 2018
    Source: Show
    Pages: 7-17
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/athena.2018.59.01
    PDF: apsp/59/apsp5901.pdf

    In the present paper the author considers a challenge to libertarianism posed by G.A. Cohen. The charge issued by Cohen says that libertarianism defines freedom in terms of justice and justice in terms of freedom. The paper deals with an aspect of this charge as expressed by one of Cohen’s thought experiments according to which it is not the case that the answer to the question whether person B forces person A to do φ depends on whether person B’s actions are legitimate or not. Employing the Hohfeldian analysis of fundamental jural conceptions, the author demonstrates that if person B’s actions are legitimate, then making person A to do φ cannot, at pains of contradiction, be considered forcing. If person B is at a liberty to make person A to do φ, then person B cannot at the same time and in the same respect be at duty not to make person A to do φ. Yet, this is exactly what would follow if we adopted the stance that person B’s legitimate actions force person A to do φ. If they forced person A, then the expenditure of whatever labour needed to do φ would not be a voluntary expenditure and thereby would constitute a violation of person A’s rights to this labour. However, if person A’s rights were violated by person B’s actions, then via Hohfeldian Correlativity Axiom person B would have to be at duty not to undertake these actions. Yet, the whole reasoning started from the assumption that person B is at liberty to undertake them.

  • Postponement of Trial in Connection with the Application of Criminal Procedural Measures

    Author: Taras Senyk
    E-mail: tarassenyk1993@gmail.com
    Institution: Ivan Franko National University of Lviv
    ORCID: https://orcid. org/0000-0002-6513-2536
    Year of publication: 2020
    Source: Show
    Pages: 78-95
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ksm20200306
    PDF: ksm/27/ksm2706.pdf

    The article analyzes the concepts of «coercion», «measures of criminal procedural coercion», «measures to ensure criminal proceedings» and their relationship. The measures of procedural coercion, which the court can most often apply to the participants in court proceedings in a criminal case, as well as the procedure for postponing the trial in connection with their (measures of procedural coercion) are studied. Proposals for improving the criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine in this direction have been formulated. Measures of criminalprocedural coercion are procedural means of state-legal coercion defined by the criminal-procedural law, applied by the authorized bodies conducting criminal proceedings, in the order clearly defined by the law concerning persons, for the purpose of achievement of efficiency of criminal proceedings. The concept of “measures to ensure criminal proceedings” in its own right the content and scope do not cover the category of precautionary measures and other mea sures procedural coercion. In our opinion, the concept of «criminal measures procedural coercion “and” measures to ensure criminal proceedings «are not identical: under the current CPC of Ukraine measures procedural coercion is a component of criminal security measures proceedings, and, consequently, to some extent, a narrower concept. They are correlated between themselves as a whole and part. However, before proceeding to the analysis of each of the measures of coercion we have identified, let us pay attention to the important procedural provisions that the judge is obliged to remember when applying this or that measure. The court may impose measures of procedural coercion on the person, which in turn will postpone the trial.

  • Economic Sanctions as a Tool of China’s Hybrid Strategies

    Published online: 10 July 2021
    Final submission: 30 June 2021
    Printed issue: December 2021
    Author: Rafał Wiśniewski
    E-mail: rafal.wisniewski@amu.edu.pl
    Institution: Adam Mickiewicz University (Poland)
    ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0155-246X
    Source: Show
    Page no: 13
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppsy202133
    PDF: ppsy/50/ppsy202133.pdf

    The article aims to analyze the role of economic sanctions in the People’s Republic of China’s overall approach to achieving its security objectives in the international arena. During the last two decades, Beijing used this instrument on numerous occasions to exert pressure on a varied group of actors. China’s current strategy toward a range of disputes and conflicts it is engaged in (the South China Sea territorial disputes most prominently stand out) is often described using the popular vocabulary of “hybrid warfare” or “grey zone conflicts”. Putting the conceptual complications aside, the author agrees that the PRC’s approach can be viewed as part of a growing trend for great powers to employ what can be called “hybrid strategies” toward its opponents. As part of a broader category of economic statecraft, economic sanctions form an important element of this approach. Considering current scholarship on both “hybrid” (or “grey area”) warfare and economic sanctions, the article answers the question of why the PRC increasingly resorts to hybrid strategies (including economic coercion) and identifies the main characteristics of Chinese economic sanctions. It also provides preliminary conclusions on their effectiveness.

Message to:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart