Universitätspublikationen
Refine
Year of publication
- 2012 (158) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (158) (remove)
Language
- English (133)
- German (24)
- Multiple languages (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (158)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (158)
Keywords
- Democracy (8)
- Law (6)
- human rights (6)
- law (6)
- democracy (5)
- Human Rights (3)
- Internet (3)
- Verfassung (3)
- educational freedom (3)
- homeschooling (3)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (110)
- Physik (14)
- Medizin (8)
- Informatik (6)
- Zentrum für Weiterbildung (5)
- Biochemie und Chemie (3)
- Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies (FIAS) (3)
- Erziehungswissenschaften (2)
- Geschichtswissenschaften (2)
- Kulturwissenschaften (2)
It is a long discussed issue whether light scalar mesons have sizeable four-quark components. We present an exploratory study of this question using Nf = 2+1+1 twisted mass lattice QCD. A mixed action approach ignoring disconnected contributions is used to calculate correlatormatrices consisting of mesonic molecule, diquark-antidiquark and two-meson interpolating operators with quantum numbers of the scalar mesons a0(980) (1(0++)) and k (1/2(0+)). The correlation matrices are analyzed by solving the generalized eigenvalue problem. The theoretically expected free two-particle scattering states are identified, while no additional low lying states are observed. We do not observe indications for bound four-quark states in the channels investigated.
Einer der zahlreichen Vorträge von Gertrude Lübbe-Wolff beginnt folgendermaßen: "Herr Gerhardt hat mich eingeladen, etwas über die aktuelle Bedeutung von Hegels Rechtsphilosophie zu sagen. Nichts lieber als das. An der Aktualität der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie leide ich geradezu, und über das, woran man leidet, spricht man ja gern. Die Aktualität der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie zeigt sich mir darin, dass ich öfter an Hegel denken muss, als mir lieb ist. Ich muss so oft an ihn denken, weil in unserer öffentlichen Kultur das Hegelwidrige so präsent ist." ...
This paper aims to present the similarities and differences between Posner's defense of Law and Economics (LAE) and Holmes' pragmatism. The investigation is centered in the arguments of economic consequences of judicial decisions. Law and Economics tend to emphasize these arguments as a determinant characterization of legal pragmatism. These arguments involve some dilemmas: Is it possible to eliminate a rule, or reinterpret it according to the effect of its application in practical life? May these economic consequences serve as argument for a replacement of traditional interpretation? To what extent can we rule out the law with arguments of consequence? Despite the influence, LAE has some important differences with respect Holmes' legal pragmatism. Posner's LAE involves the economic principle of wealth maximization and its relations with utilitarianism and economic liberalism. Consequentialism in Holmes, by contrast, is based on a teleological interpretation of existing rules. It is important that the judge does not decide based on a specific economic theory. Also, legal pragmatism does not advocate abandoning the tenets of positivism that form the basis for the rule of law. Holmes defends a judicial restraint. Accordingly, the argument of consequence must have previous limits in precedents and statutes. However, both legal pragmatism and LAE are connected by the idea that the adaptation of the law to a reasonable end can not be absent from the canons of interpretation and adjudication.
Communist regimes in general and especially the one in Albania destroyed almost every aspect of political, social, cultural and economic life, including the notion of pluralism and intellectual elite of the country. In Albania, the transition into democracy in 90’ was done through extrication which means that the authoritarian government was weakened, but not as thoroughly as in a transition by defeat. As a consequence, the former Communist elite was able to negotiate crucial features of the transition and was very quickly transformed into the new pluralist political class. This position enabled the communist elite to be rehabilitated and together with the new emerged communist elite to remain a strong influential actor in new emerged democracy and de facto to run in continuance the country. The purpose of the new emerged communist elite to maintain control was favored inter alia by the absence of a new strong intellectual elite and was done merely by sharing the power among its members divided into different political parties and also by using the ‘pluralist’ law as a tool for social control over new emerging intellectual elites. The use of law as a tool for social control by the political class has severely damaged people's understanding and expectations on the law, its relations with the state as well as international community. Indeed, such experience of the use of law by the political class for its own narrow interests, has made people lose confidence in law and state as well as has severely weakened the law enforcement in the country. To conclude, the overall purpose of this paper would be the analysis of law in general and its understandings and development in a post-communist society such as Albania from different points of view.
The author will deal with the relationship between law and technology from the viewpoint of technology security standard. One of the relationships can be found in that law has been providing a security level of technology. They have been saying that law would often follow technology. Law is too slow to adapt the changing technology through the advancement of technology. Above all, information technology has an electronic rapidity and a legislation technology has a paper one. There might be a big estrangement between law and technology. However, law must provide a security standard of technology. The standard must be based on a relative security level. The relative level would premise on the ordinary, lawful and ethical use of technology. Most technology has been opened to the public without any technology impact assessment. Technology would have some defect, which the producers have overlooked. As a result, the users might often meet with the accidents caused on the defects.
Then law should provide a technology security standard to exclude the defects from the users’ viewpoint as secure as possible. The security standard must be reflected on the architecture standard of technology. The architecture standard may be a yardstick whether the creators can evade the responsibility for the accidents.
The standard would also premise on the ordinary, lawful and ethical use of technology. The ordinary use means that the users should use normally technology within the extent of the architecture standard. The ethical use means that the users should use technology being conscious of the defects in order to avoid accidents.
The relative security level may be the sum of the architecture standard and the ethical use of technology.
Are Kantian philosophy and its principle of respect for persons inadequate to the protection of environmental values? This paper answers this question by elucidating how Kantian ethics can take environmental values seriously. In the period that starts with the Critique of Judgment in 1790 and ends with the Metaphysics of Morals in 1797, the subject would have been approached by Kant in a different manner; although the respect that we may owe to non-human nature is still grounded in our duties to mankind, the basis for such respect stems from nature’s aesthetic properties, and the duty to preserve nature lies in our duties to ourselves. Compared to the “market paradigm”, as it is called by Gillroy (the reference is to a conception of a public policy based on a criterion of economic efficiency or utility), Kantian philosophy can offer a better explanation of the relationship between environmental policy and the theory of justice. Kantian justice defines the “just state” as the one that protects the moral capacities of its “active” citizens, as presented in the first Part of the Metaphysics of Morals. In the Kantian paradigm, the environmental risk becomes a “public” concern. That means it is not subsumed under an individual decision, based on a calculus.
This paper is aimed to re-elaborate questions and discuss them rather than presenting answers. It starts with the dialog concerning specific contributions of philosophy of language to Law, followed by the re-elaboration of some yet unanswered problems, as well as the discussion of possible paths for this issue.
Abstract of the German original article “Rechtssubjekte und Teilrechtssubjekte des elektronischen Geschäftsverkehrs“, to be published in S. Beck (ed.): Jenseits von Mensch und Maschine: Moralische und rechtliche Aspekte des Umgangs mit Robotern, Künstlicher Intelligenz und Cyborgs. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2012.
As is well known, the 2nd Spanish Republic (1931-1936) was toppled by a military uprising which, after a cruel Civil War, set up an autocratic regime led by General Franco which lasted until his natural death in 1975. According to the contemporary theory of the legal system, a legal order exists on the sole condition that it is efficient in general terms and this was the case for both the Republic and the Dictatorship. In turn, the validity of the legal norms of all legal orders is based on its respective rules of recognition. Thus, neither the existence of the legal order nor the validity of its respective legal norms depends on moral considerations. In this paper, we call this affirmation into question on the base of the fact that the compensatory methods adopted from the Transition to Democracy show an evident concern to repair the damage of taking away a person’s basic rights (life, health, freedom, expression, association etc) although the Spanish Constitution, with its catalogue of fundamental rights was not in force at that time. But these measures would not have much sense if, as Raz says, there was no shared content which is common to all legal systems. Like Nino, we claim that one must discriminate between a democratic legal order and an autocratic one to establish the level of validity of its respective legal norms. Thus it can be assigned a presumption of justice to democratic norms. Finally, we state that the criteria to weigh up the justice or injustice of legal norms, as that of legal orders, takes root in the level of respect they show towards human rights.