The revival of the UN Security Council’s regulatory powers after the end of the Cold War as well as new challenges to international peace and security have led to the development and diversification of UN operational tools. In the absence of United Nations’ own material capacities to undertake necessary military action, due to the non-conclusion of agreements provided for in Article 43 of the UN Charter by which UN Member States would commit to provide the necessary force and other assistance to the Security Council upon its call, the latter developed other means. Today, there co-exist two mandated operations by the Security Council vested with the power to use force, each however within a different scope, limits and objective: UN-led “Blue Helmets” and UN-authorized military operations. This functional rapprochement causes nevertheless a great confusion, both in practice and recently in the judicial sphere. Hence, the clarification of the legal regime of each is essential. While the UN-led Blue Helmets vested with the limited power to use force represent the new generation of peacekeeping operations, the UN-authorized operations constitute a decentralized execution of the Council’s enforcement measure. In the latter case the Security Council turns to UN Member States or regional organizations and delegates them its exclusive power to use force under Article 42 of the UN Charter to execute it under set conditions. The limitation of the use of force by the UN-led operation to the strict defence of its civilian mandate does not exempt it from the regime of coercion established under Chapter VII of the UN Charter either. This raises a question of the legal status of this UN-led operation and whether possibly such tool approaches the original concept of UN enforcement forces laid down in Article 43. Analysis of the converging and diverging elements of both operations shows the complexity of this operational domain, the clarification of which is proposed in this article via a legal perspective.
Velká Morava patří ke kontroverzním tématům středoevropské medievistiky. Nejedná se totiž o běžný předmět akademického výzkumu, ale o fenomén, který je trvale přítomen v novodobém politickém diskurzu střední Evropy. Myšlenka, že Velká Morava byla nejstarším státem (státním útvarem) středoevropských Slovanů, na který přímo navazovala státnost českých Přemyslovců, polských Piastovců a uherských Arpádovců, tak zůstává ve středoevropském regionu stále živá. Slabina dosavadních přístupů spočívá v tom, že stát byl chápán jako axiom, o jehož existenci se nepochybuje. Současný proud bádání přistupuje k velkomoravské státnosti mnohem kritičtěji. Obrací se, stejně jako moderní evropská medievistika, k etnologii či sociální a kulturní antropologii, v níž hledá opory pro svoje interpretační modely i nové pojmosloví. and Great Moravia is a controversial theme within Central European Medieval studies. Rather than being a standard subject of academic research it is a phenomenon that has been a constant in Central European modern political discourse. The idea that Great Moravia was the earliest state of Central European Slavs, which was a direct predecessor of the statehood of the Czech Přemyslids, the Polish Piasts and the Hungarian Arpáds family, remains very much alive in the Central European region. The weak point of the earlier approaches consists in the fact that the state was taken to be an axiom, the existence of which was not questioned. The contemporary line of research examines Great Moravian statehood from a more critical point of view. Just as with modern European medieval studies it turns to ethnology as well as social and cultural anthropology, where it hopes to find support for its interpretational models and new terminology.
Leo Kestenberg worked from 1918–1932 for the Prussian Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Kunst und Volksbildung (Ministry of Science, Arts and Public Education). His department looked after opera houses and all music teaching institutions, from nurseries to the Academy of Arts. Implementing the policy of modern thinking, Kestenberg had a decisive influence in shaping the music development of the Weimar Republic, including bringing Paul Hindemith, Franz Schreker, Artur Schnabel and Otto Klemperer to Berlin. Based on his ideas, music education became law; in the field of music education, Prussia became the leading region inside Germany. Kestenberg succeeded due to the post-war situation: besides caring for political and military matters, the political system paid great attention also to culture and especially music. While Kestenberg’s activities at first enjoyed a postive response, even among conservative circles, in the following years, especially after 1933, as a socialist, democrat, Jew and foreigner, he was seen as the epitomy of the hated ‘Weimar System’.
Studie se zabývá rolí Caravaggia v českém diskursu o kubismu. Uvádí diskusi Vincence Kramáře a Karla Teiga z roku 1949. Teige se možná překvapivě odvolává na Caravaggia v koncepci kubistického „tektonického obrazu“: Caravaggiova malba je zaměřena na čistou plasticitu a méně na námět, což je pro avantgardního teoretika důvod dát jej do stejné řady, jakými jsou architecture plate et colorée Juana Grise nebo Picassovy „tektonické obrazy“, v nichž dominuje čistá plasticita hmot. Teige v uvedení Caravaggia jako předchůdce moderního plastického pojetí obrazu měl předchůdce v českém kubistickém malíři Emilu Fillovi (1882–1953), který v letech 1914–1920 v exilu v Holandsku dobře poznal díla starých holandských mistrů a zabýval se pojmem „věcnosti“ v jejich díle. V článku Holandské zátiší (1916), publikovaném v časopise Volné směry (XXII, 1924–1925), v úvodu uvádí jméno Caravaggia, kterého chápe jako zakladatele svébytného žánru zátiší. Na něj navazovali holandští mistři 17. století. Filla zdůrazňuje pojetí věcnosti, které není ani vědeckou dokumentárností, ani čirým objektivismem, ale je výsledkem akce subjektu, je tvořivou akcí malíře. Věcnost znamená pro Fillu vyrovnání objektivních a subjektivních složek malovaného předmětu. V roce 1925 vydal Filla rovněž ve Volných směrech studii Caravaggiovo poslání. Filla opět oceňuje Caravaggiovo plastické pojetí povrchu malby. Na Fillu záhy navázal jeho přítel a sběratel, mecenáš kubismu, historik umění Vincenc Kramář statí Vznik a povaha moderního zátiší. Tvůrčí čin Caravaggiův, uveřejněnou rovněž ve Volných směrech (XXIII, 1924–1925, s. 129–160, 177–179). Stejně jako Filla oceňuje Caravaggiovu autonomní vůli po plasticitě. Když Filla psal úvahy o Jan van Goyenovi, ale i o Caravaggiovi počátkem padesátých let na zámku Peruc, navštěvoval ho tam fotograf Josef Sudek, který na zámku fotografoval. Pozorně naslouchal poučeným malířovým výkladům o kubismu, holandském umění 17. století, ale i o Caravaggiovi. Sudkova fotografická aranžovaná zátiší na počest Caravaggia z roku 1956, vytvořená až po Fillově smrti (1953), lze chápat jako vzpomínky na Peruc a přítele Fillu i na roli Caravaggia ve Fillově teorii. and This study deals with Caravaggio’s role in Czech thought on Cubism. It begins with a discussion between Vincenc Kramář and Karel Teige which took place in 1949. Perhaps surprisingly, Teige refers to Caravaggio in his concept of Cubist ‘tectonic painting’: Caravaggio’s painting aims at pure plasticity and less so at subject matter, which is reason for the avant-garde theoretician to put him in the same category as the architecture plate et colorée of Juan Gris or Picasso’s ‘tectonic paintings’ in which the pure plasticity or sculpturality of matter dominates.
In presenting Caravaggio as a precursor of the modernist sculptural conception of painting, Teige was preceded by the Czech Cubist painter Emil Filla (1882–1953), who acquainted himself well with the works of the old Dutch masters during his exile in Holland in 1914–1920 and dealt with the idea of ‘objectivity’ in their work. In the introduction to ‘Dutch Still Life’ (1916), an article published in the magazine Volné směry (Free Directions) (XXII, 1924–1925), he mentions the name of Caravaggio, whom he takes to be the founder of a peculiar genre of still lifes which hearkened back to the Dutch masters of the 17th century. Filla emphasises the idea of objectivity which is neither a scientific documentary quality nor a pure objectivism, but the result of an action on the part of a subject – the creative act of a painter. For Filla, objectivity means a conciliation between objective and subjective factors in a painted object. In 1925, Filla published, also in Volné směry, a study on Caravaggio’s vocation. Once again, Filla holds Carvaggio’s sculptural conception of the surface of painting in high regard. Filla’s work is followed up by his friend and collector, the patron of Cubism and art historian Vincenc Kramář in his essay ‘The Inception and Character of the Modern Still Life: Caravaggio’s Creative Act’ (Volné směry XXIII, 1924–1925, pp. 129–160, 177–179). When Filla was writing his reflections on Jan van Goyen and on Caravaggio in the early 1950s at Peruc Castle, he was visited by the photographer Josef Sudek. Sudek’s photographically arranged still lifes in honour of Caravaggio of 1956 may be understood as a reminiscence of Peruc and his friend Filla as well as of the role of Caravaggio in Filla’s theory.
Práce se zabývá mlecími nástroji z období kultury s vypíchanou keramikou (STK; 5100/5000 – 4500/4400 cal.BC). Vedle ujednocení české terminologie vztahující se k pravěkým mlecím zařízením a kromě morfometrické či surovinové analýzy nálezového souboru, bylo záměrem této práce studium postupu při výrobě mlýnků z křemenného porfyru (paleoryolitu) a interpretace jejich „životního cyklu“ (chaîne opératoire; operational sequence). Zdroje nejdůležitější suroviny na výrobu mlýnků se nacházejí ve vzdálenosti do 5 km od lokality. Dalším cílem práce bylo interpretovat roli sídelního areálu s rondelem na základě komplexního studia ručních kamenných mlýnků a v konfrontaci s dřívějšími analýzami jiných typů nálezů. Vzhledem k přítomnosti rondelu, zdrojů surovin a strategické komunikační poloze sídelního areálu je možné uvažovat o jeho centrální funkci pro širší okolí. and The paper deals with grinding tools from the Stroke Pottery culture period (STK; 5100/5000 – 4500/4400 cal. BC). Apart from unification of the Czech terminology relating to prehistoric grinding tools and apart from the morphometric or raw material analyses of the find assemblage, this work aims to study the production procedure of millstones from quartz porphyry (palaeorhyolite) and the interpretation of their “life cycle” (chaîne opératoire; operational sequence). The outcrop of the most important raw material for the production of millstones is situated within 5 km far from the site. Another aim of this work was to interpret the possible role of the settlement area with a rondel (circular enclosure, Kreisgrabenanlage) based on a complex study of hand millstones in the light of earlier analyses of other types of finds. With regard to the presence of the rondel, raw material sources and strategic communications location of the settlement area, it is possible to consider its central function within the wider surroundings.
Together with the hitherto unpublished letter of 6 September 1831, Tomášek sent the score of his Requiem op. 70 to the Zurich publisher, music writer and composer Hans Georg Nägeli. The author of the letter expressed his firm belief that due to the “prosperity of music practice in Switzerland” and the influence of the reputable Nägeli, it should not be a problem to find opportunity and funding to put on the enclosed work in that country. With gratitude, Tomášek puts Nägeli in mind of the fact that he had published some of his piano works between 1803 and 1805, calling him “the one to determine the spirit in the music world”. He briefly mentions several of his earlier compositions and, with a great deal of sarcasm, criticizes the contemporary “swamp of bad taste”, in which the audience has recently fallen, misguided by the “mendacious” Rossini and his followers. Tomá‰ek draws Nägeli’s attention to an enclosed article of his called “On Criticism in Relation to Music”, in which he appealed to “all respectable priests of art” to cultivate sensible criticism. He encourages Nägeli not to let his “whip” (meaning his feared sharp pen) “rest until things have changed”.
The article deals with the regulation of the use of Czech, German and classical languages in the administrative, school and Church spheres as it appears in the decrees published during Joseph II’s reign for the lands of the Bohemian crown. The author attempts to reconstruct the emperor’s vision of the usage of the different languages in the Czech lands, find the reasoning behind it, and identify the methods of this regulation. He also asks whether, in Joseph II’s case, one can speak about a "language policy" as a deliberate strategy to change the language situation in the Czech lands., Dmitrij Timofejev., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy