Článek volně navazuje na diskusi o roli státu a jeho tradičních atributech, jež probíhala v loňském „Právníku“. V současném světě jsme konfrontováni s různými typy států, např. moderními, postmoderními a postkoloniálními. Liší se mírou centralizace veřejné moci a povahou politického národa. V Evropě nacházíme státy velké svými úkoly a vzbuzeným očekáváním, avšak slabé díky různým omezením. Někdy jsou připodobňovány „státům“ středověkým. Z těch vnějších omezení je možné zmínit rostoucí význam mezinárodního práva, globalizaci a evropskou integraci. Mezi vnitřními je podstatné slábnutí
důvěry ve stát a obecný zájem, posilování soudní moci na úkor mocí politických nebo větší význam málo regulované moci sociální. Průřezový charakter mají lidská práva, jež jsou ukotvena mezinárodně i vnitrostátně.
Velmi podstatné je narušování homogenity společností v některých státech až do podoby etnicky či nábožensky segmentovaných subkultur. and This article is a belated addition to the discussion about role of state and its traditional atributtes which took place last year. In the contemporary world, we are confronted with various types of states, e. g. modern, post-modern, or post-colonial. They differ in intensity of centralization of public power and in nature of politicial nation. In Europe, in particular, there are states, which are strong, be it because of the tasks they perform or the expectations they raise But these states are at the same time weak because of various types of limits. From the external point of view we could mention increasing
importance of international law, globalization or European integration. Regarding internal limits, what is important is the gradual weakening of trust in state and in general interest, strenghtening of judicial power at the expense of political powers of the state or almost un-regulated social powers
(corporations, media etc.).Human rights belong to both groups. The shift from homogenous societies in some states to plurality of ethnically or religiously segmented sub-cultures plays key role.
A major reform in the reign of Joseph II was the establishment in 1786 of the provincial building directorates, through which the court aimed to regulate all public building works in the monarchy. Although the original aim of unifying building regulations throughout the realm was never achieved, the reform was a success and remained in force, with a few minor amendments, until the revolutionary year of 1848. One reason for its success was the elite corps of civil engineers who staffed these institutions. This study looks at advances in technical education, especially engineering, in the Habsburg monarchy from the beginning of the 18th century and the emergence of the Collegia Nobilia, or elite colleges, where graduates were prepared for a career in the Imperial Army. Besides military architecture, the colleges also taught the fundamentals of civil engineering, turning out some of the best‐trained creators of early modern architecture. The development and nature of this elite engineering training is examined with reference to the engineering academies of Prague, Vienna and Olomouc. In all three cases we stress the colleges’ status within the state framework, and their evolution in the light of changing official doctrine and methods of instruction. In all three cases it is clear that during the latter half of the 18th century the original ‘aristocratic’ colleges began to decline and were slowly replaced by similar state‐controlled establishments. As a first step, the court of Joseph II introduced a specialized course in practical architecture at the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts. From around 1800 this model was gradually superseded by the progressive French‐style polytechnic, a modified version of which remains the standard model for technical education to this day., Michal Konečný., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy