The study maps the journey of Milan Machovec from Christianity to Marxism and on to the Marxist-Christian dialogue which Milan Machovec personified in the 1960’s. In addition to the usual sources the study draws on unfamiliar juvenile texts, minor contributions in press and on his two dissertations at Charles University. – These sources show that his conception of socialism prior to the Communist coup and his first response to it did not conform to the ideology of the new regime. Machovec rejected the role of “martyr for freedom” because he understood his life as a task. He joined the Communist party and adopted the idiom of the time, but continued to strive for joining socialist ideals with the democratic heritage of Masaryk’s republic as even Zdeněk Nejedlý promised. – These early texts also show that Machovec was concerned with the issues he later elaborated already as graduate student. They included freedom, humanity, morality, the meaning of the human lot, the relation of the individual and the whole, sacrifice, the role of religion in society, the role of personality in history and society, ways of working with historic material in relation to pressing problems. – While Machovec may have lost the religious faith of his youth he remained ever loyal to Masaryk’s ideals of humanity, especially the idea that the task of humans is growth to more mature humanity. Masaryk’s bequest never ceased to be a tangent of Machovec’s thought, helping to lay the ground rules by which he moderated the dialogue of Christians and Marxists. The task of the dialogue was not to be persuasion but rather grasping of a common task: Marxists and Christians could meet, each in his way, on the ground of this Masaryk-given task.
This contribution endeavours to show the substance of Machovec’s philo¬sophical thinking in the context of his time and the coordinates of his personal life. Tis we can best trace in the problems the seeking meaning in life. That is for Machovec a lifelong concern. He understands humans and their discovery of meaning in this world as a complex problem. Its core is a cultivated orientation of each individual in the world. As a “master of dialogue”, Machovec shows the possibilities of seeking self-determination in this way.
SLäNDa, the Swedish literature corpus of narrative and dialogue, is a corpus made up of eight Swedish literary novels from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, manually annotated mainly for different aspects of dialogue. The full annotation also contains other cited materials, like thoughts, signs and letters. The main motivation for including these categories as well, is to be able to identify the main narrative, which is all remaining unannotated text.
SLäNDa, the Swedish literature corpus of narrative and dialogue, is a corpus made up of eight Swedish literary novels from the 19th and early 20th centuries, manually annotated mainly for different aspects of dialogue. The full annotation also contains other cited materials, like thoughts, signs and letters. The main motivation for including these categories as well, is to be able to identify the main narrative, which is all remaining unannotated text.
SLäNDa version 2.0 extends version 1.0 mainly by adding more data, but also by additional quality control, and a slight modification of the annotation scheme. In addition, the data is organized into test sets with different types of speech marking: quotation marks, dashes, and no marking.
Konvencionálne právo v podobe rozhodovacej činnosti ESĽP, ako súčasť široko chápaného európskeho práva, je vo vzťahu k vnútroštátnemu právu externým právom. Záväznosť judikatúry ESĽP a jej účinkov na vnútroštátne právo tradične naráža(la) na tri prekážky: individuálnu povahu rozhodnutí ESĽP; minimálny štandard vytvorený Dohovorom a judikatúrou k nemu a nakoniec dôležitosť vzťahu medzi medzinárodným a vnútroštátnym právom.Príspevok, na základe judikatúry samotného ESĽP, ako aj ústavných súdov členských krajín Rady Európy, poukazuje na prekonanie tejto paradigmy z čoho vyplýva, že každé rozhodnutie ESĽP má de facto účinok erga omnes; minimálny štandard je nutné chápať a aplikovať dynamicky a judikatúra ESĽP je nepriamo a sprostredkovane súčasťou práva ústavného aj v krajinách s formálne dualistickým vzťahom k medzinárodnému právu.Absolútne opustenie hierarchie prameňov práva sa však nejaví najvhodnejším riešením z titulu nepredvídateľného vývoja judikatúry ESĽP. Ako vhodný deskriptívny a normatívny koncept vo
vzťahu (nielen) judikatúry ESĽP a národného právneho poriadku je pluralizmus, pre ktorý je typické vzájomné preniknutie rôznych právnych režimov. Nevyhnutnou súčasťou pluralizmu je dialóg medzi súdmi a sudcami
najvyšších súdnych inštancií na národnej a nadnárodnej úrovni. Príspevok poukazuje nielen na nástroje, ktoré súdy a sudcovia majú k dispozícii a ich reálne využitie, ale aj na etický rozmer vzájomného dialógu. and Conventional law in the form of the case-law of the ECtHR, as a part of the european law sensu largo, is an external law towards national law.Binding force of the case-law and its effects in national law were traditionally limited by three assumptions: by individual nature of decisions rendered by the ECtHR, by minimal standard created by the ECHR and ECtHR and finally by importance of constitutional regulation towards international (external) law. The paper confronts these assumptions and based on the analyses of relevant case-law of the ECtHR and constitutional courts, suggests shifting the paradigm in a following way each decision of the ECtHR has de facto erga omnes effect; minimal standard must be perceived and applied dynamicly and case-law of the ECtHR is indirectly and implicitly part of the constitutional law including countries with dualistic relationship towards international law. However, absolute deconstruction of hierarchy of sources of law does not appear as most suitable solution mainly due to the uncertainty of development of the case-law of the ECtHR. The better descriptive and normative concept in relationship between case-law of the ECtHR and national legal order is pluralism resting on mutual coupling of different legal regimes. Inevitable part of the pluralist approach is a dialogue among judges and courts of supreme instances on national and supranational level. The paper mentions not only available instruments and their factual utilization shaping the dialogue, but also the ethical dimension of the dialogue itself.