Próba krytycznego spojrzenia na (aktualną) polską prawoznawczą debatę publiczną.
The analyses included in this article concern sample statements (within Polish "legal" public debates) that have formed two quite distinct discourses in recent years: 1) "discourse on so-called understudy judges" (of the Constitutional Tribunal) and 2) "discourse on so-called neo-judges". I suspect...
| Publicado en: | Tamara: Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry no. 1; pp. 304 - 323 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
TAMARA: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science
2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=191046495&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 191046495 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 15325555 G90A jtl: Tamara: Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry issn: 15325555 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: 2025 iid: 1 pid: 15796 pub: TAMARA: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science artinfo: ui: 191046495 10.7206/kp.2080-1084.827 ppf: 304 ppct: 19 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 1.3MB tig: atl: Próba krytycznego spojrzenia na (aktualną) polską prawoznawczą debatę publiczną. aug: au: SUT, PAWEŁ affil: Uniwersytet Gdański (Polska) su: Jurisprudence Judges Discursive practices Social problems Legal discourse Forums sug: subj: Jurisprudence Judges Discursive practices Social problems Legal discourse Forums keyword: discourses of jurisprudence freedom of speech public debates so-called neo-judges debaty publiczne dyskursy prawoznawstwa tzw. neosędziowie wolność wypowiedzi discourses of jurisprudence freedom of speech public debates so-called neo-judges debaty publiczne dyskursy prawoznawstwa tzw. neosędziowie wolność wypowiedzi ab: The analyses included in this article concern sample statements (within Polish "legal" public debates) that have formed two quite distinct discourses in recent years: 1) "discourse on so-called understudy judges" (of the Constitutional Tribunal) and 2) "discourse on so-called neo-judges". I suspect that public debates on jurisprudence are not as valuable as we would like to see them. In my opinion, these debates therefore require analyses of the degree or manner of realization of the postulated functions of discursive practices in this field of activity, which include, among others, access to "credible information" enabling members of society to form their own opinions and to be guided by their own judgment in the public space. These postulated functions are not realized, for example, when statements in these "legal" public debates mask real, social problems. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: Polish refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|