O podeli vlasti u antičkoj Atini
The separation of powers in ancient Athens
Abstract
Pojedini autori pokušali su u antičkoj Atini da pronađu korene Monteskjeove teorije o podeli vlasti na legislativu, egzekutivu i sudstvo. Osnov njihovih polaznih stavova bilo je Aristotelovo razlikovanje tri funkcije, koje mogu služiti državnom uređenju: ekklesiazein (savetodavna), arkhein (ona koja se odnosi na upravne organe) i dikazein (sudska). U postupku odlučivanja o 'tužbi protiv zakona' (graphe paranomon), koju je uveo Perikle, uočili su sudsku kontrolu zakonitosti. Međutim, novi radovi o ovom sredstvu pokazuju da graphe paranomon nije mogla da posluži jačoj kontroli skupštine od strane sudova. S druge strane, analiza političkih institucija neposredne atinske demokratije upućuje na zaključak da skupština, upravni i sudski organi antičke Atine nisu u punom smislu reči bili podeljeni na legislativu egzekutivu i sudstvo u modernom značenju.
In Western political theory, ever since Montesquieu formulated his theory of the tripartite separation of powers in the eighteenth century, there has always been a strong sense that the legislature, the executive and the judiciary ought to be independent bodies. There have even been attempts to read this doctrine back into ancient Athens, relying most heavily on Aristotle's distinction between ekklesiazein (being an assembly-member) arkhein (being a public official) and dikazein (sitting as a judge). The main objective of this article is to examine that ancient political theorists had no reason to regard Montesquieu's theories as normative. Moreover, Aristotle's purpose in this passage lies in classifying the functions that go to make up a full citizen, and nowhere does he suggest that these powers ought to be exercise by different people. The author tries to present interpretation about development of the political institution that becomes the central features of the fully developed d...emocracy of the ancient Athens. This finding shows that in Athenian demokratia of the fifth century B.C., both in constitutional theory and in everyday political praxis the demos (people) exercised the kratos (sovereign power) in all three spheres of legislation, executive action and jurisdiction.
Keywords:
političke institucije / podela vlasti / graphe paranomon / demokratija / Aristotel / the separation of powers / the political institutions / graphe paranomon / democracy / AristotleSource:
Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 2010, 58, 2, 315-336Publisher:
- Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd
Collections
Institution/Community
Pravni fakultet / Faculty of Law University of BelgradeTY - JOUR AU - Gligić, Sanja PY - 2010 UR - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/526 AB - Pojedini autori pokušali su u antičkoj Atini da pronađu korene Monteskjeove teorije o podeli vlasti na legislativu, egzekutivu i sudstvo. Osnov njihovih polaznih stavova bilo je Aristotelovo razlikovanje tri funkcije, koje mogu služiti državnom uređenju: ekklesiazein (savetodavna), arkhein (ona koja se odnosi na upravne organe) i dikazein (sudska). U postupku odlučivanja o 'tužbi protiv zakona' (graphe paranomon), koju je uveo Perikle, uočili su sudsku kontrolu zakonitosti. Međutim, novi radovi o ovom sredstvu pokazuju da graphe paranomon nije mogla da posluži jačoj kontroli skupštine od strane sudova. S druge strane, analiza političkih institucija neposredne atinske demokratije upućuje na zaključak da skupština, upravni i sudski organi antičke Atine nisu u punom smislu reči bili podeljeni na legislativu egzekutivu i sudstvo u modernom značenju. AB - In Western political theory, ever since Montesquieu formulated his theory of the tripartite separation of powers in the eighteenth century, there has always been a strong sense that the legislature, the executive and the judiciary ought to be independent bodies. There have even been attempts to read this doctrine back into ancient Athens, relying most heavily on Aristotle's distinction between ekklesiazein (being an assembly-member) arkhein (being a public official) and dikazein (sitting as a judge). The main objective of this article is to examine that ancient political theorists had no reason to regard Montesquieu's theories as normative. Moreover, Aristotle's purpose in this passage lies in classifying the functions that go to make up a full citizen, and nowhere does he suggest that these powers ought to be exercise by different people. The author tries to present interpretation about development of the political institution that becomes the central features of the fully developed democracy of the ancient Athens. This finding shows that in Athenian demokratia of the fifth century B.C., both in constitutional theory and in everyday political praxis the demos (people) exercised the kratos (sovereign power) in all three spheres of legislation, executive action and jurisdiction. PB - Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd T2 - Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu T1 - O podeli vlasti u antičkoj Atini T1 - The separation of powers in ancient Athens EP - 336 IS - 2 SP - 315 VL - 58 UR - conv_203 ER -
@article{ author = "Gligić, Sanja", year = "2010", abstract = "Pojedini autori pokušali su u antičkoj Atini da pronađu korene Monteskjeove teorije o podeli vlasti na legislativu, egzekutivu i sudstvo. Osnov njihovih polaznih stavova bilo je Aristotelovo razlikovanje tri funkcije, koje mogu služiti državnom uređenju: ekklesiazein (savetodavna), arkhein (ona koja se odnosi na upravne organe) i dikazein (sudska). U postupku odlučivanja o 'tužbi protiv zakona' (graphe paranomon), koju je uveo Perikle, uočili su sudsku kontrolu zakonitosti. Međutim, novi radovi o ovom sredstvu pokazuju da graphe paranomon nije mogla da posluži jačoj kontroli skupštine od strane sudova. S druge strane, analiza političkih institucija neposredne atinske demokratije upućuje na zaključak da skupština, upravni i sudski organi antičke Atine nisu u punom smislu reči bili podeljeni na legislativu egzekutivu i sudstvo u modernom značenju., In Western political theory, ever since Montesquieu formulated his theory of the tripartite separation of powers in the eighteenth century, there has always been a strong sense that the legislature, the executive and the judiciary ought to be independent bodies. There have even been attempts to read this doctrine back into ancient Athens, relying most heavily on Aristotle's distinction between ekklesiazein (being an assembly-member) arkhein (being a public official) and dikazein (sitting as a judge). The main objective of this article is to examine that ancient political theorists had no reason to regard Montesquieu's theories as normative. Moreover, Aristotle's purpose in this passage lies in classifying the functions that go to make up a full citizen, and nowhere does he suggest that these powers ought to be exercise by different people. The author tries to present interpretation about development of the political institution that becomes the central features of the fully developed democracy of the ancient Athens. This finding shows that in Athenian demokratia of the fifth century B.C., both in constitutional theory and in everyday political praxis the demos (people) exercised the kratos (sovereign power) in all three spheres of legislation, executive action and jurisdiction.", publisher = "Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd", journal = "Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu", title = "O podeli vlasti u antičkoj Atini, The separation of powers in ancient Athens", pages = "336-315", number = "2", volume = "58", url = "conv_203" }
Gligić, S.. (2010). O podeli vlasti u antičkoj Atini. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd., 58(2), 315-336. conv_203
Gligić S. O podeli vlasti u antičkoj Atini. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu. 2010;58(2):315-336. conv_203 .
Gligić, Sanja, "O podeli vlasti u antičkoj Atini" in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 58, no. 2 (2010):315-336, conv_203 .