Granice slobode političkog udruživanja: uporednoteorijska studija
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Beograd
Dosije Studio [u.a.]
2014
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Abstract Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| Beschreibung: | Bibliogr.: S. 149 - 160. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Limits of Freedom of Political Association |
| Beschreibung: | 165 S. |
| ISBN: | 9788660471323 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 c 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV042728776 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20150904 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 150731s2014 |||| 00||| srp d | ||
| 020 | |a 9788660471323 |9 978-86-6047-132-3 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)915334563 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV042728776 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a srp | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Marinković, Tanasije |d 1976- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1074776984 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Granice slobode političkog udruživanja |b uporednoteorijska studija |c Tanasije Marinković |
| 264 | 1 | |a Beograd |b Dosije Studio [u.a.] |c 2014 | |
| 300 | |a 165 S. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Bibliogr.: S. 149 - 160. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Limits of Freedom of Political Association | ||
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Vereinigungsfreiheit |0 (DE-588)4078791-6 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Vereinigungsfreiheit |0 (DE-588)4078791-6 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028159831&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028159831&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 340.09 |e 22/bsb |f 090512 |g 4971 |
| 943 | 1 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-028159831 | |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1812649078922674176 |
|---|---|
| adam_text |
LIMITS OF FREEDOM OF POLITICAL ASSOCIATION
- A comparative and theoretical study -
Summary
Freedom of association is highly valued in constitutional democracies»
because it enables individuals to exert influence on society, proportional to
the strength of the association to which they belong. Still, this freedom, much
like other political freedoms with which democracy identifies itself, can also
be used to abolish democracy. Thus the centuries-long debate on the broader
and more general question: what freedom ought there be for the enemies of
freedom? In an attempt to answer that question in the context of freedom of
political association, we will summarize the conclusions of this study through
answers to the following questions: on the justification and expediency of a
ban (1), who is being banned (2), what is protected by the ban (3), what is
being banned (4).
1. The question of justification of the ban of political organizations goes
to the very core of a constitutional democracy. Putting democracy to the test,
this question expresses the democratic dilemma already formulated by Karl
Loewenstein: how could democracy address itself to curtailing fair play for
all opinions and free speech without destroying the very basis of its existence
and justification. All the more since a ban on political organizations strikes at
many basic rights without which there could be no democracy: the principle
of equality, the freedom of speech, active and passive electoral right, freedom
of assembly. In addition, the democratic dilemma is further sharpened once
we consider that the question of justification of a ban must be solved within
the borders of two equally relevant, yet opposed democratic positions, ex-
pressed as early as the 18th century. On the one hand, there is Voltaires max-
im “I hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”;
on the other, Saint-Justs dictum of “no freedom for the enemies of freedom”.
However, Voltaires calL not only to tolerance towards ones detractors,
but to fight for their right to be heard, cannot be unconditional. In order
for it to be possible, tolerance must be universal: “If an individual or group
is not ready to submit to a discussion in accordance to well-established laws
of discussion, it can be tolerated, but it has no right to claim tolerance” (E.
Weil). That is, tolerance is possible only when every group is tolerant, where
no group resorts to violence or is ready to make use of it at an advantageous
moment. In addition to having to be universal, tolerance has to be reciprocal:
“Every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the ben-
efit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should
be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct
162
Tanasije Marinkovič: Granice slobode političkog udruživanja
consists, first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain
interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding,
ought to be considered as rights” (J. S. Mill).
But where we place the threshold of tolerance for the intolerant is largely
a cultural and historical question. An expression of militant democracy, the
institution of prohibition appeared in the period between the two world wars,
in the form of a legislative and/or administrative ban of political organiza֊
tions - enemies of democracy, but also ideological rivals, as well as of crim-
inal sanctioning of individuals based on objective responsibility. In the US
and Europe, such a model of democracy and approach to prohibition of po-
litical ox'ganizations has been abandoned, although not all at once nor evenly
across the board. Regardless, in both systems it was through case-law that
these countries evolved away from this method and towards a guarantee of
right of existence for political organizations as a condition for political plural-
ism and democracy. In reality, this does not exclude the possibility of their
prohibition, but it does mean strictly following appropriate substantive and
procedural law standards, confirming that such a measure is truly the last line
of defence of constitutional democracy from those who would tear it down.
Aside from the question of justification of prohibition of political orga-
nizations, that is, its conceptual (in)compatibility with a model of constitu-
tional democracy, we note calls to caution regarding the expediency of such
measures. First, prohibiting a political organization does not, in itself, mean
the rooting out of ideas and values on which that given organization rests (P.
Esplugas). Given that a ban would strip them of citizenship status, a prohibi-
tion might encourage those inclined towards undemocratic means of struggle
and/or undemocratic ideologies to engage in more fervent anti-establishment
activity, not to mention that the public loses the opportunity to answer their
criticisms in a well-argued debate. Moreover, a prohibition can increase the
popularity of the group, as it can turn its members into martyrs in the eyes
of certain sections of society, and further promote their ideas. Finally, a ban
can be rendered meaningless through the creation of a formally new associa-
tion with the exact same political content and by the same persons or group
whose initial association was banned.
For these reasons - in order to remove the slightest possibility of arbi-
trary prohibition and prevent its mythologising ֊ it is vitally important that
a prohibition be ruled in strict adherence to substantive and procedural law
preconditions for such a measure. At the same time, a prohibition cannot be
the only measure at hand with which the state and society are able to react
to phenomena that endanger their basic values. Along with other available
repressive measures, such as individual criminal responsibility, criminal re-
sponsibility of a legal entity, monetary fines against an organization, with-
holding of government subsidies, and disqualification of party lists, there
can be no efficient fight against antiestablishment activity without clearly
preventive mechanisms directed at repression of the causes of such action.
What Freedom for Enemies of Freedom?
163
In the words of François Ost, “only a structural approach that encompasses
economic, social, and cultural aspects of politics has the possibility to reduce
the true causes, inevitably multiple and profound, of racism and xenophobia”
However, in the words of the European Court of Human Rights, a ban is
justified and expedient, regardless of whether other repressive or preventive
measures have been or could be taken, when the governments consent to
continued activity of an organization whose prohibition proves necessary in a
democratic society, by appearing to have the privileged form of a legal entity
established through law, could be seen by the public at large as state legitima-
tion of the politics embodied by this organization ( Vona v. Hungary).
2. Once we agree in principle to the justification and expediency of a ban
of a political organization in a constitutional democracy, we must ask who is
subject to such a measure, that is, what do we mean by political organization
as object of prohibition. That the dilemma is practical and not purely theo-
retical can be seen in the case of the Constitutional Court of Serbia initially
ruling that it did not have the competence to prohibit unregistered associa-
tions, only to then accept this type of competence. Moreover, there were fur-
ther dilemmas about whether the Court could prohibit a secret association.
It is a given that a political organization subject to a ban can legally have
the form of a political party or an association of citizens, but more broadly
could include labour unions, sports associations, as well as the church and
religious organizations. However, does the notion of political organization,
in this sense, encompass unregistered associations, or possibly even secret,
paramilitary associations?
The answer to this question ought to begin with the consideration that
freedom of association assumes above all the freedom to establish political
organizations, without having to take any particular form, while the only es-
sential limitations to this freedom, regardless of whether the association is en-
tered into the register or not, is that the organization is not being established
with the goal of advocating an undemocratic ideology or making use of un-
democratic means of fight. An association can be registered if it would like
to achieve further rights (acquire property, employ staff, protect its interests
before the courts, etc.), but registration as such is not a condition for the ex-
istence of the organization, either legally or in fact, and consequently cannot
be the condition for its banning. Associations are first and foremost an ex-
pression of civil society and can be founded and can act independently from
the government, and remain entirely neutral with regard to political processes.
Although it occurs ever more rarely today, we ought not lose sight that the
raison d'etre of existence of associations is the satisfaction of the interests of
its members, through extending and strengthening their individual freedom.
In that sense, associations can be private, even secret, that is, hidden from the
public, and still be perfectly in accordance with the established set of values.
At the same time, there is a possibility that not applying for registra-
tion is part of a political organizations strategy in achieving fundamentally
164
Tanasije Marinkovič: Granice slobode političkog udruživanja
undemocratic (and hence secret) political goals. In such situations, the in-
tervention of the appropriate court is essential, regardless of the status of the
association, that is, whether or not it is registered. This is also true for para-
military organizations, an example in which we can see the sense of a ban of
a secret association. Secrecy of these organizations refers to their readiness to
resort to violent means to achieve their illegal goals, which will render them
secret until they achieve their intent or until they are thwarted by success-
ful state intervention. True, it is quite unlikely that a court could find itself
banning a secret or paramilitary association, because they are either short-
lived due to successful operations by the authorities or else they successfully
remain in existence due to a lack of actual violent action, making it more dif-
ficult for authorities to pursue them.
3. In order to be justified in a democratic society, the ban on a political
organization, as a form of limiting freedom of association, must be in the
service of achieving legitimate societal goals. Determining that goal is cultur-
ally and historically conditioned. As such, one of the aspects of the evolution
of the institution of prohibition of political organizations was abandoning
the inter-war and cold-war practice of individualised legal bans of ideologi-
cal enemies. Instead, objective and non-discriminatory grounds for a ban are
introduced. Although they vary from one European constitution to another
and they are not always in perfect agreement with European Convention and
practice of the European Court, the grounds for a ban can be generalised and
summarized in several concentric circles. Among the meta-constitutional
values these circles express, there is plenty of overlap, just as there are differ-
ences on the edges, that is, in the scope of protection offered. It is important
to note that these values must be interpreted narrowly in order to prevent
their protection turning into censorship of thought, that is, politically incor-
rect’ behaviour. We ought to take care not to establish a political police under
the guise of defence of democracy, rights and freedoms, just as we ought to
watch out that the maxim "no freedom for the enemies of freedom” is not
reduced to "no freedom for the enemies of the constitution”, since the latter
leads to impoverishment of democracy and political life (F. Ost).
The first and tightest circle of meta-constitutional values refers to the
protection against racial, ethnic and religious discrimination, particularly
from hate speech and degrading treatment. The second, slightly wider cir-
cle protects against human rights violations which includes, aside from hate
speech and degrading treatment, homicide, endangering ones physical integ-
rity, limiting ones freedom of movement, etc. The third circle is the most
encompassing and is concerned with the protection of democracy, that is,
democratic decision-making in the form of well-argued debate and direct
and general suffrage, as a way to formulate public policy.
The relationship between meta-constitutional values is such that it is not
possible to emphasize one single value over the others. They are mutually
What Freedom for Enemies of Freedom?
165
supportive and mutually explanatory. Thus, protection against racial discri-
mination emerges from the democratic postulate of equality, achieved throu-
gh the recognition of human rights for all. Conversely, the most general de-
mand for democracy is rendered concrete in guaranteeing human rights, the
apex of which is the protection from racial discrimination (F. Ost).
4. Another way to answer the question of what is being protected by ban-
ning political organizations is in the negative: by citing what is being banned,
what is not allowed. The ban on political organizations appears in constitu-
tional democracies as an institution used in response to freedom-strangling
groups, in the form of measures characteristic to these very groups ֊ limiting
their freedom (of association).
In examining the jurisprudence of the European Court, which found its
confirmation in, among other, the practice of European courts and European
constitutions, we can see that there are two different bases to limit the free-
dom of political association: a) use of undemocratic means of struggle, that
is, incitement to violence, or even more so the use of (physical or psychologi-
cal) violence, and b) the advocating of nondemocratic ideologies, that is, pro-
moting political programs directed at human rights violation. Although these
are two different bases for limiting freedom of political association, they are
significantly intertwined by the very fact that violations of human rights are
most often committed through incitement or use of violence (homicide, hate
speech, etc.), and, alternately, in that violence is in itself a form of human ri-
ghts violation (e.g. violent overthrow of the constitutional order). In addition,
both bases actually protect democracy: in the first case understood procedu-
rally, in the second, substantially.
However, a potential ban of a political organization cannot be based in
the organizations undemocratic action and/or its undemocratic ideology alo-
ne. Rather, such a measure also ought to be necessary in a democratic soci-
ety. This means placing the acts and behaviours of a political organization in
their rightful context, as well as assessing whether, considering the nature of
democracy as such and all the particularities of the given democratic society,
there is a pressing social need for a ban and whether it would be proportional
to the societal value meant to be protected.
SADRŽAJ
NAPOMENA AUTORA. 11
L UVOD. 13
2. PROBLEM OGRANIČENJA SLOBODE POLITIČKOG
UDRUŽIVANJA U USTAVNOJ DEMOKRATI JI. 19
2T. Postepena institucionalizacija slobode političkog udruživanja
u ustavnom pravu.,. 19
2.2. Opravdanost i oportunost ograničenja slobode političkog
udruživanja u ustavnoj demokrati]i . 24
2.3. Zabrana političkih organizacija između
militantne i liberalne demokratije. 29
2.4. Zaključak. 31
3. EVOLUCIJA INSTITUTA ZABRANE
POLITIČKIH ORGANIZACIJA. 33
3.1. Izvorno određenje militantne demokratije. 33
3.2. Militantna demokratija na delu:
zabrana političkih organizacija. 37
3.2.1. Francuski zakon od 1936. godine. 38
3.2.2. Američko iskustvo sa ograničenjem slobode političkog
delovanja. 41
3.2.2.1. Evolucija standarda jasne i postojeće opasnosti. 42
3.2.2.2. Neposredni oblici ograničenja slobode udruživanja . 47
3.2.3. Militantna demokratija i zabrana političkih stranaka
u posleratnoj Nemačkoj. 49
3.3. Promenjena paradigma: zabrana političkih stranaka kao
vid ograničenja ljudskih prava. 55
3.3.1. Militantna demokratija u praksi Ustavnog suda Turske . 57
3.3.2. Zaštita političkih organizacija pred Evropskim sudom
za ljudska prava. 63
3.3.3. Promenjena paradigma u evropskoj ustavnosudskoj praksi
֊ slučaj Španije. 71
3.4. Zaključak. 77
8
Tanasije Marinkovič: Granice slobode političkog udruživanja
4. SAVREMENI STANDARDI OGRANIČENJA
SLOBODE POLITIČKOG UDRUŽIVANJA. 79
4.1. Pravna priroda evropskog prava ljudskih prava. 80
4.1.1. Međunarodnopravne osnove evropskog prava ljudskih prava 81
4.1.2. Ustavnopravna sadržina evropskog prava ljudskih prava. . 84
4.1.3. Evropsko pravo ljudskih prava kao naddržavno pravo . 89
4.2. Ograničenje slobode političkog udruživanja
u evropskom i uporednom pravu ljudskih prava. 92
4.2.1. Osnov ograničenja. 92
4.2.1.1. Upotreba nedemokratskih sredstava borbe. 93
4.2.1.2. Zagovaranje nedemokratske ideologije. 98
4.2.2. Neophodnost ograničenja u demokratskom društvu. 102
4.2.2.1. Nužna društvena potreba. 103
4.2.2.1.1. Neposrednost opasnosti po demokratiju. 104
4.2.2.1.2. Poistovećivanje organizacije sa postupcima
i govorom njenih vođa. . 107
4.2.2.1.3. Sveobuhvatna slika o zalaganju
za nedemokratsko društvo. 109
4.2.2.2. Načelo srazmernosti. 110
4.3. Zaključak. 114
5. BORBA PROTIV POLITIČKOG EKSTREMIZMA
U PRAKSI USTAVNOG SUDA SRBIJE. 117
5.1. Pravni okvir za zabranu udruženja u Srbiji. 119
5.2. Pregled prakse Ustavnog suda Srbije. 120
5.2.1. Ekstremističke podgrupe u sportskim udruženjima
i van njih. 120
5.2.2. „Nacionalni stroj“. 122
5.2.3. „Obraz“. 124
5.2.4. Srpski narodni pokret „1389“ i Srpski narodni
pokret „Naši“. 126
5.3. Otvorena pitanja u praksi Ustavnog suda Srbije. 130
5.3.1. Da li neregistrováno udruženje može da se zabrani?. 131
5.3.2. Staje tajno udruženje?. 135
5.3.3. Kakva je pravna priroda postupka za zabranu udruženja? 137
5.4. Zaključak. 139
6. UMESTO ZAKLJUČKA:
KOJA SLOBODA ZA NEPRIJATELJE SLOBODE?. 143
Sadržaj
9
6.1. Opravdanost i oportunost zabrane. 143
6.2. Ko se zabranjuje?. 145
6.3. Šta se štiti zabranom?. 146
6.4. Šta se zabranjuje?. 147
LITERATURA. 149
SUDSKA PRAKSA. 157
INTERNET IZVORI CITIRANIH USTAVA. 159
LIMITS OF FREEDOM OF POLITICAL ASSOCIATION. 161 |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Marinković, Tanasije 1976- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)1074776984 |
| author_facet | Marinković, Tanasije 1976- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Marinković, Tanasije 1976- |
| author_variant | t m tm |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV042728776 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)915334563 (DE-599)BVBBV042728776 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>00000nam a2200000 c 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV042728776</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20150904</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">150731s2014 |||| 00||| srp d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9788660471323</subfield><subfield code="9">978-86-6047-132-3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)915334563</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV042728776</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">srp</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marinković, Tanasije</subfield><subfield code="d">1976-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1074776984</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Granice slobode političkog udruživanja</subfield><subfield code="b">uporednoteorijska studija</subfield><subfield code="c">Tanasije Marinković</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Beograd</subfield><subfield code="b">Dosije Studio [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">165 S.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bibliogr.: S. 149 - 160. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Limits of Freedom of Political Association</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Vereinigungsfreiheit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4078791-6</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Vereinigungsfreiheit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4078791-6</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028159831&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028159831&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">340.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">090512</subfield><subfield code="g">4971</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="943" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-028159831</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| id | DE-604.BV042728776 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-10-11T20:01:10Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9788660471323 |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-028159831 |
| oclc_num | 915334563 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 165 S. |
| publishDate | 2014 |
| publishDateSearch | 2014 |
| publishDateSort | 2014 |
| publisher | Dosije Studio [u.a.] |
| record_format | marc |
| spelling | Marinković, Tanasije 1976- Verfasser (DE-588)1074776984 aut Granice slobode političkog udruživanja uporednoteorijska studija Tanasije Marinković Beograd Dosije Studio [u.a.] 2014 165 S. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Bibliogr.: S. 149 - 160. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Limits of Freedom of Political Association Vereinigungsfreiheit (DE-588)4078791-6 gnd rswk-swf Vereinigungsfreiheit (DE-588)4078791-6 s DE-604 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028159831&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028159831&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| spellingShingle | Marinković, Tanasije 1976- Granice slobode političkog udruživanja uporednoteorijska studija Vereinigungsfreiheit (DE-588)4078791-6 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4078791-6 |
| title | Granice slobode političkog udruživanja uporednoteorijska studija |
| title_auth | Granice slobode političkog udruživanja uporednoteorijska studija |
| title_exact_search | Granice slobode političkog udruživanja uporednoteorijska studija |
| title_full | Granice slobode političkog udruživanja uporednoteorijska studija Tanasije Marinković |
| title_fullStr | Granice slobode političkog udruživanja uporednoteorijska studija Tanasije Marinković |
| title_full_unstemmed | Granice slobode političkog udruživanja uporednoteorijska studija Tanasije Marinković |
| title_short | Granice slobode političkog udruživanja |
| title_sort | granice slobode politickog udruzivanja uporednoteorijska studija |
| title_sub | uporednoteorijska studija |
| topic | Vereinigungsfreiheit (DE-588)4078791-6 gnd |
| topic_facet | Vereinigungsfreiheit |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028159831&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=028159831&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT marinkovictanasije graniceslobodepolitickogudruzivanjauporednoteorijskastudija |