Search

The processes of Europeization have invaded the public policy sphere and introduced into it, among other things, the altered views of the roles of policy players and their relationships in the processes of the formation and the implementation of public policy. As soon as these new developments had been detected, numerous political science debates understandably ensued about the changed roles and competences of the actors who operate at different political levels in the European Union. The paper begins with the definition of the policy actor in the research of the EU policy process. The usability of the traditional and the contemporary understanding of the policy actor in the EU policy system is looked into by means of the indicators of (non)statehood and the existing view of the role of the state, thereby articulating the dilemmas and the prospects for the potential new taxonomies of policy actors that might emerge as a consequence of the policy activity at the EU level, since the newly identified features breed suspicion in the unequivocal adequacy of the existing taxonomy of the actors. Also, the appropriateness of the categorization of the players according to their political level or to the structuralfunctional character of their activities is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ages ago, Plato understood justice as the purport and the essential purpose of the very existence of the state. Though Plato distinguishes between the political justice of the state and the personal justice of the individual soul, it was Aristotle who in his practical philosophy developed, apart from the general justice, an appropriate understanding of the special or particular justice and its significance for social progress. The first part of this paper deals with the different types of justice, and the second with civil society. In order to understand the contemporary theories of political justice and the roles of civil society in its realization, the author looks into the history of the European political thought and "civil society", since "civic" or "civil society" ("societas civilis"), was originally a political society. In modernity, Hegel began differentiating between the state as a political community and the "civil society" as a non-political society; his intention was not to separate but to integrate them by means of the public scrutiny and the citizens' governance. Thus Hegel linked Locke's and Montesquieu's opposing definitions of the relationship between the civil society and the state. This is all the more important since Hegel's philosophy is often misinterpreted as the state totalitarianism since we overlook the dangers coming, especially today, both from the civil society reduced to economy and the absolute state, the dangers that Hegel, with his concept of customariness, detected and avoided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]