Search

Gender-sensitive language is considered as one of products of the heroic struggle of women to be recognized and respected in modern world, for all what they are and for all what they could be and could achieve. This means that women are not escaping from their natural, biological roles -especially mother's role and other cherishing, nurturing and gentle emotions they have and use in raising the children and keeping the family on the same spot. This means that it should make men to find them, on linguistical and more over on other levels, equally capable of doing all sorts of jobs they are doing themselves. The newly changed national legal framework makes use of gender sensitive language as obligation since May 2024. All governmental bodies, on any territorial level, journalists, children and teachers at schools etc. will be obligated to use those gender sensitive terms , especially when they are used to mark woman in special profession(for example, in judiciary, in area of national security and defense, etc.) or else will be fined. In this paper the author will deal shortly with both argumentations-pro and contra of using gender sensitive language, and also to present own opinionwhich is in the middle. Also, it will be presented one of the disputes in area of protection of human rights. The dispute is about whether all protectors of citizens' rights should be called-ombudsman, as the original name of this institution is, or ombudswoman, when marking the woman who serves on this position, or ombudsperson-as gender neutral, or else.

Academic integrity is one of the most important pillars of higher education. It unites in itself the demand for perseverance and honesty in research that contributes to the development of science; request for collegial appreciation and respect for the work of members of the academic community, without discrimination, disparagement or denial of academic freedoms; request to spread a good ethical example of work and success only on the basis of honorable, honest and persistent work; and the requirement to accept minimum standards of ethical behavior that should protect all members of the academic community. Academic integrity, because of all the above, goes beyond its own concept and must be a way of life for the members of the academic community. As a result of an analytical and comparative (and somewhat critical) review of the concept of academic integrity, mainly in the domestic scientific community, certain recommendations for harmonizing the definitions and scope of the concept of academic integrity emerged.

In order for language to be fully accepted as a goal of communication, it is necessary that "participants have the same code, ie. a system of signs or symbols on the basis of which they compose messages. "Communication flows smoothly when all parties in the process know equally well the code that is used in communication. Sometimes, the code used in the preparation of messages differ from the code known to other participants on the other side of the communication process. Communication becomes fuzzy and one-way and must be brought to a state of unambiguous code used for both preparing and receiving messages. In the process of writing regulations, different language codes are used: the one known to everyone, that is, mostly known to everyone, and the other, which is composed of professional terms and terms from foreign languages. The terms from this second code must necessarily be explained by the terms from the first code, that is better known and more frequently used code, since the regulations are also written for a wider circle of people, not only for lawyers who know the second code better. Due to linguistic, but also structural and logical challenges that arise in the process of writing regulations, in 2010 the Unified Methodological Rules for Writing Regulations were adopted. This act regulated in the most precise way, the way of writing regulations so far, their internal structure, and also insisted on determining a unique writing style and terminology that will be used when writing legal acts because of the variety of addressees to which the regulations refer. In our paper, we consider the possible need for change, ie even greater linguistic specification of some provisions of this regulation, in the context of the role and significance of language in law. All our proposals stem from the well explained challenges that modern legislation has been facing lately in the process of its creation and self-application.

Creating law is a complex process. It stems from the constant learning and refinement of knowledge of law - both theory and practice; from recognizing social reality and attitudes and intentions of members of society, but also knowing the state itselffrom the inside. The ultimate outcomes of the process of creation of law are "sent" to ordinary citizens, in order to understand them and act according to their content. If we translate the result of this process of law-making into clear, precise and common language written rules of conduct that the average citizen can quickly understand, both the law-making process and its results will be more acceptable to end-users. The use of specific legal terminology or other professional terminologies in the legal acts and rules governing the relations between the addressees need not necessarily be the sole and exclusive channel of communication between the law makers and the addressee. Domestic best-known law theorists constantly emphasize the need ofuse everyday, lively, folk language, with properly "dosed"use of professional terminology,with appropriate" translation "of the same terminology in every act into the everyday language of the average person. Only in this way, law will become more understandable, more accepted by the addressee and more respected in the society. In this paper, we introduce the Plain English movement, inspired by use of the simple vocabulary when writing legal acts (only in English-speaking countries). The recommendations and guidelines that prominent representatives of this movement make to their lawyers can be applied also in our, domestic law and in the process of creating our law.

In our work, we briefly present the standpoint of German author Artur Kaufman about the relationship of language and law, which at one point was also defined as "the constituing of law through language." Considering that there is no law until the language gives it the proper form, Kaufman took a slightly different standpoint from other authors regarding the relationship of language and law, and also regarding the existence of a legal, special language itself. Because Kaufman's opinion about this issue was rarely and specifically mentioned, we considered it extremely important, in the context of the development of thought on the relationship of language and law and their mutual influences, and because this question involves not only lawyers and linguists, but also philosophers, sociologists and other experts.

The form of a legal act is determined by the competent body that adopts it, the appropriate procedure in which it is adopted, and the form of the act in which it is adopted. The content of any legal act must be, at least at the level of apstraction and the content of the act, in line with the content of an act that has a higher legal force, either because of the higher position on the hierarchical scale of legal acts due to the competent body that adopts it, or because other act is of special nature and content and derogates this other. However, neither the respect of the requirements of the form, nor the printing of the contents of a legal act are possible without the use of language. In this paper, under the term 'language' we mean the ability of a man to communicate with other people in his own environment, through a special system of verbalized characters, thus forming his own thoughts into appropriate voice/ written messages. Language is also taken in this paper as communication between the legislator and other legal entities and citizens, in the form of orders, declarative statements, prohibition, etc. in such a way that the content being communicated is clear and understandable to the addressees, who are mostly not legally educated. Some authors consider that only lawyers emphasize the significance of the language for law, as well as the significance of language for the specific legal language and legal terminology, while linguists remain strictly within their own science, dealing with the structure of language, the types of words and often by defending the mother tongue from the influence of foreign words at all costs. We agree with the thought of Nikola Visković that it is necessary to study the life of law ,and parallel with this, we also must study the language, which plays a key role in the life of law. In this paper we deal with the views of (mostly domestic) lawyers on the importance of language for law during the second half of the 20th century, while having in mind, at the same time, the views of the most important domestic and foreign linguists on the same topic.

To preserve the national spirit, whether in the people in one country, whether in society, or in law, is a great and very responsible job to do. In times of chaos, creating a new future for one new country, may make that assignment difficult. Having all that in mind, and putting it into a context of creation of law, we must say that preserving the national spirit, even with using the own national language, could be even more difficult. In this paper, the author reveals what were stands of some prominent Yugoslav lawyers and politicians during the first half of the 20th century ( Toma Živanović, Živojin Perić, Đorđe Tasić, Slobodan Jovanović; Lujo Bakotić, Nikolaj Pahorukov and many others), regarding the unification of Yugoslav law, and the reception of foreign laws in this legal system. During this period, the newly formed country, formed after The First World War, was facing with a lot of challenges, such as understanding and accepting of new Yugoslav national spirit, fight for forming new national law and breaking all connections that it has with some other foreign wars, fight for preserving its own, particular national spirits, etc. Debate lasted for almost three decades; also some historians, journalists and writers were involved in this debate (Vladimir Ćorović, Isidora Sekulić, and others ), but it seems that it wasn't that fruitful as one might expect it. Many of them weren't ready for compromises, and were pleading either for national purity of law, either for complete takeover of foreign law- it was considered for better law just because it was-foreign. The Austrian law had the greatest influence on particular national laws, and even on forming some parts of Yugoslav law, besides French and German laws. But, something that the author calls 'linguistic patriotism' had greater influence on forming new law, and made this theoretical debate greater , improving it even from the political, social and other points of view. In this paper, the author reveals the essence of 'linguistic patriotism', in order to begin broader debate about it in further papers.

Ethics is becoming one of the most often used but also misinter­preted words. It is often taken as an additional, corrective parameter to the policies and strategies that has to be adopted in the area of political works, environment, business, and medicine. Computer ethics thus makes the latest ethical discipline in the scientific sky. But its roots, as it was the case with environmental ethics, ranging decades; only the speech and the use of the same, as well as discussions on the postulates of computer ethics, are the results of rapid IT development in the last decade or two. In this paper, according to the title, will be shown introduction to computer ethics-its basis, the most important representatives, as well as the most important succession.

History of the mankind knows different oaths, which in their original forms, or somewhat modernized, have survived strict church courts, absolutist monarchy, despotic regimes, but even survived the people themselves. Beside the Hippocratic Oath, which, it seems, is the most durable and most disputed, we also know for: oath of office ,the oath for citizenship, the oath which we take 'under the penalty of criminal, civil and moral laws.' However, the subject of our discussion will be only the first-mentioned Hippocratic oath, because of the numerous controversies caused for centuries in terms of its origin, authorship, authenticity on the one hand, and its importance while entering the medical profession, on the other hand.

Women and nature are connected in many different ways : because of their biological status , reproductive status, discrimination by the ' strong '; even the ways in which women are victims of violence ( in any form ) and oppression is similar to the ways that the nature is victimized. Ecofeminism is an environmentally - ethical concept, that is not only trying to find the causes of the destruction of the environment and to ' treat ' the effects , but also tries to solve the problem that led to the cause. The representatives of ecofeminism think that changing positions and behaviors, ie. leaving the patriarchal approach to everything - can stop the degradation of the environment. The term of ecofeminism was first coined in 1974. Having in mind all conceptual wandering, binding this theory only for The Third World women ( and children) and their sacrifice within the modern system, we can conclude that ecofeminism can be very suitable to teach us to respect all the cycles of life, and not just only human life , and also can teach us how to 'celebrate all forms of diversity and to enrich the quality of life.' Feminist thought has brought a new view on ecological thinking and on traditional social and ethical perspectives. Only the abolition of domination over women , may revoke the domination and destruction of nature, since they are, in the view of some authors, homogeneous phenomenon.

Debates about political ethics aren't new. They have been present since ancient Greek philosophers. Machiavelli set some new principles, regarding amoral behavior of the prince, which could be quite legitimate and legal. He didn't invented anything new, he just admitted that, that was the reality. Some modern authors think that ethics and politics should be departed always, some other think that they should cooperate. In the end of the day, the voters are those who must face with amoral behavior of politicians, because it seems that politicians don't recognize ethics at all? Or is it just look like? In this paper, we will try in short to tell something about origins of political ethics, its burning issues, and about possible ways of implementation of political ethics and its development.

Although we think that environmental ethics is something new to our world, and that it exists for past 20 or so years, the truth is much different. Debates about this issue last for few decades and first mentions about ecology and protection of the environment are known for a very long time, centuries ago. The environmental ethics was deprived, and not respected, although its significance for the well-being of all the humans is bigger every day. In this article, we give a short overview on some of the most prominent definitions, theories and ways of developing the environmental ethics.

From the landlord to victim, nature and our environment have gone the long way. It is destructed by the man, the only one that become from her. Deep ecology is a kind of philosophical theory, which would like to lead us to protect and respect our environment again, as we did it before. While trying to reconcile dysfunctional parts of our lives and our indstialized present, deep ecology tried to resolve some rather important ecological issues. Although it is said that deep ecology is a kind of general and not so successful ecological philosophy, that it is quiet misanthropic, almost terroristic, this theory has been populated thru decades, especially in USA and Scandinavian countries. We think that it is important to know where are its 'rights' and 'wrongs', so that we can make our future better.

Relationship between the truth and the lie has been changing throughout different periods of time. It seems that the truth, although beautiful and solid value, that is needed as a cornerstone for establishing justice, has no more significant role in the world, because lying, or - untruthful telling, sets limits to the truth. What is their ethical, philosophical and social value and what is their relationship?.

Confrontation between justice and legal certainty may be resolved in such a way, that law, which insures power and legal acts, is more valuable even if it has unjust content and if it is inappropriate, except in case that the law is so unjust, that such 'corrupted law', must resign before the justice' This so called Rabruch's formula is very interesting even today, even though few decades later from its constitution. It is easily adapted into modern state of mind and functioning of legal systems. So, it deserves a few minutes more, to talk about this issue. Because, when there's no law, there are no states, nor people.