Jan Hus is especially well-known as a preacher and theologian whose activities anticipated the European protestant reformation and the hussite movement. It should not be forgotten, however, that Hus worked for many years as a teacher at the Faculty of Liberal Arts. He was therefore also a philosopher reflecting on contemporary subjects, among which was the reception of the philosophical thought of John Wyclif at Prague University, and the discussion of the reality of universals connected with it. The study maps Hus’s realist conception of universals on the basis of an analysis of the dispersed fragments of his pronouncements on universals from his quaestiones and from his Sentences commentary. The author divides this mapping into four different contexts: (1) God’s nature and the Trinity of Persons; (2) the ideas in God’s mind; (3) being as an analogical quasi-universal; and (4) the very conception of universals, that is of genera and species. In these different thematical areas, the study shows that Hus’s realism played an important role in his philosophico-theological thought of constituting its philosophical grounding. It could be said that although Hus’s realistic attitudes were influenced to a great extent by the thought of John Wyclif, Hus rejected or softened Wyclif’s heterodox opinions and the demands stemming from realism. Hus’s metaphysical standpoint, in the writings in question, also do not show a direct connection with his thoughts on church reform.
Koncept sebaurčenia národov je hodný odbornej pozornosti z viacerých dôvodov. Vo svojich začiatkoch predstavoval politický cieľ, z ktorého sa postupne vyvinul jeden zo základných kameňov systému medzinárodného práva, normatívne zakotvený v Charte OSN, či ďalších dôležitých dokumentoch, napríklad v Paktoch z roku 1966.Napriek tomuto pozoruhodnému vývoju a významu zásady sebaurčenia ako pravidla s účinkom erga omnes však jej obsah a rozsah aplikácie mimo obdobie dekolonizácie ostávajú nejasné.V súčasných diskusiách o legálnosti odštiepeneckých tendencií v Európe, či už v prípade Krymu, Katalánska či Škótska, právo na sebaurčenie pôsobí nielen ako ich živná pôda, ale je používané často ako hlavný argument, o ktorý sa legalita týchto snáh opiera. Je tak zrejmé, že zásadným sa stáva hľadanie riešenia rozporu zásady sebaurčenia a zásady územnej celistvosti. Kým časť súčasnej doktríny medzinárodného práva kladie dôraz na zásadu územnej celistvosti štátu a obmedzuje preto realizáciu zásady sebaurčenia na jeho vnútornú dimenziu, tj. v rámci existujúceho štátneho útvaru, iná časť odborníkov považuje v prípade existencie zvláštnych okolností za možnú i unilaterálnu secesiu. Tento príspevok predostrie argumenty v prospech kompromisného riešenia, ktoré nepodporuje exkluzivitu či subordináciu medzi oboma kľúčovými zásadami, ale naopak požaduje a stavia na ich vzájomnej koordinácii. and The concept of self-determination is an issue worth analysis for several reasons.First, it went through a remarkable change from a political goal to one of the cornerstones of the current international legal system. Secondly, despite its current position as a binding erga omnes-rule of international
law, which is enshrined in the most important documents such the UN Charter or the human rights Covenants of 1966, its content and scope of application in the post-colonial world remain problematic. Most vivid discussions, heated up by current secessionist tendencies in Europe, concern the conflict between the principle of determination and the principle of territorial integrity.One part of the current doctrine restricts the realization of self-determination to an internal mode, which entitles people autonomy and similar arrangements. It is however the other group of writers, which in exceptional circumstances considers also the external dimension of self-determination as legal, even in the form of unilateral secession. This contribution pleads for reconciliation of the two principles by finding
solutions, which do not foster the exclusivity and/or subordination in the relationship between them, but coordination.However, taking into account the importance and broadness of the questions to which no clear answer could be found yet, self-determination will continue to constitute a challenge
in practice, as well as in the doctrine of international law.
This study determines, from a doctrinal view, the date of the origin of Hus’s Quaestio de testimonio fidei christianae as, at the earliest, in the year 1408, and it displays in particular detail Hus’s teaching and its sources in this regard. Among these sources belong on the one hand the texts of Hus’s teacher Stanislav of Znojmo, on the other hand the texts of John Wyclif. It is the tracts of these two that allow one to reconstruct the doctrine of Hus’s standpoint. It is shown that Hus, like Stanislav and Wyclif, was a proponent of the dual creation of universals, that is by a pure act of God and by a pure potential in the sense of first matter. Hus addressed this quaestio in a theological context, or more exactly in the context of Christian faith, although his vocabulary preserves the semblance of philosophical language. Hus clearly sought, in this quaestio, to say that human reason is not capable of knowing universals, but that universals were revealed in scripture (Gen 1,21-25), and therefore every Christian must recognise their existence on the basis of faith.