Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

PRZYŁĄCZENIE KRYMU PRZEZ ROSJĘ W ŚWIETLE PRAWA MIĘDZYNARODOWEGO

100%

RYDEL K.

Historia@Teoria

|

2018

|

tom 1

|

nr 7

225-237

EN

The article describes the most important international law issues related to the annexation of the Crimea by the Russian Federation. The first part of the text concerns with the infringements of the international law made by Russia (infringement of the principle pacta sunt servanda, the principle of non intervention and the principle of the prohibition of aggression). The second, essential part of the text concerns the inadmissibility of self-determination of people in the case of the Crimea. Russian involvement in the Crimea results the illegality of self-determination in this case. It is also impossible because the case of Crimea does not meet the required conditions. This causes the inadmissibility of the secession of this territory.

2

Planowany Anschluss Szwajcarii w czasie drugiej wojny światowej

100%

Żejmo M.

Historia Slavorum Occidentis

|

2015

|

nr 2(9)

185-209

EN

Since 1933, when Adolf Hitler became the Chancellor of Germany, to the end of World War II, the independence of Switzerland was constantly threatened. From the beginning, Nazi propaganda sounded off about the unifi cation of the German peoples under the banners of the Third Reich. However, Swiss neutrality gave the Germans such great material benefi ts that they ultimately abandoned their plans to annex Switzerland. Prior to the outbreak of World War II and throughout the War, the Swiss authorities collaborated with the Germans and imposed restrictions on the admission of European Jews. Nevertheless, owing to its status of a ‘perpetually’ neutral state and informal actions of a number of state offi cials, many human lives were saved. For many years after the war, the Swiss found themselves in a kind of political isolation from the countries fi ghting against the Nazi Third Reich, owing to Switzerland’s trade cooperation and trade in goods with all participants of the war.

3

Territorial disputes between Poland and Czechoslovakia 1938–1945

100%

Błachut M.

Kultura Bezpieczeństwa. Nauka – Praktyka – Refleksje

|

2020

|

tom 38

9-17

EN

The historical point of view is important to fully understand foreign affairs. For Polish-Czech relations the crucial period in this respect is 1918–1945. The matter of the conflict were borderlands, with the most important one – Zaolzie, that is, historical lands of the Duchy of Cieszyn beyond Olza River. Originally, the land belonged to the Crown of the Polish Kingdom, then to the Kingdom of Bohemia and Austrian Habsburg dynasty. After World War I, local communities took control of the land. Czechoslovakian military intervention and a conflict with Bolsheviks caused both parties to agree to the division of Zaolzie through arbitration of powers in 28 July 1920. Until 1938, key parts of Zaolzie belonged to Czechoslovakia. In that year, Poland decided to annex territories lost according to the arbitration. After World War II tension between Poland and Czechoslovakia heightened again. Czechoslovakia made territorial claims on parts of Silesia belonging to Germany. Poland once more tried to reclaim Zaolzie, but military invasion was stopped by Stalin. Negotiations failed, but the escalation of the conflict was stopped. Two years later the relationship between the parties was eventually normalized, the final agreement was signed in 1958 and it is still in place today.

4

Continuity and Succession of States: The Fate of Pre-War Germany and Its Implications for the 1970 Treaty of Warsaw

88%

Uerpmann-Wittzack R.

Polish Yearbook of International Law

|

2021

|

tom 41

45-56

EN

This article explores whether the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) is identical with pre-war Germany. The question is relevant for the understanding of the 1970 Treaty of Warsaw, because in the event it is identical, the FRG would be the predecessor State of Poland with regard to the former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line and, therefore, competent to renounce any territorial title. By contrast, in the case of non-identity the FRG would only have been a third State with regard to these territories. However, even in case of identity, the scope of the Treaty of Warsaw seems ambiguous due to Allied reservations. Hence, it was wise to confirm the transfer of sovereignty in 1990.

5

To Justify against All Odds: The Annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the Russian Legal Scholarship

88%

Zadorozhnii O.

Polish Yearbook of International Law

|

2015

|

tom 35

139-170

EN

This article is dedicated to the publications of the Russian legal scholars on the annexation of Crimea in 2014 or, according to the Russian version of the events “Crimea’s reunification with Russia.” Based on the factual circumstances of the case and the norms of Ukrainian constitutional law and international law, as well as modern approaches in international legal doctrine, the article analyses the key arguments of the Russian authorities and its legal scholarship, namely the following: 1) Russia’s use of force against Ukraine was necessary to defend Russian nationals and compatriots; 2) Russia’s use of force against Ukraine was a lawful response to the request for assistance by the legitimate leaders of Ukraine (V. Yanukovych) and Crimea (S. Aksyonov); 3) the events in Crimea were a secession, with the subsequent accession of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation as an independent state; 4) Ukraine disregarded the principle of the equality and self-determination of peoples vis-à-vis the residents of Crimea, therefore, Crimeans had the right to secede; 5) Crimea is historically Russian; 6) Ukraine had been exercising peaceful annexation of the peninsula since 1991, and Russia did not object to this (subject to certain conditions, which Ukraine violated in 2014); 7) the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 was illegal. This article evaluates whether these claims hold any weight under international law. In addition the general trends in contemporary Russian approaches to international law are outlined and their effects on its foreign policy are examined.

6

The Legality and Certain Legal Consequences of the “Accession” of Crimea to the Russian Federation

75%

Cwicinskaja N.

Polish Yearbook of International Law

|

2014

|

tom 34

61-87

EN

On 11 March 2014 Crimea declared independence. Ukraine and international society has not recognised that act. However Crimea’s independence was recognised by Russia and on 18 March 2014 an agreement on the accession of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation was signed. Many countries and international organisations have condemned that step, viewing it as illegal annexation. Regardless of how this situation is treated however, it is at present a fait accompli. Such a situation evokes legal consequences both in the internal law of Ukraine and Russia as well as on the plane of international law. The residents of Crimea appear to be in the worst situation. Legal certainty is a fiction for them now. There are also problems on the international plane. Despite the fact that in the opinion of international society Crimea remains an integral part of Ukraine, in practice there are many conflicting problems of a legal nature that cannot be solved, at least for the time being. This article analyses the legality and certain legal consequences of the “accession” of Crimea to Russia and the effect of this accession on the legal situation for residents of Crimea. The article concludes that legal situation of Crimeans will not improve anytime soon, and that the legal problems which have arisen on the international plane will not be resolved soon either.

7

The Opinion by the Legal Advisory Committee to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland on the Annexation of the Crimean Peninsula to the Russian Federation in Light of International Law

75%

Polish Yearbook of International Law

|

2014

|

tom 34

275-284

EN

In light of international law, the incorporation of the Crimean Peninsula (Crimea), which forms part of Ukraine’s territory, into the Russian Federation qualifies as annexation, i.e. the illegal acquisition of the territory of another state by the threat or use of force. In this respect, Crimea remains an occupied territory under international law. The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation has violated many treaties and fundamental principles of international law, namely the principle of territorial integrity of states, non-intervention into the domestic affairs of another state, and the prohibition of the threat or use of force against another state. Consequently, the Russian Federation has violated Ukraine’s rights which enjoy international protection. Moreover, due to the special legal status of the principles of international law that have been violated, the Russian Federation has breached its commitments under law to the entire international community. This community has an international legal obligation not to recognize the illegal situation created by the illegal use of force in the form of armed aggression, and its consequences.

8

The Boundaries of Jerusalem

75%

Biger G.

Polish Political Science Yearbook

|

2021

|

nr 2 (50)

77-88

EN

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump presented his Peace Plan for Israel and the Palestinians. The plan also dealt with the future boundaries of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the only city ruled by a sovereign regime, the State of Israel, which declared Jerusalem as its Capital city and draw its boundary lines. Except for the US, the status and boundaries of Jerusalem are not accepted by any other international or national entity. Only the United States, which accepts Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel, agreed to accept its Israeli declared boundaries. Jerusalem’s status and boundaries stand at the core of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which wishes to restore the pre-1967 line. The city of Jerusalem was divided during the years 1948-1967 between Israel and Jordan. The Palestinian Authority thus calls for a separation of Jerusalem between two independent states. Today, Jerusalem has an urban boundary that serves partly as a separating line between Israel and the Palestinian Autonomy, but most countries do not accept the present boundaries, and its future permanent line and status are far from establishing. Jerusalem is a unique city. This article presents a brief history that should help understanding its uniqueness.

9

The Advisory Opinion on Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence: Hopes, Disappointments and Its Relevance to Crimea

63%

Värk R.

Polish Yearbook of International Law

|

2014

|

tom 34

115-131

EN

The international community anxiously awaited delivery of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Kosovo’s declaration of independence, hoping it would clarify the controversial right of self-determination and the right of secession. Although it was hailed by many as a confirmation of both rights, the advisory opinion was disappointing regarding that part of the analysis which was based on general international law. The ICJ interpreted the question posed in a very narrow and formalistic way. It concluded that declarations of independence (not their consequences) are not in violation of international law, but it did not rule that they are in accordance with international law, as was requested in the posed question. The ICJ refused to examine whether there is a positive entitlement to secession under international law. Although Kosovo and its supporters claimed that the case of Kosovo is unique and will not set a precedent, Russia used the case of Kosovo and the advisory opinion to justify the so-called referendum in Crimea and the subsequent incorporation of Crimea into Russia. However, the situation in Crimea is only superficially comparable to Kosovo and the advisory opinion gives little or no support in the case of Crimea.

10

Dlaczego Putin wszczął wojnę przeciw Ukrainie

63%

Doroszko M.

Politeja : Pismo Wydziału Studiów Miedzynarodowych i Politycznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego

|

2015

|

nr 3(34/1)

239-246

EN

The author analyzes the causes and consequences of undeclared war of Russia against Ukraine. Among the main reasons – the desire to restore Russian leadership’s geopolitical influence in the former Soviet Union by building a new type of empire. In order to reach it official Moscow uses a wide range of tools - from economic pressure and blackmail to armed aggression on the territories of the former USSR. The author is convinced that the annexation of the Crimea and the undeclared war of Russia against Ukraine were the result of revanchist policy of Russian President Vladimir Putin aimed at the return of influential world power status. Achieving this goal involves prevention of Europeanisation and democratization of post-Soviet countries, the main jewel among which is Ukraine. Exit from the influence of Russia is possible, according to the author, through the integration of Ukraine into the EU and NATO.

11

Rosyjska aneksja ukraińskich terytoriów okupowanych w świetle prawa międzynarodowego

63%

Podraza M.

Biuletyn Stowarzyszenia Absolwentów i Przyjaciół Wydziału Prawa Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego

|

2023

|

tom 18

|

nr 20 (2)

219-233

EN

Since 2014, the Russian Federation has permanently violated the territorial integrity of Ukraine, while violating the basic principles of international law and ius cogens norms, such as the prohibition of interference in the internal affairs of another state, or the prohibition of threats and the use of armed force. As recent years have shown, the annexation of Crimea in 2014 was only a prelude to the implementation of the plan for the full subordination of Ukraine. Since February 24, 2022, the international community has witnessed a full-scale aggression by the Russian Federation, which, despite its size and the involvement of a huge number of troops, does not bring the desired results. For this reason, the Kremlin, also for its own needs, is trying to prove that the military intervention is proceeding successfully. One of the examples of this activity was the referendum held on 23-27 September 2022 in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DRL), Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) and the Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts, which together accounted for almost 1/5 of Ukraine’s area, which ended with their annexation to the Russian Federation. It was conducted in violation of the fundamental principles of international law, and resulted in its condemnation by most of the international community.

PL

Federacja Rosyjska, począwszy od 2014 r., trwale narusza integralność terytorialną Ukrainy, łamiąc jednocześnie podstawowe zasady prawa międzynarodowego i normy ius cogens takie jak: zakaz ingerencji w sprawy wewnętrzne innego państwa czy zakaz groźby i użycia siły zbrojnej. Jak pokazały ostatnie lata, aneksja Krymu w 2014 r. była tylko wstępem do realizacji planu pełnego podporządkowania Ukrainy. Od 24 lutego 2022 r. społeczność międzynarodowa jest świadkiem pełnoskalowej agresji Federacji Rosyjskiej, która pomimo jej rozmiarów i zaangażowania ogromnej ilości wojska nie przynosi pożądanych efektów. Z racji tego Kreml, również na potrzeby własne, stara się udowodnić, że interwencja zbrojna przebiega pomyślnie. Jednym z przykładów tego działania było referendum przeprowadzone w dniach 23-27 września 2022 r. w Donieckiej Republice Ludowej (DRL), Ługańskiej Republice Ludowej (ŁRL) oraz obwodach chersońskim i zaporoskim, stanowiących łącznie blisko 1/5 powierzchni Ukrainy, które zakończyło się ich aneksją do Federacji Rosyjskiej. Zostało ono przeprowadzone z naruszeniem podstawowych zasad prawa międzynarodowego, a efektem tego było jego potępienie przez większość społeczności międzynarodowej.

12

Anexe cizího území, vojenská okupace a separatistické entity v mezinárodním právu správním

63%

Handrlica J.

Právník. Teoretický časopis pro otázky státu a práva (The Lawyer - Scientific Review for Problems of State and Law)

|

2023

|

tom 162

|

nr 11

993-1006

EN

Annexation has been a traditional subject of interest for the scholarly debate of international public law. However, the annexation of a foreign territory has not only relevance for the relations between sovereign states, but also for the relations of administrative law. Annexation implies the incorporation of a defined territory into the administrative structure of the annexing State and the application of the law of that State to individuals. Very recently, the Decision (EU) 2022/2512 of the European Parliament and of the Council provided that Russian travel documents issued to persons resident in Ukraine regions that are occupied by the Russian Federation or breakaway territories in Georgia shall not be accepted as valid travel documents for issuance of Schengen visas and for crossing the external borders of the European Union. This article discusses the problem of administration of an annexed territory from the viewpoint of administrative international law. In addition to cases of annexation of foreign territory, this article will also focus on cases of military occupation and cases where the de facto administration of territory is exercised by de facto states. With respect to all these forms of administration, the question of prospective recognition of administrative acts appears. Beyond outlining theoretical approaches to the problem, the article also addresses those challenges arising for the application practice.

CS

Anexe cizího území je tématem, které je tradičně předmětem zájmu nauky mezinárodního práva veřejného. Skutečností ovšem je, že fenomén anexe má význam nejenom ve vztazích mezi suverénními státy, ale také pro vztahy práva správního. Anexe totiž implikuje začlenění vymezeného území do správní struktury anektujícího státu a aplikaci práva tohoto státu vůči jednotlivcům. Aktuálně bylo Rozhodnutím Evropského parlamentu a Rady (EU) 2022/2512 stanoveno, že ruské cestovní doklady vydané na ukrajinských územích anektovaných v září 2022 Ruskou federací nelze přijímat ani za účelem vydávání schengenských víz, ani za účelem překračování vnějších hranic Evropské unie. Tento článek si dává za cíl tematizovat problém výkonu správy nad anektovaným územím z perspektivy mezinárodního práva správního. Vedle případů anexe cizího území bude v tomto článku věnována pozornost i případům vojenské okupace a také případům, kdy faktickou správu území vykonávají de facto státy. Ve všech uvedených případech je realizován výkon správy nad vymezeným územím. Mohou akty vydané správou v uvedených případech nabývat právních účinků v tuzemsku? Tento článek prezentuje jak různé teoretické přístupy k položené otázce, tak i nástin jejího řešení ve vazbě na platnou právní úpravu.

13

Joint international military exercises of NATO countries within the implementation of programs supporting peace and security in Ukraine

63%

Mahomedov A.

Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Politologica

|

2020

|

nr 25

54-61

EN

This article considers the issue of annexation of the Ukrainian Crimea peninsular territory by the Russian Federation and further deployment of the secessionist movement in the southeastern regions of Ukraine that subsequently developed into a military conflict in the east of Ukraine. The research analysed the directions and character of the cooperation between the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Alliance military units. The level of practical interaction within the framework of existing NATO-Ukraine bilateral partnership programs, including military trainings, was also identified. The chronology of transformation of organizational forms of Ukrainian army’s presence in the east of Ukraine from the Anti-Terrorist Operation to the Joint Forces Operation and the role of NATO in this process were also considered. The elements of the North Atlantic Alliance’s influence on the reform of the Ukrainian army were identified directly following the requirements and standards defined by the Organization. The role of NATO’s Liaison Office, located in Kyiv, Ukraine, and the Center for Security and Information Processing was outlined. Particular attention was paid to the issue of counteracting cybercrimes and protecting the state’s information systems from external influences. In particular, reference was made to the protection of the state’s critical infrastructure elements (nuclear power plants, strategic state-owned enterprises, etc.), including electronic registers of citizens e-lists and the state’s banking system databases. The activities of the NATO Cybercrime Operations Centers and the establishment of similar institutions in Ukraine were also researched. The maritime component of cooperation between Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was analysed, taking into account the aggravation of the situation in Azov-Black Sea region during 2018, associated with the passage of Ukrainian warships of the Azov Fleet of the Naval Forces of Ukraine through the Kerch Strait which is under the control of the occupying troops of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. As a result, so-called border conflicts were caused leading to the capture of Ukrainian warships and sailors by Russians in November 2018.

14

[Recenzja]: Grzegorz Liebrecht, Biskup Augustyn Łosiński. Ordynariusz Diecezji Kieleckiej w latach 1910-1937,Kielce 2018, ss. 302, il.

63%

Kawecki R.

Archiwa, Biblioteki i Muzea Kościelne

|

2019

|

tom 111

451-457

EN

-

15

Wypisy źródłowe do biografii polskich biskupów i opatów z czasów Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów oraz niewoli narodowej doby zaborów (XVI-XIX w.) : (cz. V)

63%

Prokop K. R.

Archiwa, Biblioteki i Muzea Kościelne

|

2007

|

tom 87

115-154

16

W sprawie "Relationes de statu dioecesis" na terenie metropolii warszawskiej w okresie zaboru rosyjskiego

63%

Lewalski K.

Archiwa, Biblioteki i Muzea Kościelne

|

2007

|

tom 88

55-64

DE

Berichte über den Zustand von Diözesen stellen immer interessante Quellen zur Geschichte der Ortskirchen dar. Die Zahl der bekannten Berichte aus dem Gebiet der 1818 gegründeten Metropolie Warschau bleibt trotz der durchgeführten Quärenden weiterhin unvollständig – für die Zeit nach 1818 bis zum Jahre 1913 beträgt sie 26. Bis 1910 wurden diese nach einer noch aus dem Jahre 1725 stammenden Instruktion angefertigt. Es ist daher verständlich, dass ihr Informationswert an der Schwelle des 20. Jahrhunderts weitgehend unzureichend war. Viele neue Probleme und Fragen blieben unberücksichtigt, vor die sich die Kirche an der Wende vom 19. zum 20. Jahrhundert gestellt sah. Im Zusammenhang damit sollten die Quärenden kraft des Dekrets der Konsistorialkongregation vom 31. Dezember 1909 „de relationibus dioecesanis” nach einem neuen Fragebogen angefertigt werden, der 150 Fragen enthielt. Auf diese Weise lieferten sie viele neue und detaillierte Informationen über den materiellen Zustand der Diözese, Fragen des Glaubens und des Kultes, den Bischof und den Klerus, die Diözesankurie, die Kapitel, das Priesterseminar, das Funktionieren der Pfarreien, die Religiosität, die Erziehung sowie die sozio-politische Situation. Zu dieser Gruppe von Berichten gehören die im vorliegenden Artikel besprochenen Berichte über den Zustand der Diözesen Kielce, Płock, Sandomierz und Kielce aus den Jahren 1912-1913.

17

Hungarian War Aims During WWI: Between Expansionism and Separatism

63%

Piahanau A.

Central European Papers

|

2014

|

tom 2

|

nr 2

95-107

EN

The question of WWI aims of the Kingdom of Hungary, constituting a distinct State within the Habsburg Monarchy, remains almost unexplored. This paper tries to reduce this gap. First, it synthesizes the main features of Hungarian expansionist projects in 1914–1918. Second, it emphasizes the importance of war-time separatist scenarios, intending to ensure the territorial integrity of Hungary. This way, the Hungarian strategic thought during the war appears to have constantly balanced between perspectives of territorial enlargement (in case of a victory of Central Powers) and independence (in case of the Entente's success). Both alternatives had a common goal – to maximally secure the political freedom and territories of Hungary. The paper is based on the analysis and synthesis of available sources in Hungarian, Slovak, English, French and Russian (relevant historiography, published and archives documentation and memoirs).

18

Wypisy źródłowe do biografi i polskich biskupów i opatów z czasów Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów oraz niewoli narodowej doby zaborów (XVI-XIX w.) Część VIII

63%

Prokop K. R.

Archiwa, Biblioteki i Muzea Kościelne

|

2010

|

tom 94

195-247

19

The Religious Freedom in Crimea During the Russian Occupation

51%

Denysenko K. , Kovtun O.

Środkowoeuropejskie Studia Polityczne

|

2021

|

nr 3

5-17

PL

Artykuł dotyczy wolności religijnej na Krymie po rozpoczęciu okupacji Półwyspu przez rosyjskie siły zbrojne w lutym 2014 roku oraz aneksji Krymu przez Federację Rosyjską. Przedmiotem badania jest wolność religijna na Krymie od tamtej pory. Wykorzystanie podejścia systematycznego i strukturalnego pozwala autorom przedstawić pełen obraz naruszeń wolności religijnej na Półwyspie. Na potrzeby studium założono, że wraz z zajęciem i aneksją Krymu Rosja doprowadziła do upadku pluralizmu i wolności religii, którymi Ukraińcy cieszyli się od 1991 roku. W przedstawionej pracy autorzy poruszają szereg zagadnień, np. torturowanie aktywistów religijnych, niszczenie lub nielegalne przejmowanie własności o charakterze religijnym, prześladowanie obywateli Ukrainy na tle politycznym i religijnym, czy deportowanie mieszkańców Krymu do innych obszarów Ukrainy. Na podstawie analizy ustalono, że okupanci stworzyli warunki uniemożliwiające korzystanie z wolności religijnej oraz stwarzające zagrożenie życia dla wiernych i duchownych. Różne wspólnoty religijne, szczególnie przedstawiciele Kościoła Prawosławnego Ukrainy i Tatarów krymskich, poważnie odczuły skutki działań Rosji, która wdrożyła przeciwko nim szereg procedur administracyjnych i kryminalnych. Analiza umożliwia dostrzeżenie pełnego obrazu dyskryminacji różnych wyznań na tle religijnym oraz okrutnych prześladowań na terenie Krymu od lutego 2014 roku do chwili obecnej.

EN

The article deals with the problem of religious freedom in Crimea after the occupation of the Peninsula by Russian military forces in February 2014 and the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. The subject matter of the study is religious freedom in Crimea during the Russian occupation since 2014. The systematic and the structural approach allow the authors to see the entire picture of religious freedoms violation on the Peninsula. The study hypothesizes that with the occupation and annexation of Crimea, Russia brought the collapse of the religious pluralism and freedom that Ukrainians had experienced since 1991. In this paper, the authors cover a wide range of issues such as torture of religious activists, destruction and the illegal seizure of religious property, persecution of Ukrainians on political and religious grounds, deportation of Crimea’s population to the mainland of Ukraine. The research establishes that the occupiers created unbearable conditions for religious freedom, the lives of many clergymen and believers appeared to be in great danger. Different religious communities, especially the representatives of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (the OCU), Crimean Muslim Tatars, suffered significantly from applying Russia’s severe criminal and administrative requirements. The analysis allows seeing the complete picture of religious discrimination of different denominations and cruel religious persecution in the annexed Crimea beginning from February 2014 till nowadays.

20

Daniny publiczne związane z użytkowaniem dróg publicznych i ruchem drogowym w ustroju demokratycznym odrodzonej Polsk

51%

Antonów D.

Studia nad Autorytaryzmem i Totalitaryzmem

|

2019

|

tom 41

|

nr 4

183-203

EN

The article is devoted to public levies connected with the use of public roads and the road traffic in the democratic system of reborn Poland (i.e. after regaining independence). Problems connected with public roads (first of all financing of building and maintaining the roads) as the elements of politics of democratic Poland in range of its economic restoration in the capitalist economic system after many years of annexation are described in the article. During that period the state collected different charges and other levies from participants of the road traffic and other subjects using public roads in different ways (e.g. industrial companies located by the roads, which use the roads in other way than normal users, that means they often transport heavy things by big vehicles). Takings from the levies were allocated for building and maintenance of public roads. The most important kinds of levies are shown and discussed in the article. An assessment of the politics of Poland in the field of road infrastructure during the first years after regaining independence is also conducted in the article.