Marita Brčić Kuljiš

Migration has, in recent years, been one of the most current topics both in Croatia and worldwide. We have witnessed increased emigration (i.e. out-migration) of Croatian citizens, as well as attempts to cross the Croatian state border by citizens of other countries. This book focuses on migration in the context of the so-called migrant and refugee crisis, which is considered from a philosophical and sociological perspective. Any gender-specific terms, irrespective of the gender in which they are used here, refer equally to both men and women. The book came into being as part of a study conducted by the authors in 2019 among students at the University of Split. This was one of the activities carried out within the project entitled Creating welcoming communities, which was coordinated by the Association "MI" – Split, with the support of the UNHCR’s (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) Representation in Croatia. The main objective of the project was to improve the conditions for better integration of asylum seekers at the local and regional level, with a special emphasis on local stakeholders and the community. The objective and activities of the project reflect and anticipate relocation policies and work towards analysing, valorising, and developing recommendations for the preparation of the local community and self-government to provide support. In this regard, we can say that the aim of the project is a contribution of sorts to creating a welcoming atmosphere and better conditions for integration through cooperation with institutions, and especially with the academic community. The project activities were intended to include relevant scientific findings that would enable the interested public to gain a more systematic understanding of the current social situation as well as to promote the idea of the possibilities of achieving a higher integration standard. In the complex social circumstances of today, which require understanding and adaptation, in addition to adequate access to accurate information, it is also crucial to ensure and facilitate the forming of inter-sectoral networks that would respond more readily to existing challenges. This primarily requires knowledge exchange, but also cooperation between different stakeholders such as public institutions, local and state government, civil society organisations, the academic community, media, etc. All these stakeholders play an equally important role in establishing a support network for a multitude of beneficiaries within the integration process. The establishment of a support network for the reception and integration of asylum seekers depends on the support of the local population in the broadest sense. One of the aims of the study was to analyse the relationship between the respondents’ identity features and their attitudes on accepting immigrants and refugees. The structure of the survey is based on the following objectives within which we sought to identify: 1) students’ attitudes on immigration, immigrants, and refugees, 2) the perceived sociodemographic profiles of immigrants and refugees, 3) the eventual presence of social distance towards immigrants and refugees. For the sake of clarity and better presentation, the second and third research objectives are analytically separated from the first one, although, in fact, a connection exists between them. How students perceive migration, immigrants, and refugees plays a role in shaping their attitudes towards them, as well as in potential behaviours reflected in the degree of social distance. From the sociological perspective, identity is seen as the way we perceive ourselves and others, as well as the way we are perceived by others. It involves sameness, similarity and difference concerning various groups of individuals (Abercrombie, Hill & Turner, 2006:190). Identity is associated with the meanings individuals and groups attach to their social reality, resulting in different forms of action. As such, it becomes one of the central political, scientific, and social topics in general. The book is structured in six chapters. Following the introduction, the first chapter presents the theoretical framework on which the conducted research is based. It goes on to elaborate on the concepts significant for a better understanding of the covered topic, in particular the concept of identity, the differences between the concepts of immigrant and refugee, as well as the frameworks of philosophical reflection on migration (the philosophy of politics and ethics). As confirmed both by our study and by numerous others, the discussion on the topic of identity represents an important element in understanding modern migrations. The third and fourth chapters lay out the research methodology, followed by the results and their interpretation. Chapter 5 provides conclusions and recommendations for further research and the establishment of a support network for the reception and integration of asylum seekers. The final chapter includes references to the literature used.

Shvaćajući kulturni pluralizam kao činjenicu suvremenog liberalno demokratskog društva, uočava se njegova problematičnost u odnosu na same liberalno-demokratske ideje. Demokracija polazi od prava većine, a liberalizam polazi od pojedinca kojemu su osigurana temeljna prava i dužnosti zanemarujući činjenicu njegova mogućeg pripadanja manjinskoj kulturi. Može li se odgovor na zahtjev kulturne različitosti pronaći isključivo u teoriji ljudskih prava ili je potrebno dopustiti postavljanje posebnih prava za pripadnike različitih manjinskih kultura? Je li takva posebna prava dovode u pitanje ideal jednakosti koji se oduvijek smatrao temeljem pravednih odnosa? Will Kymlicka, polazeći sa svog liberalnog stajališta, navodi kako jedna obuhvatna teorija pravednosti u multikulturalnom društvu treba uključivati i opća prava, koja su pripisana svim pojedincima bez obzira kojim skupinama pripadali, ali i određena grupno-diferencirana prava ili »specijalni status« za manjinska prava.Understanding cultural pluralism, as a fact of the modern liberal democratic societies, it is problematic regarding the very liberal democratic ideas. Democracy starts with the majority rule, and liberalism is based on the individual, whose basic rights and duties are ensured, disregarding the fact of possible belonging to a minority culture. Can the answer to the demand of cultural diversity be found exclusively in the human rights theory or must we allow the setup of special rights for the for the members of different minority cultures? Do such “special rights” question the ideal of equality that was always considered to be a base of justice? Will Kymlicka, starting from his liberal standpoint, states that a comprehensive theory of justice in multicultural society must include both the general rights ascribed to all individuals, regardless of which groups they belong to, and the specific group-differentiated rights or “special status” for minority rights

Svojom teorijom pravednosti kao pravičnosti američki autor John Rawls ponudio je egalitarnu koncepciju pravednosti za demokratsko društvo. Kao liberal, ostao je dosljedan ideji da realizacija pravednosti podrazumijeva načelo jednakih sloboda i načelo jednakosti mogućnosti. Uz ta dva načela, Rawls drugom načelu pridružuje i načelo razlike koje za zadatak ima uklanjanje svih onih faktora koji su s moralnog stajališta proizvoljni. Specifičnost tog načela, koje traži promišljanje o drugome, izdvaja Rawlsovu teoriju iz korpusa liberalnih koncepcija pravednosti. U Rawlsovom filozofskom razvoju, počevši od Teorije pravednosti, preko Političkog liberalizma, do Prava naroda i »Preispitivanja ideje javnog uma«, može se uočiti posustajanje u obrani tog načela. Čini se da je riječ više o praktičnom posustajanju nego o manjkavosti načela, posebice iz razloga što ga Rawls usko vezuje uz ideju solidarnosti te izgradnju ljudskog samopoštovanja.With his theory of justice as fairness, American philosopher John Rawls has offered an egalitarian conception of justice for a democratic society. As a liberal he assumed that realization of justice in democratic society presupposes the principle of equal liberties and the principle of fair equality of opportunity. In addition to these two principles of justice, Rawls added the difference principle. The main task of this principle is to reduce all factors which are arbitrary from a moral point of view. The specificity of this principle, which requires reflection on the other two, distinguishes Rawls’ theory from the rest of liberal conceptions of justice. In Rawls’ philosophical development beginning with A Theory of Justice, over the Political Liberalism to The Law of Peoples with “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited” we can see a kind of renouncement in defense of the difference principle. It seems to be more of a practical renouncement because John Rawls has showed that the principle of difference is closely associated with the idea of human solidarity and building of self-esteem

Iris Marion Young accepts the concepts of the private and the public, but denies the social division between public and private spheres, each with different kinds of institutions, activities, and human attributes. Young defines “private” as that aspect of a person’s life and activity that he or she has a right to exclude others from. The private in this sense is not what public institutions exclude, but what the individual chooses to withdraw from public view. According to Young the public in a democratic society is heterogeneous. “Indeed, in open and accessible public spaces and forums, they should expect to encounter and hear from those who are different, whose social perspectives, experience, and affiliations are different.” An important characteristic of a developed democratic society is a developed civil society. Civil society is voluntary associational life that is distinguished from the state and economy, and helps with the transfer of private problems to the public agenda. They are voluntary, in the sense that they are neither mandated nor run by state institutions, but spring from the everyday lives and activities of the communities of interest. Distinguishing voluntary associational life from economy as well as state helps refine the role of civil society in promoting social justice.

The failure of multiculturalism has been talked about for quite some time now. Moreover, the statements of leading European politicians have confirmed what was suspected. When this becomes the view of the member states of the community that advocates “equality in diversity” in its essential documents, it becomes worrying. As the antithesis to the failure, or death, of multiculturalism, we place the life of the Mediterranean for many reasons. The first reason is that multiculturalism is connected with the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean is multicultural in itself, and it is the root of cultural pluralism in Western Europe. The second reason is the M0editerranean route by which a large number of immigrants are trying to reach the European Union, in times when member states have declared the failure of multiculturalism. The relationship between the European Union and the Mediterranean is historically profoundly complex. Deeply connected and deeply separated. In this paper, we will touch only on a fraction of this complicated relationship.

Free political speech – understood as (1) the right to publicly criticize the government, (2) the right to represent theories and ideologies that are contrary to the ruling one, (3) the right to advocate political and institutional changes, etc. – is the speech that enables a fundamental distinction between democratic and non-democratic systems. As part of the discussions on free political speech, the discussions related to the very content of the freedom of political speech that incites rebellion against the political order are particularly important; they advocate racism, hate speech or, for example, the disclosure of state secrets. In this context, we will open a discussion about the freedom of political speech in Rawls’s political liberalism with special emphasis on the idea of the public reason, and so that the discussion does not remain at the level of theoretical analysis, we will analyze Rawls’s understanding of the freedom of political speech additionally through the case of Trump vs. Twitter.

Although there are a host of perspectives from which the migration crisis can be addressed, in this article we interpret it from the perspective of a human rights crisis. Overall, the world has changed. Not only the revolution in communications and transportation but also the revolution in human rights has been driving an increasing number of people to migrate in search of a better life. In this context, we discuss the relationship between the state and the individual in terms of human rights. We can understand migrations as changes in the place of (permanent) residence of individuals or social groups. We distinguish between immigration (migration to a foreign country) and emigration (migration from the homeland to another country). Although the right to immigrate is not considered a human right, the right to emigrate is, which clearly represents a paradox in the context of human rights and migration. The article analyzes C. H. Wellman’s argument on the state’s right to exclude, in contrast to Arendt’s concept of “the right to have rights,” guaranteeing every man’s right to membership in a political community.

Think of any children’s social game. Each has its own criteria and rules. Participation in such a game presupposes that players have accepted its rules and criteria (whether these are agreed on ad hoc or previously known). If the players do not accept the rules and criteria or do not respect them in the gaming process, the game cannot take place and ends abruptly (with small children it ends in tears, with older children with fists). If we transfer that to the political sphere we can ask a question: “What is going to happen if political parties do not respect the well-known rules of the political game?” In an attempt to answer the question posed, we will present the relationship between the political attitudes of anti-immigrant parties and the political principles of liberal democracy using electoral promotional materials and the electoral discourse of the Austrian political party Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs. In this article we will present the basic features of anti-immigrant parties, democratic standards of the European Union and the Austrian political party Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs.

The failure of multiculturalism in the EU, confirmed by the key players of the European political scene Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron (we have seen that only A. Merkel has survived) can be seen as a failure of European Union. Regardless the fact that the policy of multiculturalism has failed, multiculturalism is still, as a living experience of diversity, fact of our daily lives. The political approach to cultural diversity in EU is therefore necessary to change. Today it is not the main question how to live 'with' diversity but how to live 'in' diversity. In this article, we will try to analyze a report Living together. Combining diversity and freedom in 21st-century Europe presented by the Council of Europe in 2011.