Grzegorz Jan Blicharz
PhD (Law), MA (Law, Philosophy), Assistant Professor at the Chair of Roman Law at the Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University in Kraków. He completed post-graduate studies in Roman law at the University of Rome La Sapienza and Program for Development of Soft Skills and Entrepreneurship at Alberta School of Business in Edmonton.
Recipient of the NCN PhD holder scientific Grant – Sonata 14 and the Scholarship of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education for outstanding young scholars 2018–2021; academic visitor at University of Oxford (2020).
Executive Manager of Utriusque Iuris Foundation and co-editor of Forum Prawnicze (Legal Forum journal) and member of advisory board of Revista General de Derecho Romano (IUSTEL) and The Western Australian Jurist. He also teaches at the Faculty of Law of Lazarski University in Warsaw.
He researches in the fields of Roman law, comparative private law, European legal tradition, governing the commons, smart city development and recently in comparative public law.
Recipient of the NCN PhD holder scientific Grant – Sonata 14 and the Scholarship of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education for outstanding young scholars 2018–2021; academic visitor at University of Oxford (2020).
Executive Manager of Utriusque Iuris Foundation and co-editor of Forum Prawnicze (Legal Forum journal) and member of advisory board of Revista General de Derecho Romano (IUSTEL) and The Western Australian Jurist. He also teaches at the Faculty of Law of Lazarski University in Warsaw.
He researches in the fields of Roman law, comparative private law, European legal tradition, governing the commons, smart city development and recently in comparative public law.
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (10)
Uploads
Papers by Grzegorz Jan Blicharz
https://www.archaeopress.com/Archaeopress/Products/9781789694222
https://books.google.pl/books?id=UajMEAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA61&ots=-ebJZQ3sES&lr&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q&f=false
A mio avviso, un'analisi dell'opinione di Giuliano potrebbe ricevere molto beneficio se si prendesse in considerazione sia la discussione contemporanea sulla coincidenza effettiva delle cause, chiamata causalità concorrente (cumulativa), sia la giustificazione contemporanea della responsabilità solidale degli autori del danno che hanno agito in maniera indipendente: ciò sarebbe utile non per applicare il diritto romano, ma per cogliere i confini concettuali dell'argomentazione giuridica e per spiegare la somiglianza delle soluzioni adottate in tempi e ordinamenti giuridici diversi. A mio parere, Giuliano può ancora dirci molto, e l'attribuzione della responsabilità per i danni è ancora oggi una questione di interpretazione giuridica più che di individuazione della causalità.
Roe’s cursory reasoning about the Roman Empire before it became Christian overlooks Roman law’s surprisingly positive appreciation of life from the moment of conception, and the importance it placed on protecting pregnant women. Nonetheless, even taking the pre-Christian Roman law on its own terms, it did authorize considerable protection to the unborn, and did not authorize unlimited abortion like Roe did. Three aspects of Roman law demonstrate Roe’s error: 1) the legal importance of the moment of conception for a child’s legal status, 2) the unborn child’s inheritance rights and protections for its safe birth, 3) the unborn child’s treatment as an ontologically individual being, even though this proposition was dubious from a Stoic perspective.
– https://forumprawnicze.eu/pdf/68-2021.pdf
One should not look at the Western world superficially. The picture is much more vivid. In some countries, the religious freedom is a victim of a cultural war. In other countries, there are only small battles that are going on while the sphere of religious freedom is widely recognized. However, even these battles are important, if we think in terms of remote defence of each and every freedom in order to protect their core meanings. Departing from the European and US perspective, and taking on the global perspective there is going on a strong discussion on the meaning of the laic state, free from any religious connotations which, however, still is not a standard for all, since even in Europe there are countries which have state church which does not limit the religious tolerance and religious freedom.
In the case of Augustan exemption it was taken under consideration if heir or other beneficiary had significantly low financial condition. In modern, tax calculus, quite opposite, it makes a difference when personal patrimony of beneficiaries exceeds certain amount. The proposed way of re-reading Augustan exemption could be an inspiration for modern legislators to protect to a higher degree the beneficial effect of mortis casusa transfer especially in the case of poor heirs. The lack of tax burden gives opportunities to improve the financial situation of the poor, not only in the case of small inheritances but especially when great wealth is inherited. The tax exemption granted by Augustus to the poor proves that Roman law preserves also this universal solution, one which, although not very often applied, when it is may allow for a very effective improvement in the financial condition of the poor.
https://www.archaeopress.com/Archaeopress/Products/9781789694222
https://books.google.pl/books?id=UajMEAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA61&ots=-ebJZQ3sES&lr&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q&f=false
A mio avviso, un'analisi dell'opinione di Giuliano potrebbe ricevere molto beneficio se si prendesse in considerazione sia la discussione contemporanea sulla coincidenza effettiva delle cause, chiamata causalità concorrente (cumulativa), sia la giustificazione contemporanea della responsabilità solidale degli autori del danno che hanno agito in maniera indipendente: ciò sarebbe utile non per applicare il diritto romano, ma per cogliere i confini concettuali dell'argomentazione giuridica e per spiegare la somiglianza delle soluzioni adottate in tempi e ordinamenti giuridici diversi. A mio parere, Giuliano può ancora dirci molto, e l'attribuzione della responsabilità per i danni è ancora oggi una questione di interpretazione giuridica più che di individuazione della causalità.
Roe’s cursory reasoning about the Roman Empire before it became Christian overlooks Roman law’s surprisingly positive appreciation of life from the moment of conception, and the importance it placed on protecting pregnant women. Nonetheless, even taking the pre-Christian Roman law on its own terms, it did authorize considerable protection to the unborn, and did not authorize unlimited abortion like Roe did. Three aspects of Roman law demonstrate Roe’s error: 1) the legal importance of the moment of conception for a child’s legal status, 2) the unborn child’s inheritance rights and protections for its safe birth, 3) the unborn child’s treatment as an ontologically individual being, even though this proposition was dubious from a Stoic perspective.
– https://forumprawnicze.eu/pdf/68-2021.pdf
One should not look at the Western world superficially. The picture is much more vivid. In some countries, the religious freedom is a victim of a cultural war. In other countries, there are only small battles that are going on while the sphere of religious freedom is widely recognized. However, even these battles are important, if we think in terms of remote defence of each and every freedom in order to protect their core meanings. Departing from the European and US perspective, and taking on the global perspective there is going on a strong discussion on the meaning of the laic state, free from any religious connotations which, however, still is not a standard for all, since even in Europe there are countries which have state church which does not limit the religious tolerance and religious freedom.
In the case of Augustan exemption it was taken under consideration if heir or other beneficiary had significantly low financial condition. In modern, tax calculus, quite opposite, it makes a difference when personal patrimony of beneficiaries exceeds certain amount. The proposed way of re-reading Augustan exemption could be an inspiration for modern legislators to protect to a higher degree the beneficial effect of mortis casusa transfer especially in the case of poor heirs. The lack of tax burden gives opportunities to improve the financial situation of the poor, not only in the case of small inheritances but especially when great wealth is inherited. The tax exemption granted by Augustus to the poor proves that Roman law preserves also this universal solution, one which, although not very often applied, when it is may allow for a very effective improvement in the financial condition of the poor.
The Third Sino-Polish Seminar on Comparative Law, organized by the Institute of Law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, was successfully held in Beijing in 2017. The theme of this Seminar was “Legislation, Codification and De-codification”. Around
this theme, Chinese and Polish scholars have conducted in-depth discussions on the legislative concepts, legislative techniques, and legislative practices of China and Poland, mainly focusing on the theory and practice of codification. This book is a collection of the excellent papers of this Seminar. From the perspective of the comparative law between China and Poland, the book not only explores the latest theories and practices of legislation, codification, and de-codification in the two countries but also analyzes the latest legislative theory and practice in the field of civil law, administrative law, environmental law, labor law, and legal history.
DR. JAMES C. PHILLIPS, STANFORD UNIVERSITY’S CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CENTER
The presented volume leads to an in-depth reflection on the issue of the display
of religious symbols in the public sphere, which is widely discussed today.
Most of the articles prove that secularism of the contemporary state ruled
by law targets Christian symbolism (cross, cradle, the Decalogue). Christian
religious symbols shall always be inscribed in the temporal order, otherwise
they have no chance to be displayed in the public sphere. In this way, the rights
of Catholic believers, as one of the dominant religious groups, are restricted
in the name of the protection of religious and areligious minorities. As a result,
the aim is to bring about the actual equality of all religions and – ultimately –
the final removal of the Christian tradition from Western culture. Against this
background, Polish (as well as Hungarian and Italian) judicial decisions present
a different approach, which – as the authors of the volume prove – presents
a position in favour of the presence of religious symbolism in the public sphere.
The multifaceted evaluation of the inconsistency, casuistry and nuance of the
jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court is extremely creative and interesting.
It allows to conclude that the jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court, which
usually limits the presence of religious symbols in the public forum, has not
yet become universally binding. The pluralism of philosophical and religious
attitudes still constitutes the axiological core of American democracy.
PROF. DR HAB. ANDRZEJ DZIADZIO, JAGIELLONIAN UNIVERSITY IN KRAKÓW
TERESA STANTON COLLETT, PROFESSOR OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS SCHOOL OF LAW, USA
The edited volume presents interesting and multifaceted reflections on the issues of marriage and family. The book contains a creative and critical discussion of the subject matter of the title. It delivers important analyses of American law concerning programmes in relation to third parties, e.g. empowerment and education of third parties, which should be an inspiration for the development of systemic programmes in Poland. Studies on the protection of marriage, the maintenance of parental ties with children and the promotion of equal rights are of cognitive value.
ANDRZEJ SAKOWICZ, PROFESSOR, OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF BIAŁYSTOK
The book deals with several important issues that are of fundamental importance for the proper functioning of modern families and entire societies. Therefore, I consider the selection of issues discussed in the book to be extremely topical and noteworthy. The volume is a collection of studies prepared by authors representing various universities from Poland and abroad, which undoubtedly should be appreciated. Such a selection of authors ensures a variety of presented evaluations concerning the issues specified in the following parts of the book and presents them in a comparative law perspective.
WOJCIECH LIS, PROFESSOR OF LAW,
THE JOHN PAUL II CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF LUBLIN, POLAND
The clauses refer to the extralegal criteria of a moral, economic or political nature. That is why, for a legal practice, it appears vital that experts contribute to the clarification of their content and meaning as a legal categories. No less important is entrusting or leaving this task to the courts and other legal bodies. These efforts serve to ensure necessary flexibility in applying, in particular, the public policy clause
– a safety valve of legal order.
PROF. FRANCISZEK LONGCHAMPS DE BÉRIER,
JAGIELLONIAN UNIVERSITY IN KRAKÓW
niezbędnej elastyczności w stosowaniu klapy czy zaworu bezpieczeństwa, jaką w istocie stanowi zwłaszcza klauzula porządku publicznego.
KS. PROF. DR HAB. FRANCISZEK LONGCHAMPS DE BÉRIER, UNIWERSYTET JAGIELLOŃSKI
Temat tomu i tworzących go opracowań jest bardzo interesujący, ważny poznawczo i aplikacyjnie. Autorzy prac reprezentują różne środowiska naukowe oraz różne dyscypliny prawnicze, a istotną wartością przedstawionych analiz jest ich konkluzywność.
DR HAB. KRZYSZTOF MOTYKA, PROF. KUL,
KATOLICKI UNIWERSYTET LUBELSKI JANA PAWŁA II
Z dużym uznaniem należy odnieść się do zamiaru pomysłodawców omówienia problematyki „porządku publicznego” i „moralności publicznej” jako klauzul prawnych w ustawodawstwie polskim na tle rozwiązań prawnych Unii Europejskiej oraz prawa międzynarodowego. Prezentowana perspektywa umożliwia spojrzenie na tytułową problematykę w szerokim kontekście normatywnym. Pozwala także na uchwycenie źródeł oraz podobieństw polskich regulacji prawnych posługujących się ww. klauzulami do rozwiązań unijnych i międzynarodowych. Recenzowana książka ma charakter nowatorski, duże znaczenie poznawcze, nasycona jest wątkami i informacjami faktograficznymi, sprawnie łączy ustalenia literatury przedmiotu oraz dorobku judykatury zwłaszcza polskiego TK, SN, sądów administracyjnych oraz TSUE, co pozwala spojrzeć na tę problematykę nie tylko od strony teoretycznoprawnej, ale i praktycznej. Zaprezentowane definicje, rozważania teoretycznoprawne, a także orzecznictwo dotyczące klauzul „porządku publicznego” i „moralności publicznej” stanowią dla autorów punkt wyjścia do formułowaniu własnych tez i wniosków de lege lata i de lege ferenda. Autorzy umiejętnie opisywali także ww. klauzule oraz wykazywali ich ścisły związek z aksjologią konstytucyjną, podkreślając ich limitacyjny charakter oraz homeostatyczną rolę.
DR HAB. PAWEŁ CICHOŃ, PROF. UJ, UNIWERSYTET JAGIELLOŃSKI
charakter rynku finansowego oraz wzajemne zależności i powiązania głównych podmiotów, które na nim działają.
Z tego względu warto, aby polski prawodawca został zapoznany z rozwiązaniami prawa amerykańskiego. Może ono stanowić punkt odniesienia dla regulacji sygnalistów oraz samego mechanizmu informowania czy to danego podmiotu zbiorowego, czy to instytucji publicznych o popełnianych przestępstwach na rynku finansowym. Regulacja amerykańska stanowi o tyle dobry kontekst porównawczy, że wprowadza kontrowersyjne w doktrynie rozwiązanie w postaci nagradzania przez instytucje publiczne osób, które zgłaszają popełnienie przestępstwa finansowego przez dany podmiot zbiorowy.
dotyczących wskazanego zagadnienia pozwoli uwypuklić ryzyka oraz rodzaje przestępczej działalności, z którymi muszą się mierzyć podmioty działające na rynku finansowym. Umożliwi także sformułowanie propozycji de lege ferenda, mających ograniczyć ryzyko przestępczości związane z działalnością instytucji finansowych.
Na wstępie należy także wskazać, że omawiane procesy muszą być zawsze dostosowane do środowiska, w jakim działają instytucje finansowe, tj. do systemu finansowego. Istotnym punktem odniesienia dla prowadzonych analiz stały się porządki zarówno innych państw Europy, jak i Stanów Zjednoczonych, Chin czy Australii, gdzie prawodawcy stykają się z wyzwaniami dynamicznie rozwijających się rynków finansowych. Dialog między porządkami common law i civil law w przypadku regulacji na rynku finansowym wskazuje, że istnieje płaszczyzna porównawcza, która także ma swoje źródła w europejskiej tradycji prawnej oraz racjonalności i użyteczności ekonomicznej wpisanej w naturę prawa.
"Freedom of Conscience. A Comparative Law Perspective addresses the timeliest of topics. Across the European continent as well as in the Anglophone world (including the United States), “freedom of conscience” is at the forefront of issues addressed by judges and legislators.
This volume rises to the occasion. The comparative perspective supplied by the editor’s recruitment of an international group of scholars, and also by his assignment to some of them the task of investigating additional countries, is utterly invaluable. The papers deftly blend what I might call “lawyer’s law” – that is, a careful presentation of the facts and holdings of courts or the precise details of a particular statutory scheme – with genuine philosophical depth. I should like to emphasize this virtue of the collection by observing that collections of this general sort tend to be either all sail or all anchor, either drowned in the minutiae of law without a care for the big picture, or all philosophy untethered to the reality of the positive law. Blicharz’s book has broken this mold. It promises to appeal to working lawyers, students, judges, and scholars."
James C. Phillips, PhD, Stanford University’s Constitutional Law Center, USA:
"This edited volume will be a useful resource to scholars in this area. It has a rich national variety, covering Poland (extensively), Italy, the United States, the United Kingdom, and three Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway, and Finland). Anyone interested in the state of the freedom of conscience in notable Western democracies will benefit from this work. Those particularly interested in Poland, a country not always focused on in the literature, will find this book of great value. And that is the hallmark of scholarship – a conversation in the search for truth."
PROF. CHRISTOPHER WOLFE, UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS
“The book is disturbing. It encourages to pose serious questions, in particular about the phenomenon of the persecution for expressing traditional views, which ceased to be accepted by certain political and intellectual elites. It presents the context which allows us to realize how difficult it is to address such issues. Nevertheless, searching for the answers seems absolutely necessary. The analyses of the US law could be considered a universal parable about the awareness of free speech. The analyses of the law in other countries warn us how fragile the protection of freedom of expression is.”
PROF. FRANCISZEK LONGCHAMPS DE BÉRIER,
JAGIELLONIAN UNIVERSITY IN KRAKÓW
a fragment of the review by Prof. Małgorzata Korzycka, a long-term Research Associate and a Fulbright Senior Fellow in Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at the University of Indiana in Bloomington