| Abstract [eng] |
The principle of subsidiarity has been incorporated into the legal system on the European Union (EU) by the Maastricht Treaty. The problem of the essential definition of the principle, however, has not been resolved yet. The aim of this Master thesis, entitled "Comparison Between the Principles of Subsidiarity in the Catholic Social Thought and in the Documents of the European Union", is to reveal the nature of the European principle of subsidiarity that would allow to explain why the problems of it’s interpretation cannot be resolved for such a long time. This aim is achieved by comparing the principles of subsidiarity in the Catholic social thought and in the documents of the EU. Putting the Catholic principle of subsidiarity in contrast with the European principle of subsidiarity can give a possibility to analyse the latter “from outside” and to distance from the unsuccessful attempts to resolve the problem of interpretation only by means of social sciences. The main problem consists in the fact that, while encountering the problems of interpretation of the principle of subsidiarity in the EU, the philosophical presuppositions of this principle are not reflected and it is identified with the principle of subsidiarity of the social Catholicism. The attempt to solve this problem is made by raising a hypothesis that the presuppositions of the principle of subsidiarity in the Catholic social thought and in the documents of the EU differ fundamentally. Notwithstanding that the notion of the principle of subsidiarity in the Catholic social thought is precise, clear and cannot be interpreted subjectively, the objective substantiation of the principle of subsidiarity in the EU seems impossible because it seems to have all the essential elements of (post)modern ideas. Consequently, the problems of interpretation of the principle of subsidiarity in the EU derive from the loss of the principle of reality and from the refusal to substantiate it assuming the premises of Christian anthropology. This also explains why this principle is often used instrumentally for the achievement of political aims. The hypothesis was verified. The philosophical premises of the two principles of subsidiarity are different and conflicting. The Catholic principle of subsidiarity is grounded on the metaphysical concept of a person, has a closed meaning and exact guidelines for the interpretation. The principle of subsidiarity in the documents of the EU, however, reveals itself as an idea containing all the main features of post-modern ideas. During this comparative research some superficial similarities between the two principles of subsidiarity emerged (assumption of the common goal, priority for the lower level of decision-making, positive and negative aspects of the principle, hierarchical vision of the society and other). These external similarities have been explained through the concepts of simulacrum (Baudrillard) and pastiche (Jameson). This research revealed an epistemological importance of such a comparison between the principles of subsidiarity in the Catholic social thought and in the documents of the EU. The rooting of the Catholic principle of subsidiarity in the transcendental reality indicates that the “reality” of the European principle of subsidiarity still belongs to the sphere of imagination. It is a very important indication since the whole project of the EU is constructed on such a vague and undefined concept as the principle of subsidiarity that seems not to have any roots in reality yet. That means that the effects of the EU can become uncontrollable. The principle of subsidiarity in the EU had some unintended consequences as well: it was meant to stop the centralisation of power in the EU but worked just the opposite. Everything gets even more complicated, however, by the fact that such a situation is not sufficiently reflected upon. |
