Even though the proportionality principle is well-established for judicial review in matters pertaining to human rights in modern constitutional law in numerous jurisdictions, it has recently become subject to a growing tide of criticism. The article aims to describe and critically analyze the main arguments raised by the opponents of using proportionality as the tool for adjudicating conflicts of fundamental rights. After briefly describing the typical and the most common structure of the proportionality test as it is used in constitutional law, the author would present – and then dismiss – the three most significant allegations towards the proportionality analysis, namely: the problem of incommensurability, the alleged proportionality’s moral neutrality as well as the scope of judicial discretion that is claimed to be too wide according to some of proportionality’s opponents.

The article is divided into two parts. The first part discusses a certain concept of secularism, where secularism is considered to be composite of three principles: separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and equality. Subsequently, the European Convention on Human Rights is reflected upon with that concept of secularism in mind. While it does not warrant separation of church and state, freedom of religion and equality are enshrined in it. Therefore, the Convention may be considered secularist to an extent. In the second part, three of the European Court of Human Rights landmark cases are analyzed with regard to secularism. While not much can be said about Kokkinakis v. Greece on its own, the comparison with Leyla Şahin v. Turkey and Lautsi v. Italy allows to point out that appearance of secu­larism (understood as one of its components – the principle of separation) provides the Court with a possibility to defer to the doctrine of the margin of appreciation and draw the focus away from the actual violation of the principles enshrined in the Convention. Finally, it is noted that the only appearance of the concept of secu­larism as a personal conviction in the Court’s judgment is inconclusive.

Przedmiotem opracowania jest uchwalony przez parlament brytyjski w 1998 r. Human Rights Act (HRA) i jego wpływ na rozumienie pojęcia organu administracji publicznej w prawie angielskim. Uzasadnieniem podjęcia tematu jest ukazanie rozwoju doktryny brytyjskiego prawa administracyjnego pod wpływem prawa międzynarodowego na wskutek inkorporacji Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka. W artykule ukazano drogę Wielkiej Brytanii do implementacji Konwencji i związanie się jej przepisami, a także zmianę w definiowaniu organu władzy publicznej (public authority). Wskazano również, że pojęcie organu administracji publicznej na gruncie HRA w Wielkiej Brytanii jest węższe od tej przyjętej na gruncie prawa polskiego i tym samym istnieje mniejsza ochrona obywateli brytyjskich przed działaniem administracji publicznej w tym państwie.

The article aims to help realize that to understand the changes which take place in space policy and space law, it is necessary to abandon the old course of thought and think the other way. The author exposes thesis that force to take a look at the law in a different way. He states that: all sources of international law (specified in Article 38 of the Statute of the ICJ) and EU law are in force in the Polish legal order, with the exception of international agreements, which only apply if they are ratified by the Republic of Poland and published in the Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland. The legal policy (conducted by the competent authorities in each forum based on the specific procedures) is the ius reflex, which inspires the development of lex and vice versa. The law applies beyond the borders of states’ jurisdictions (res communis) in the maritime and outer space and becomes a constitutional element of the new civilization (market and culture), which gradually affects the law within the jurisdiction of states (sovereignty and sovereign rights). The power of law ceases to guarantee the resolution of international conflicts, which forces the application of the law of force. The sine qua non condition to survive the new civilization is to protect humanity and to share resources fairly in the process of transformation.