340.12(430) ; 177.1.026.

XX
.

.
. ,

, .
.


(

) .
,
, .
: . .
. . .

,
dfraneta@useens.net.
14. 2011.
.

193

 , LIX, 2/2011

1.
, .

.
, .
;
, .
,
: .

, .
,
, .

2.

. , ,
XX
. .
(Gnter Drig)
1
.

,
.
1

Theodor Maunz, Gnter Drig, Grundgesetz: Kommentierung der Artikel 1 und

2 Grundgesetz von Gnter Drig, C. H. Beck, Mnchen 1958, 3.

194

 (. 193211)

(unverletzlich), (unantastbar2).
,
.3
,
. 79 . 1 .
,
(Winfried Hassemer) (die Unverfgbarkeit).
. Unverfgbarkeit ,
,
.4

.

, , ,
,
.

, ,

, -.

.
, , .5
,
, -

,
.6
2

.
. Kai Mller, The Right to Life Between Absolute and Proportional Protection, Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 13/2010, 3.
4
Winfried Hassemer, Unverfgbares im Strafprozess, Rechtsstaat und Menschenwrde. Festschrift fr Werner Maihofer zum 70. Geburtstag (Hrsg. A. Kaufmann,
E.-J. Mestmcker und H. F. Zacher), Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1988,
195197.
5
T. Maunz, G. Drig, (1958), 15.
6
: , (
), 2009, 3139.
3

195

 , LIX, 2/2011

-
. , ,
. , ,


.
7
.

3.


,
, .


(Matthias Herdegen).
,

.

2003. 8
- .
1958.
,
- .
- je
,
.

.

.9
7
, Ralf Poscher,
Die Wrde des Menschen ist unantastbar, Juristenzeitung 1516/2004, 756762.
8

2010. , 2003. .
9
Ernst-Wolfgang Bckenfrde, Bleibt die Menschenwrde unantastbar?, Bltter fr deutsche und internationale Politik 10/2004, 12161227; E.-W. Bckenfrde, Die
Menschenwrde war unantastbar, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 204/2003.

196

 (. 193211)

. : , , ,
,
.


.
3.1.

,10
. ,
.


,
.11
.12 , , , ,
.
: ( ), ,
.13
.
10

Matthias Herdegen, Kommentierung zu Art. 1 GG, Maunz/Drig Kommentar

zum Grundgesetz Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, Stand 2010, I, 6, 21.
11
Ibid., I, 5, 19.
12
Ibid.
13
M. Herdegen, Verfassungsinterpretation als methodische Disziplin, Juristenzeitung 18/2004, 878.

197

 , LIX, 2/2011

. , , ,


.
.

.
,
. , , ,
. ,

,
.

, , ,
.
3.2. :
,
.14 , (der Wesensgehalt15),
.
.16
14
(Hans
Carl Nipperdey)
.
15
Art. 19, Abs. 2, Grundgesetz fr die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, http://www.
bundestag.de/dokumente/rechtsgrundlagen/grundgesetz/gg_01.html, 9. jun 2011.
16
M. Herdegen, (2010) I, 6, 22.

198

 (. 193211)

, ,
.
,

( ...
17), ,
(. ). 1 1
2 2
,
. , , ;
,
. . ,

,
(. ,
).

.
,
.
.

,
.
,
. ,
.

,

.

, .

, 17

Ibid., I, 10, 29.

199

 , LIX, 2/2011

.

, .

.18
, . ,
, .19
, , , ,
.


, ,
, ,
.

. , ,

( , , .), ,
,
( ,
,
, ,
20),
.

,
. , 18
,
( ), .
19
Ibid., I, 7, 24.
20
T. Maunz, G. Drig, (1958), 9091.

200

 (. 193211)

, . ,

() , . ,

.
.21
,
( )
,
( , ).
3.3.

, ,
.


, , ,
(bilanzierende Gesamtbetrachtung).

.
.
.

:
,

.22

.

,
21

Paul Tiedemann, Was ist Menschenwrde?, WBG,

Darmstadt 2006, 3435.
22
M. Herdegen, (2010), II, 4, 47.

201

 , LIX, 2/2011

. .


.23

,
priori .

. ,

.
, ,
,
.



: .
priori . , ,
:
, ,
.
,
, ( ).
, ,
.
,
.
, , .

, 23

202

Ibid., III, 1b, 54.

 (. 193211)

,
,
. ,

.
, (
-),

. :


?
3.4.



. , .
,
, - germ-line
. ,
,
,
.

.
,
( ,
in vivo in vitro,
, .24)
.
,
,25 .
,
24

,
.
25
Ibid., III, 3, 61.

203

 , LIX, 2/2011

. ,
contradictio in adjecto, .

4.

, .
,
, , .
tertium comparationis26 , , .

,
.
.
,
.

. ,
.
, ,
.

, . ,
, ,
,

.

, . :
, . , ,
26

Gnter Drig, Der Grundrechtssatz von der Menschenwrde, Archiv des

ffentlichen Rechts 2/1956, 143.

204

 (. 193211)

,


.27

5.

,
,
, .

(das Luftsicherheitsgesetz)
2005. . .
3,28 . 14

.
.
,
.
, ,

.
14.3.
,
15. 02. 2006.
.29 35.2
27

.
28

. Art. 14, Abs. 3, Luftsicherheitsgesetz, http://bundesrecht.juris.de/luftsig/__14.html,
9.06.2011.
29
BVerfGE, 1 BvR 357/05 vom 15.02.2006, http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rs20060215_1bvr035705.html, 9.06.2011.

205

 , LIX, 2/2011

(2) 35.3 (1) , .30

, ,
, , ,
. ,
.
,
. ,
.
, 14.3.
,


.

.
, .31
,


.32

. ,
.
30

. 2, . 19 ,

.
31
K .: Nina Naske, Georg Nolte, Aerial Security Law, The American Journal of International Law 2/2007, 469471.
32
M. Herdegen, (2004), 2, 96.

206

 (. 193211)

, .
,
,
, ? , ,
?
,
, ,
: .
,
: fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
,
,
. 2002. ,
.
, ,
,
, . ,
,
. ,
,33
.34
.

(die Rettungsfolter),35
, (die Nothilfe) ,
33

,
( )
.
34
Kay Bourcarde, Folter im Rechtsstaat, Giessen 2004, http://www.bourcarde.eu/
texte/folter_im_rechtsstaat.pdf, 9. jun 2011.810; Die Chronologie der Ereignisse, http://
www.anstageslicht.de/index.php?UP_ID=1&NAVZU_ID=16&STORY_ID=1&M_STORY_ID=7, 9. jun 2011.
35
. , K. Mller, 17.

207

 , LIX, 2/2011

, (Herzberg
Dietrich).36 , 37 (Eric
Hilgendorf),
, , ,
:38 ) , )
)

.39 ,
, ,


. ,
, , conditio
sine qua non , , ,

. ticking bomb , .

6. :

, ,

.
36

Rolf Dietrich Herzberg, Folter und Menschenwrde, Juristenzeitung 7/2005,

321328.
37

. Eric Hilgendorf, Folter im Rechtsstaat?, Juristenzeitung 7/2004, 33

339.
38

(. Jan Feddersen, Die Verfassung ist keine Bibel Interview mit Horst Dreier, die Tageszeitung, 26.03.2009.),
,
XIX ,
(. ,
, , 2009).
39
Ibid., 338339.

208

 (. 193211)

, /, .
, ,
(. ),

,
.
, .
,

.

.

,
.
,
, ,
(
)
. :
, ,

,
.


,
, ,
.
,
:
.
; ,
, ,
.40
40

, , , 1981, 82.

209

 , LIX, 2/2011

79. . .
,
.
,
,
. , , , : ,
.

Dr. Duka Franeta

Assistant Professor
Faculty for Legal and Business Studies, Novi Sad

A RECENT DEBATE ON HUMAN DIGNITY AND THE

PROBLEM OF TRAGIC AND ABSURD IN LAW
Summary
The author of the leading interpretation of the guarantee of human
dignity in German constitution of the second half of the twentieth century was German lawyer Gnter Drig. At the core of his analysis of the
concept of dignity, placed on the top of the Bonn constitution, was the
equalization of dignity with the essence of human rights alongside with
his statement that dignity understood as their untouchable (unantastbar) substance should be ultimately and infinitely protected.
The new millennium brought a more radical turn from this influential legal understanding of human dignity. Although not isolated in his
venture of critique of Drigs analysis, Matthias Herdegens new interpretation of the first article was even more distinct for its clear abandon of
the basic ideas of his predecessor as well as for the fact that it actually
replaced the Drigs paradigmatic commentary. The author of this article
analyses Herdegens interpretation of the concept of human dignity and
compares it to the preceding but also rival Drigs understanding.
The comparison of Drigs and Herdegens standpoint is further illuminated and put in a wider context by taking into consideration two

210

 (. 193211)

cases largely debated in Germany whose interpretation showed to be

dependant on the understanding of the ideas of untouchableness and
human dignity (Luftsichercheitsgesetz-case and Rettungsfolter-case). As
result of examination of the complex nature of these cases and the legalphilosophical and ethical presuppositions and consequences of the two
rival theories of untouchableness and human dignity, it is concluded
that notwithstanding their different success in responding to the particular
problems, this alternative necessarily leaves law condemned to some degree of tragedy and absurdity.
Key words: Human dignity. German constitution. Matthias Herdegen. Gnter Drig. Die Unantastbarkeit.

211