Search results

The Act XXX of 1868 regulated the public law situation of Croats and Hungarians in a uniquely subdualist way within the Monarchy, and the status quo provided an appropriate basis and guarantees for further development. Another significant step in the settlement of ethnic relations within the Monarchy was Act XLIV of 1868, a law that had an organic relationship with the Compromise Act. Both the Compromise Act and the Nationality Act were defined by the public law conception represented by Ferenc Deák, the essence of which is to focus on the terminology of the unified "political nation" for the Hungarian side, and the position and rights of other national minorities were regulated in relation to it. In Deák's understanding, the concept of the political nation was linked to the idea of the nation-state, which, as a result of domestic political changes after 1875, became increasingly nationalist and upset relations with individual nationalities, including Croats. In the long run, this process led to mutual misunderstandings between the peoples within the Habsburg Monarchy and to an explosion of ethnic and political relations as a result of several unfortunate political factors.

One of the key elements of Hungarian public thinking is the question of nationalities and its historical aspects. For well-known historical facts, the questions and answers of national minorities still have constitutional significance. The examination of the Act XLIV of 1868 on the Equality of Nationalities, including its antecedents, has not only importance from the point of view of legal history, but it is also essential for the cultivation of the current constitutional law, and, consequently, also strongly contributes to the understanding of today's legal institutions. The essay describes the process of drafting this legislation.

The role of duels changed a lot throughout history. Based upon observations, most duels resulted from personal grievances. Duels were present even in the mid-20th century in Hungary. In the 20th century, duels were one of the greatest dilemmas of justice. The public opinion accepted duels, but the legal profession condemned them, mainly because of the possible negative consequences. In my study, I will present most of the legal provisions for duels both in Hungary and in Europe, the ethical Code of duels, and the most important lawyers, opinions on duels. Finally, I will explain the main reasons that had led to the decline of duelling.

The study undertakes to clarify some basic issues that have been erroneously recorded in the public consciousness, to make a kind of confrontation in order to take the initial steps of improving the Romanian−Hungarian relationship. In order to achieve the above goal and basic thesis, it is a primary task to illuminate and banish the mistakes and myths recorded in the public consciousness from both sides. In this context, it is revealed that neither the topos of the "millennial Hungarian oppression" simplified to the extreme nor the thesis of the "slow − anti-Hungarian − Romanian national occupation" can be held. In the interest of constructive dialogue, it is worth returning to the position that prevailed in the Hungarian reform era, and even at the time of the unification of the Romanian states, according to which the interdependence and commonality of destiny of the two peoples is a real and common path. To this end, the study uses legal history to present the original meaning of nationalism, the majority and minority arguments made during the drafting of the Hungarian Nationality Act of 1868, the models that can be interpreted in the majority−minority relationship, and the relationship of the two states to these models then and in the present day. In this context, the constitutional conceptions of Hungary and Romania are analysed in connection with the minority issue with the intention to prove the legitimacy of the needs of the Hungarian minority. The basic premise of the study in this area is that if a minority demand was legitimate from the Hungarian side within the Hungarian state, then the argumentum a simile from the Hungarian side is necessarily legitimate within the Romanian state.