Suchergebnisse

Häberle claims constitutional law is a comparative experiential science closely linked with political science with which it shares the research subject. The constitutional state has been going through a permanent process of changes; the central question is who is the prime mover of constitutional changes: constitutional/legal institutions, constitutional/lega science and political science or public opinion and political culture of citizens? By analysing the recent history of the changes of the German constitutions he suggests that all these factors contribute to constitutional changes. Nevertheless, as an expert for law and political science, who considers himself as belonging to the wider European scientific community, Häberle thinks that the decisive influences in constitutional changes stem from legal and political sciences and concludes: Sine qua (scientia) mortalium vita non regitur liberaliter. (Without science, mortals do not command their life freely). (SOI : PM: S. 186)

The author continues his research work on Croatian constitutional tradition. This tradition includes the system of national values on which Croatian politicians in the l9th century founded their national programs. Therefore, the author tries to analyze the basic values and structures included in that tradition, to explore its genesis, and to investigate its historical influence on the development of political and social life in Croatia. In his opinion, other authors did not consider this tradition either a "dogma" or an "ideology", as the recent historiography puts it, because here the legal and sociopolitical values, on which the new political, state and social system is founded, are in question. Out of abundant researches on that subject, the author singles out only the analysis of the "Address" which Croatian Parliament, after a long discussion, brought in 1861 as its most important document, i.e. as the national program which was presented to the king in the form of demands. (SOI : CSP: S. 267f.)

American and international public looks up to American presidents as the chief creators of American foreign policy. A review of the contemporary history of US foreign policy is mostly a review of foreign policy platforms and initiatives of American presidents. Although fundamental prerequisites exist - constitutional powers, executive office of the President as support in the creation and implementation of certain decisions, the expectations of the Congress and the public that President should lead the nation in the foreign policy arena - not all American presidents have taken an equal interest in foreign policy decision-making and the creation of American foreign policy; this has depended on their personal interests and experiences. Despite significant constitutional restrictions of the president's autonomous action in foreign policy and occasionally successful attempts of the legislature to assume control over foreign policy, as well as frequent challenges to presidential powers and numerous actions by the public, we can conclude that American presidents are nevertheless dominant figures in the field of American foreign policy. (SOI : PM: S. 192)

This article uses archival and newspaper sources along with basic secondary literature to examine legal proceedings conducted against Stjepan Radic', the leader of Croatia's strongest opposition party - The Croatian People's Peasant Party (HPSS). During 1919 and 1920, Radic was held in custody without trial, released, then rearrested and given a harsh sentence for politically opposing the creation of a unitaristic and centralized state under the Serbian Karadjordjevic dynasty. Radic wanted the distinctiveness of the Croatian nation to be recognized, so he sought automony for Croatia as the basis for its economic, political, and cultural development. Radic's trial, carried out inspite of the fact that some jurists felt it was unlawful, revealed the crux of the conflict between the regime and the HPSS, in effect, the Croatian opposition. Radic worked to ensure that the internal organization of the state would be based on national self-determination. For him, the upcoming election of a Constituent Assembly was all-important because it would determine the nature a Slovene-Croat-Serb state. Contrary to this, the Karadjordjevic regime assumed all the main national and constitutional questions had been settled on December 1, 1918, when a common kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes had been proclaimed. As far as the government was concerned, only the formality of writing a constitution had to be handled by the Constituent Assembly. Even though he was released on the very day of the election, Radic's trial showed that the Karadjordjevic' regime intended to solve political problems by the use of force, and not according to the rule of law. (SOI : CSP: S. 126f.)

The "May Declaration" of the Yugoslav Club (Vienna, 1917), regardless of its original intent, enabled various political parties and groups in the South Slav areas of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy to promote the "Yugoslav idea" and work toward the creation of a unified Yugoslav state. In Croatia, as well as in Bosnia and Hercegovina, the most vociferous advocates of the "May Declaration" were members of the Croatian Catholic Seniorate, the leading organization within the Croatian Catholic movement. In Bosnia and Hercegovina, the Franciscans were the leading proponents of the "May Declaration" alongside the Seniorate. The greatest opposition to the "May Declaration" was voiced by the "Frankist-Rightist" circle centered around Archbishop Josip Stadler. Especially prominent among this group was Ivo Pilar, author of the "Memorandum" (July 1917), wherein he called for the creation of a "united administrative territory," or, the political unification of Croatian lands elevated to the status of a "condominium" relative to both component halves of the Monarchy. In his "Declaration" (November, 1917), Archbishop Stadler and his supporters came out in favour of the unification of "Croatian historical lands" within the boundaries of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, but on the basis of a subdualistic formula. Considering the existence of the dualistic system in the Monarchy a historic reality, they believed that this was the best possible resolution of the problem of political/constitutional fragmentation of the Croatian lands. The dissolution of Austria-Hungary and the formation of the Kingdom of Serbs , Croats and Slovenes rendered irrelevant the demands voiced in Stadler's "Declaration". Symbolically, the death of the Archbishop occurred at precisely the same time as these ominous events befell the Croat people. (SOI : CSP: S. 71f.)

deologically speaking, the initiators of founding all the political parties in Serbia were young intellectuals educated abroad. The ideology of political liberalism was brought to Serbia by young knowledgeable people educated in the West: Milovan Janković, Jevrem Grujić, Vladimir Jovanovic, Stojan Bošković, Filip Hristić, Đorđe Cenić and many more who published and initiated liberal-democratic ideas during the Peter Assembly in 1848. Only with St Andrea Assembly in 1858 did the Serbian Civil rebirth begin. During this assembly two political groups finally divided: the liberals and the conservatives. The most important attainment of the St Andrea Assembly in 1858 was the Act of National Assembly. This act initiated the introduction of the representative system in Serbia. In political history, the period from 1858 to 1869 represents the birth of the representative system in Serbia. The introduction of the representative system in Serbia by the Constitution of 1869 created the necessary political preconditions for organizing modern political parties. Regular political elections and participation of the Parliament in the legislative process resulted in a easier binding of the like-minded politicans with their political liders to whom it was important to strenghten their bonds with their electors. The fact that the constitutional elections took place every three years and that the Assembly took place every year led to the strenghening of the political parties in the state, since more thriving layers of society started entering the National Assembly, the delegates who infuenced the political life. After the Constitution of 1869 was enforced, the liberals are gathered under Jovan Ristić, and later the young oppositional conservatives are gathered. In the same time a third political party emerged, the supporters and followers of Svetozar Marković. The organized political parties did not emerge immediately after the Regent's Constitution although it guaranteed a selection of political rights and freedom necessary for the emergence of the political parties, such as voting right, the freedom of speech and the freedom of press. This poses a question why did it never happen? The answer is to be looked into the intention of the Regency and later Regent Milan to unable the education of the political parties. In a situation when the Regency was closer to conservative than liberal ideas, it was hard to discuss organized political parties. The non-existence of political discipline as well as well political programs adversely affected the emergence of modern political parties. 277 Assembly Elections of October 1874 had a great impact on the history of political parties in Serbia. After the elections, a few political parties emerged in the Assembly: St Andrea Liberals under Jevrem Grujić, Libears under Ristić, Conservatives under Jovan Marinović, the beginnings of Young Conservatives and People's Party of the future Radicals. The organizing of political parties was sped up by young intellectuals gathered round the paper "Videlo" and connected with the People's party in the National Assembly. The beginning of 1881 saw the emergence of modern organized political parties in Serbia: People's Radical Part, Progressive Party and Liberal Party. Until that period delegates in the National Assembly mainly performed individually, and after 1881 they perform in accordance with political program, respecting political discipline. In view of organization and the functioning, the radicals went further, because they realized that organization is of utter importance for successful functioning and development of political parties. Pera Todorovic was given most credit for organizing the Radical Party. His organization contributed a round of hierarchical organizational units starting with local committees in every small town, counties, and to the Main Committee as the supreme organ of the party. Speaking about organization of the other two political parties it could be said that they too emerged with statues similar to the radical one. However, they never occupied such number of members as the Radical Party. The main characteristic of the political life in Serbia during the 80s of the 19th century consisted of bitter fights between the Radical and the Progressive Party in which King Milan Obrenovic sided with the Progressive Party. He was the reason why the radicals, although during the period 1882-1883 in majority, they never succeeded to come to power nor for the years to come. Dedicated to unable radicalism in Serbia, Milan showed even greater resistance toward the liberal reforms and greater affection toward emergence of personal regime. After the Timok Rebellion many radical leaders were convicted for many years, and the political leader Nikola Pasic was in emigration. Among the radicals, involving even those in the custody, slowly awareness was raised that the accord with the crown was necessary. Treaty with the radicals was initiated by King Milan so as to reinforce his personal strength, decreased in the war with Bulgaria. Although hungry for power, the radicals denounced the king's offer in Nis at the beginning of 1886. Radical leaders signed a treaty with liberals instead of progressives in 1887. The King did not have many possibilities, either to give radicals power and concede defeat or to draw back. Radical-liberal coalitional government gave great attention to the constitutional problem solving. Due to the fact that the first coalitional government was short-lived, it did not solve any problems. Similar situation happened with the first homogenous radical government that did not succeed anything more than its program, due to the fact that it was smothered by the King Milan's party. The Constitutional reform of 1888 had a big impact on political and constitutional life of Serbia. The multiannual struggle of the People's Radical Party was crowned by passing the constitution by the principle of majority. 278 The position of the Radical Party is changed from the ground, because it came to power and made its own cadre consisting of young intellectuals. Oversight over the whole work of the radical government from 1889 to 1892 shows that the radicals on the one hand showed great effort to introduce the constitution into the political life of Serbia, and on the other to limit the ruler's power. However, it is important not to forget the fact that the parliamentary regime on whom so many radicals insisted was more and more changing into a totalitarian one-party system. The parliamentary system that enabled the absolute power of the Radical Party in all state institutions was short-lived. King Alexander had an immense wish to stop as soon as possible with all the new-laid things that were introduced by the parliamentary system and that is the reason he was constantly fighting with the political parties and very frequently insisted on coup. In 1894 he suspended the 1888 Constitution and reenacted the 1869 one. After that, a regime based on self-will came to power, which lasted until 1901, year when King Alexander passed a new constitution. Political life in time of self-willed regime of king Alexander was very tough, because the ruler denounced the parties with the basic idea: "to renounce with parliamentarism if we wish to arrange this state properly". The last Obrenovic tried to denounce the existence of the Constitution, the government and the National Assembly by conducting various experiments. His "neutral" governments, which consisted of unforced political personnel, were under his impact. The whole political system turned round one political person, the king, which succeeded in dividing and manipulating the political parties. Neutralizing the People's Radical Party dominance could not have lasted any longer, due to the fact that it was impossible that the party with the biggest support be in opposition any longer. The king's wedding to Draga Masin represents a turning point in political life of Serbia. The shackles of the self-willed regime started to diminish, because the king wanted "to please the parties and the nation, so that they would accept the queen." The king's compromise with the strongest party in the country did not achieve results, due to the fact that among them existed huge differences in view of "state conceptions". The radicals advocated for parliamentary monarchy in which the power would belong to the most popular party, whereas the crown advocated the constitutional monarchy in which the ruler would be a puppet in enforcing the power of the National Assembly. Co-operational politics between the king and the radicals were short-lived, since it turned out that the representatives of the two opposite state conceptions were incapable of reaching an agreement. Shorty, the king realized that the treaty with the radicals was impossible to be kept and decided to return to previous politics, as before signed by the treaty in 1901. The renewed return to the self-willed regime sped up the preparations of the conspirators that in the night of May 28th/June 10th/ May 29th June 11th staged a coup.

The paper explores the history of the Serbian Progressive Party in the Kingdom of Serbia from 1887 to 1896. After the fall of the government of Milutin Garašanin in June 1887, the Serbian Progressive Party ended among the opposition parties. After the fall of the Progressive Party from power, the first coalition liberal-radical government was formed, headed by Jovan Ristić. The Progressive Party members and supporters were persecuted by the ruling People's Radical Party. The Progressive Party lost the voters and deputies in the National Assembly, which suggested that it would not be able to recover for an extended period. However, less than two years later, in May 1889, the Progressive Party managed to organize a General Assembly, attended by over 2,000 members, who adopted the party program and statute which did not differ substantially from the one from 1881. It was quite obvious that the party leadership wanted to show that the Progressive Party did not disappear from the political scene, but that it temporarily withdrew to reconsolidate and focus on gathering voters. Yet, due to the unrest that erupted in Belgrade during the party assembly, the Party leadership announced in June 1889 that the Progressive Party would temporarily suspend its activities. As the withdrawal from the political scene did not produce any results, the Party leaders decided to resume the Party's activities, hoping that the situation would eventually change in their favor. In the September 1890 elections, the Progressive Party won one parliamentary mandate, which went to the Party's leader, Milutin Garašanin. In the National Assembly, his political struggle against the ruling Radical Party government was hardly observable, but his articles published in the Progressive Party newpaper 'Videlo' (Daylight) had a much greater impact on the readers. During the minority liberal government of Jovan Avakumović, in 1892-1893, there were attempts to reach an agreement on a pre-election coalition between the Liberals and the Progressives against the Radicals, but these attempts failed. After the coup of 1st April 1893, when the Radicals regained power, it was quite clear to the Progressive Party leaders that they could not fight the Radicals on their own. The idea of forming a new political grouping of liberals and progressives was soon abandoned. After the 1888 Constitution had been repealed and the 1869 Constitution had been reinstated, King Alexander tried (with the assistance of rare non-partisan people) to avoid the intransigence of the Progressive Party leaders and the supremacy of the Radicals. After the period of several neutral governments headed by Đorđe Simić (January - April 1894), Svetomir Nikolajević (April - October 1894), and Nikola Hristić (October 1894 - July 1895), the Progressive Party government headed by Stojan Novaković (July 1895 - December 1896) was formed. This government initiated a change in the Constitution but the idea was not upheld by King Alexander, as the Liberals and the Radicals did not agree to instituting the constitutional reform under the administration of the weakest party in the country. In such circumstances, Novaković resigned on 29 December 1896. The next day, the Progressive Party was dissolved by the decision of the Party leadership.