Suchergebnisse

More often than not, the State did not acknowledge the matrimonial norms as settled by the Church. This relation seems to have altered towards the end of the 19th century, when the State succeeded in imposing on the Church the respect for the general civil framework. Yet, the change was not radical. The Church and the State were still pretty connected. The State acknowledged the Church's right to be in charge with officiating marriages, with bed and home separation according to the requirements of each confession. However, the State had the right to supervise the civil and military status, the relationship between the spouses, legacy, legal guardianship, the issue of supporting children and spouses and many others. The Church admitted the involvement of the State in major demographic issues in an individual's life.
As time went by, the State became more and more complex while its legislation became ever more "lay". It is true that willy-nilly lay legislation borrowed norms and regulations belonging to Church's legislation. The frail State – Church dualism on family law was influenced by lay laws enforcing the lay legitimacy of important moments in man's life. Matrimonial laws as set out in 1894 were the most complex laws in the 19th century. Due to their clarity, they managed to put an end to misunderstandings between lay and Church authorities. Moreover, the matrimonial issues between different confessions were in favour of the State. Civil law very clearly favoured family and children's interests. They were all conceived to better supervise individual's education in a moral family where the Church would still have an influence.

"Cruelty is a specific kind of human behaviour and has a clearly cultural dimension. It is often the result of passions and drives, accompanied by the breaking of taboos and a crossing of boundaries that cultures have raised to prevent the moral regression of mankind. Cruelty is also a "rational" way to acquire and stabilize political power. Both the atrocities themselves and the accusations of cruelty are instruments of power. The political efficiency of cruelty depends on the fear and awe, which it produces. Seneca regarded cruelty as the main attribute of tyranny. Through its imagery (like the bull of Phalaris) it breaks possible resistance and establishes despotism permanently. In the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times cruelty was considered a necessary evil in order to realize superior positive goals. So did the inquisitors, and so did Machiavelli who regarded cruelty not only as a means to the acquisition and preservation of power. The prince should also use cruelty to unify Italy and to build a stable and peaceful political order. Later, the understanding that cruelties are necessary to achieve good ends did not fall into oblivion, in spite of all criticism of Machiavelli's thought. In totalitarianism the aim of cruelty was not primarily the infliction of pain, but the abolition of individualism and the enforcement of the belief in a general law, which rules mankind. This could be either the law of history like during the French Revolution and in socialist states, or the 'natural law' of social Darwinism in the National Socialist and Fascist regimes. After the breakdown of totalitarianism and the triumph of liberal democracy the question arises, if cruelties are necessary components of all politics. Although we can still find cruel policies in liberal democracies (see Guantanamo Bay), at the same time the struggle against cruelty is vital in these systems and explains the dominance of the discourse on human rights." (author's abstract)

Divorce, common-law marriage and illegitimacy (irrespective of its forms) were, no matter the society typology as the phenomenon is approached, forms of social deviation that entailed the dilution of the family image and norms. We do not discuss here about a dilution of the traditional norms concerning family, as someone might misunderstand, it was an erosion of the idea of family in general. The "family" could acquire different forms as compared to the "official" one. Paradoxically, all these were not only the result of personal emancipation, when the youth broke from the traditional norms, which were strongly influenced by religious norms and values, and would have got involved in "dangerous and shameful relationships". The peasant "forgot" to marry his woman not out of emancipation. The theory of personal emancipation leading to the erosion of the idea of family through the dilution of traditional norms, which was valid from the urban perspective (here, due to the affirmation of modernity, the alterity of religious norms led to such relationships), was not supported in the peasant countryside.
The Church fought all these. In fact, the bishopric sent guidelines to priests to take steps against common-law marriages very often. Despite priests' endeavours, the results were not considerable. Few priests could boast (after the first recommendation) in their subsequent parish report to have significantly contributed to diminishing the number of common-law marriages in their parish. The Church faced another issue brought about by its long debate with the State to control the act of marriage. The marriage laws set out in 1894 were the most complex laws regulating the political-religious relations in the matrimonial field in the second half of the 19th century. Due to their clarity, they managed to put an end to the conflicts between the lay and church authorities. Moreover, the debate concerning matrimonial issues for different confessions ended, too, in favour of the State. The State managed to impose its authority in the matrimonial field. The Church was thus compelled to accept the increased competence of the State by introducing the civil documents. All these caused mutations that triggered very different behaviours. Nevertheless, the Church kept imposing religious marriage, divorce and re-marriage for all its parishioners. In such a situation, by analysing the evolution of common-law marriages from the perspective of the Church, we may notice that, on the level of the whole area we focused on, there was a greater easiness in approaching religious marriage after 1895, once the compulsory civil marriage was imposed. The perception of the divorce also changed when the civil matrimonial law was introduced at the end of 1894. Through a last effort, as the Church did not acknowledge lay divorce, they did not grant the right to a second marriage to the individuals. Moreover, from the perspective of the Church, the possible future marriage was considered as a mere common-law marriage, although the State approved of the divorce and the second marriage in which a divorced partner was involved.

There are examinated the aspects of practical realization of the principles of local autonomy and the particularities of the local public administration reform making in the Republic of Moldova. This study also analyses the correspondence between the rules laid down in national legislation on local autonomy and the European standards. The particularities and the consequences of creating the autonomous territorial unit with the special legal status - Gagauzia have been presented. The prerogatives of the People's Assembly of Gagauzia and in particular to adopt the "local laws" have been critically examined. There is no such category of "local laws" under the Constitution, in the Republic of Moldova. The constitutional text expressly provides that the laws can be: constitutional, organic and ordinary. The author mentions the fact that the areas where the Gagauz People's Assembly is empowered to adopt "local law" are regulated by organic laws. One insists on the fact that the local autonomy is a general principle of democratic administrative policy, whose application can not be subject to ethnic or other criteria. Local autonomy serves all citizens, provides more resources, and amplifies the local administration's initiative to improve the living standards. Using the principle of local autonomy as an opportunity to encourage the ethnic autonomy is a prerequisite for separatism and segregation, acts contrary to democratic society.