Using the most recent archive sources, the author describes the organization of the judiciary and the courts in Zadar and Dalmatia after the Italian occupation in 1918. In violation of the Ceasefire agreement, the Italian occupational authorities reorganized the judiciary institutions, defined the new territorial jurisdiction of courts in order to establish judiciary control over both the occupied and the unoccupied parts of Dalmatia. The purpose of this new organization of the courts and the constant propaganda was to prove that Zadar and Dalmatia belonged to Italy - culturally, civilisationally, and politically. (SOI : S. 222)
The author is of the opinion that experts in international law are not broad-minded regarding the establishment of a state. Most legal experts take for granted the statements of the international judiciary on the existance of certain rules of general international law and consider them validated and indisputable. This faction has been given support by states since they uphold those legal statements that suit their interests. The author analyses the Opinions of the Arbitration Committee on the process of the disintegration and the criteria for the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia as well as the criteria for the creation of the new states. He considers this precedent as central for international judiciary law. (SOI : PM: S. 187)
The author analyses the role of the constitutional judiciary and the traditional theory of the tripartite division of power. His radical conclusion is: the division of power in Montesquieu's sense, as a tool of control and balance in modern state, does not exist. There is no social violence to which such balance, control or correction could be applied to. In such circumstances, the role, selection and work of constitutional judges is of utmost significance for the control, correction and balancing of political process. (SOI : PM: S. 87)
Mixed government, which is commonly regarded as a distinctly medieval form of government, is relevant also to contemporary constitutional states. It is the best form of government, since the aristocratic element is a continuous source of virtue, especially of justice, and a check not only on the executive, as the monarchical element which is the seat of political power, and the legislature, as the democratic element which expresses the will of the majority, but also groups and institutions that have the might and will to impose themselves as oligarchies. Mixed government is also the form of government that is practised by most developed contemporary constitutional states: USA, UK, France, Switzerland, Germany etc. European nobility is the original aristocratic institution, by virtue of the fact that it was a system for the transfer of both virtue and general conditions of life. Three institutions that emerged in the late Middle Ages assumed structures and functions of the nobility. + The first is the clergy. When, as a result of the differentiation of feudal society ethical and intellectual virtues of the nobility could no longer maintain general conditions of life, the clergy, by virtue of their abstract knowledge that ranged from philosophy and theology to law and medicine, became a class of new experts in generalities and thereby a new aristocracy. The second modern aristocratic institution is the judiciary, which has a structure and function similar to earlier aristocracies. The task of judges is to establish the highest virtue o constitutionalism. It is justice by law, which regulates general conditions of life in the state and society. What qualifies judges for the task is expertise in the new generality. The expertise includes not only education and experience in law but also impeccable private life and demonstrated professional ethics. + The third modern aristocratic institution is the profession, whose most important instance is the legal profession. It shares its structure and function partly with the judiciary and partly with other professions. It seems that modern professions are degenerating. In the key area of data processing, due to rapid changes of technology, professions as systems of the transfer of virtue do not even seem to be possible. Professional aristocracies are replaced increasingly by oligarchies of capitalists and technocrats. (SOI : PM: S. 111)
The author discusses provisions of the German Constitution and the practice of the German Federal Constitutional Court relevant for ratification of the Maastricht treaty and German membership in the European Union. In that context, the Manfred Brunner case decided by the Federal Constitutional Court is discussed. The mentioned decision has removed constitutional obstacles and has confirmed the constitutionality of the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. The author suggests that the Constitutional Court has strengthened its position and defined itself as a safeguard of German state sovereignty and an obstacle for creeping extension of powers of the Union at expense of its Member States. At the same time, Constitutional Amendments were adopted in order to protect the German federal structure and affirm the role of the German Federal Countries in supranational decision making processes. The author suggests that the practice of the German Federal Constitutional Court fits well into the general trend of strengthening the role of the judiciary within both the national and supranational balance of power. (SOI : PM: S. 255)
