Suchergebnisse

Na osnovu analize izvornih arhivskih dokumenata i propisa objavljenih u službenim listovima, opisuje se djelokrug, ustroj i sastav Prezidijuma Sabora NRH. Njegovi temelji postavljeni su u radu Zemaljskog antifašističkog vijeća narodnog oslobođenja Hrvatske (ZAVNOH), odnosno njegova Predsjedništva, koje je kao uže tijelo plenuma osnovano 9. svibnja 1944. godine. Na Četvrtom zasjedanju održanom 24. i 25. srpnja 1945. u Zagrebu, ZAVNOH je promijenio naziv u Narodni sabor Hrvatske, a njegovo Predsjedništvo od tada djeluje kao Predsjedništvo Narodnog sabora Hrvatske. U razdoblju 1945.–1953. njegovo djelovanje može se podijeliti u četiri mandatna razdoblja: Predsjedništvo Narodnog sabora Hrvatske/Prezidijum Sabora NRH (25. srpnja 1945.–30. studenoga 1946.), Prezidijum Ustavotvornog sabora NRH (30. studenoga 1946.–20. siječnja 1947.), Prezidijum Sabora NRH prvoga saziva (20. siječnja 1947.–4. prosinca 1950.) i Prezidijum Sabora NRH drugoga saziva (4. prosinca 1950.–6. veljače 1953.). U prvom dijelu rada opisuje se osnivanje i prestanak rada Prezidijuma Sabora, u drugom njegov djelokrug, a u trećem ustroj i sastav po mandatnim razdobljima. Njegov ustroj i djelokrug uspoređeni su s ustrojem i djelokrugom Prezidijuma Narodne skupštine FNRJ i prezidijuma drugih jugoslavenskih republika. Rezultati istraživanja prezentirani su kombinacijom tematskog i kronološkog pristupa, a dijelom su sistematizirani u obliku tabelarnih prikaza. ; This paper describes the scope, structure and the composition of the Presidium of Parliament of the People's Republic of Croatia (PRC) which was active as a political governmental body in Croatia from 1945 to 1953. According to the Yugoslav constitutional system of government, the same political body existed on the federal level as the Presidium of the People's Assembly of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (FPRY), as well as in every republic-member of the Yugoslav federation and the scope, organization and composition of the Presidium of Parliament are compared with the scope, organization and composition of those bodies. The foundations of the activities of the Presidium of Parliament, as well as other central governmental institutions in Croatia (namely, Parliament, Government, and Supreme Court) were laid in the work of the State Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Croatia (ZAVNOH) i.e. its Presidency, since until the end of the war they together performed the legislative, executive and judiciary government. During the 4th session that took place in Zagreb from 24 to 25 July 1945 ZAVNOH changed is title to the People's Parliament of Croatia and since then its Presidency worked as the Presidency of the People's Parliament of Croatia. In the period from 1945 to 1953 its activity can be divided into four mandate periods: the Presidency of the People's Parliament of Croatia/the Presidium of the Parliament of the PRC (25 July 1945–30 November 1946), the Presidium of the Constituent Parliament of the PRC (30 November 1946–20 January 1947), the Presidium of the 1st Session of the Parliament of the PRC (20 January 1947–4 December 1950) and the Presidium of the 2nd Session of the Parliament of the PRC (4 December 1950–6 February 1953). Its existence in the system of governmental power is the result of taking over the Soviet constitutional solutions about organizing the state and governmental institutions in the 1946 constitution of the FPRY and through it also in the constitutions of each federal unit. It was the main legislative body in the period until the constituting of the Constituent Parliament of the PRC, since the Parliament of the PRC only had a single short five-day session in late August 1946. This is confirmed by the information about 29 laws passed by the Presidium of Parliament in the period from 8 September 1945 to 20 November 1946. Besides legislative, it also performed other functions from the jurisdiction then belonging to the Parliament. The constitution of the PRC from 1946 bestowed upon it performing tasks that are usually given to the president of the state (representing in the country the people's and state sovereignty of the PRC, calling the general elections, granting pardons, awarding medals and recognitions), as well as other executive tasks partly closely linked to the legislative activities. The special function pertained to supervising the people's committees. The important difference in the scope in relation to the Presidium of the People's Assembly of the FPRY was that it did not have the authority in the area of foreign affairs. Even though the constitution of the PRC from January 1947 lists it together with the Parliament in the chapter on the highest bodies of the governmental power in Croatia, the sources and constitutional-legal texts of the time, in accordance with the principle of unity of power, define it as a body which "stems from the Parliament" and is subordinated to it. Also, despite being formally constitutionally defined as one of the highest bodies of governmental power in Croatia, in reality it was the Party's transmission, since the actual power and monopoly in decisionmaking was in the hands of the bodies of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia/the League of Communists of Yugoslavia i.e. the Communist Party of Croatia/the League of Communists of Croatia. It was a collegiate body comprised of members of the Parliament. The decision of its composition was formally passed by the Parliament, but based on the conclusions reached during sessions of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Croatia. It was elected for the same term as the Parliament, but it continued to perform its duties after the dissolution of the Parliament, until the election of the new Presidium of Parliament. From 1945 to 1953 the total of 45 MPs were included in its activities. 13 of them were members during all four mandate terms, 11 during two and 14 during only one. The structure and the way of work were determined by the Rulebook dated from 7 August 1947. They were the exact copy of the structure and the way of work of the Presidium of the People's Assembly of the FPRY, with differences deriving from different jurisdictions (federal, republic) of these two bodies.

Raspravljajući o porijeklu hrvatske nacije, autor u prvom dijelu odbacuje tvrdnju da se ona razvijala kao tzv. "jezična nacija". Također osporava gledište da je u tome bitnu ulogu imalo jugoslavenstvo. Zatim pokazuje da je hrvatska nacija nastala u procesu međusobnih interakcija socijalnih i povijesnih vrijednosti, koje su napokon odredile njezinu individualnost spram svake druge zajednice na cjelokupnom prostoru Srednje i Jugoistočne Europe. Sve je to autor dokazao u drugom dijelu rasprave, gdje analizira hrvatski nacionalno-politički program, koji je nastao za revolucije 1848/49. godine. U njemu su hrvatski liberali i demokrati jasno odredili individualnost hrvatske nacije i hrvatske države (ujedinjene Trojedne Kraljevine Hrvatske), i to kao jedinstvene, samostalne i autonomne moderne države u sklopu konfederalnog političkoga i društvenog sustava Srednje Europe (austrijske konfederacije). ; In the present paper the author deals with the origin and development of Croatian nation, and creation of the modern Croatian state (Tripartite Kingdom of Croatia) in the first half of the 19th century, especially during the 1848/49 revolution, at several levels: idea about nation, ideology, political and social programmes, political actions, institutions, and political community. If considered from the point of view of new socio-political processes, when transformation of a people into a modern national-political community takes place, we can see that Slavic peoples in the middle and south-eastern Europe formed multinational states, but followed some quite clear courses: formation of individual ethnic and national communities within a plural social system. Being aware of these historical processes, at the time of formation of their own national communities, these Slavic peoples (according to the level of their social and political organizations), especially in 1848, asked for a change of traditional societies and reorganization of the existing empires, not only by the language national principle, but also by the principle of sovereignty, policy of federalism and confederalism and the principles of international law and international agreement. All this should have made possible formation of essentially new political communities: individual national states within equal and democratic multinational communities, but within a new middle-class society. However, considered from the point of view of formation of the identity and individuality of Croatian nation, which is the subject of this paper, it is indisputable that Croatian national political programme and programme of confederalism as well as legal principles compatible with them (like natural and national laws, Croatian historical and constitutional laws, international law and international agreements), which were the values Croatian politicians based their national policy on since 1848, had the essential influence on the explicit quality of Croatian national-political individuality, and thus, looking historically, on the integration of Croatian nation and creation of Croatian political and state community (the united State of Croatia). The subject and vey complex structure of that political programme had an impact onto clear definition of Croatian national-political community (the united Tripartite Kingdom of Croatia) in relation to other political communities in such a multinational state as it was the Habsburg Monarchy. And that state, in their eyes should have been formed (within the new middle-class society, and a democratic and parliamentary system) on confederal basis, by means of international agreements between quite equal ethnic/national states: within the middle European Austrian confederation. In any case, Croatian nation (if we consider its national integrative processes in terms of events, in terms of idea and ideology and/or in terms of ethnic identity) was not formed nor developed as solely the so-called "language nation", as historiography would like it. For, neither is ethnos (not even ethnic community, or people, or nation, or ethnic identity) only a language-cultural category, nor the Croatian politicians and reformers took only language and culture to determine Croatian people and nation. On the contrary, Croatian nation was formed in the process of interactions of social and historical values which defined its individuality in relation to any other community on the whole area of middle and south-eastern Europe. Also, Croatian nation was not formed only as a natural community (determined by natural conditions of work and society and genealogic structure, i. e. determined by undefined Slavic union and/or undefined Slavic ethnic identity), but, in the course of processes of modernization, it was formed first of all as a historical community, based on group institutions of its own historical community. In other words, Croatian nation was formed on its own cultural, political, state and public-law traditions. It is quite clear that in this process neither Slavism, nor Illyrism, nor Yugoslavism had any role more important that the secondary one, not even for the definition of any particular ethnic identity. Illyrism and Yugoslavism had declarative ideological meaning, expressed through the idea of still non-existing community. On the contrary, Croatianism (as a national principle, as a community and as a legal, state and political system) was an expression of existence of Croatian community as reality. Thus, if we want to discuss the integration of Croatian nation and formation of Croatian political community, i. e. the united State of Croatia, we should realize that these processes were influenced by numerous values and structures, especially spiritual-cultural, political, economic, legal and social. However, the importance of political system and all its substructures – political action, political organization of the community, political programme and formation of a modern national state — should also be noted. Formation of Croatian political and state community, which was clearly stated in the Croatian national and political programme of 1848/49, assumed: 1) associating the segments of Croatian people into one political people, within one integral Croatian political community; 2) uniting of all Croatian provinces into one united Croatian state (Tripartite Kingdom of Croatia, Dreieiniges Koenigreich Kroatien). And these were the most important determinants which led to the political homogeneity and formation of Croatian nation and Croatian modern state.

Austrougarski car i kralj Franjo Josip I. preminuo je 21. studenoga 1916. u 86. godini života te u 68. godini vladavine. Budući da nije imao bližih potomaka naslijedio ga je pranećak Karlo I. Austrijski ili Karlo IV. Ugarsko-Hrvatski. Dvadesetdevetogodišnji car okrunjen je 30. prosinca 1916. Njegova vladavina trajala je praktično do konca Prvoga svjetskog rata, odnosno do raspada Austro-Ugarske Monarhije 31. listopada 1918. Od početka vladavine Karla I. prošlo je nešto više od sto godina, što je prigoda da se osvrnemo na njegov doprinos odlikovanjima Austro-Ugarske Monarhije. Kao car i kralj Austro-Ugarske Monarhije Karlo I. (IV.) preuzeo je suverenitet nad svim postojećim državnim odlikovanjima. Visoka odlikovanja – redove - osnovali su već njegovi prethodnici: Red zlatnog runa (1430.), Vojni red Marije Terezije (1757.), Kraljevski ugarski red Sv. Stjepana (1764.), Red Leopolda (1808.), Red željezne krune (1816.), Red Franje Josipa (1849.) i Red Elizabete (1898.). Odlikovanja niže klase – križevi i medalje – također su već bili osnovani u velikom broju i Karlo I. nije imao mnogo mogućnosti za inovacije. On je tek zasjeo na prijestolje i nije imao priliku steći reputaciju svog dugovječnog prethodnika Franje Josipa I. Društvo je pritiskivala ratna zbilja, štedjelo se i odricalo koliko je bilo moguće. No, on je ipak unio neke novosti koje valja zabilježiti. Ugarski viteški red zlatne ostruge osnovali su u 14. stoljeću kralj Karlo I. Robert (1301.- 1342.) ili njegov sin Ludovik I. (1342.-1382.).Vitezovi su dobivali diplome, bez ordenskih znakova jer su vitezovi već bili prepoznatljivi po tome što su na čizmama nosili zlatne ostruge. Karlo je u Budimpešti (30. prosinca 1916.) okrunjen krunom Sv. Stjepana. Tom prigodom proglasio je dvadeset trojicu uglednika vitezovima Reda zlatne ostruge i predao im novo kreirane ordenske znakove. Statut Reda zlatne ostruge objavljen je 21. travnja 1918. u Službenom listu Austro-Ugarske Monarhije. Karlov četni križ novo je odlikovanje cara Karla I. (osnovano je 13. prosinca 1916.), a dodjeljivao se pripadnicima oružanih snaga. Medalju za hrabrost osnovao je još car Josip II. (1789.), a dodjeljivala se samo u ratu, za hrabre pothvate i iznimnu smjelost. Na medalji su se izmjenjivali likovi vladara pa je 4. travnja 1917. iskovana nova Medalja za hrabrost s likom mladog cara Karla I. Dana 28. travnja 1917. car Karlo I. odredio je otkov novih Vojnih medalja za zasluge te je i na toj medalji likom cara Karla I. zamijenjen lik cara Franje Josipa I. Ranjenička medalja također je novo austrougarsko odlikovanje za časnike, dočasnike i vojnike oboljele i ranjene na bojištu. ; The Emperor and King of Austria-Hungary Franz Joseph I died on 21 November 1916 at the age of 86, in the 68th year of his reign. Since he had no immediate heirs, his grand-nephew Charles I of Austria and Charles IV of Hungary-Croatia inherited the throne. The twenty-nine year old emperor was crowned on 30 December 1916. His rule lasted until the end of WWI, that is, until the disintegration of Austria-Hungary on 31 October 1918. Just over one hundred years have passed since the beginning of Charles I's reign, which is an opportunity to look at his contribution to the institution of decorations in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. As Emperor and King of Austria-Hungary, Charles I(IV) took sovereignty over all existing state decorations. The high decorations – orders – had already been founded by his predecessors: Order of the Golden Fleece (1430), Order of Leopold (1808), Order of the Iron Crown (1816), Order of Franz Joseph (1849) and Order of Elisabeth (1898). Lower-class decorations – crosses and medals – had also already been founded in large numbers and Charles I did not have much space for innovation. He had only just ascended the throne and did not have the chance to gain the reputation of his long-lived predecessor Franz Joseph I. The country was oppressed by living under war circumstances; people had to save whatever they could and there was a lot they had to go without. Still, Charles I did introduce some novelties that should be recorded. The Hungarian Knightly Order of the Golden Spur (Ungarischer Ritterorden der Goldenen Sporn) was founded in the 14th century by King Charles I Robert (1301-1342) or his son Ludovik I (1342-1382). The knights received charters but no insignia, because they were recognised by wearing golden spurs on their boots. Charles was crowned with the Crown of St Stephen in Budapest (30 December 1916). On that occasion he bestowed the Order of the Golden Spur on twenty-three distinguished men and presented them with newly-created insignia of the order. The Statute of the Order of the Golden Spur was proclaimed on 21 April 1918 in the Official Gazette of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The Karl Troop Cross (Karl-Truppendreuz) was a new decoration instituted by Emperor Charles I (founded on 13 December 1916), and it was awarded to members of the armed forces. The Medal for Courage (Tapferkeitsmedaille) had been founded by Emperor Joseph II (1789) and was awarded for courageous acts and outstanding bravery only in wartime. The medal showed the figures of successive rulers so a new Medal of Courage with the figure of the young Emperor Charles I was minted on 4 April. On 28 April 1917 Emperor Charles I ordered the minting of new Military Medals of Merit (Militärverdienstmedaille) and on the new medal the figure of Emperor Charles I replaced the figure of Emperor Franz Joseph I. The Wound Medal (Verwundetenmedaille) was also a new Austro-Hungarian decoration for commissioned and non-commissioned officers and soldiers who fell ill or were wounded on the battlefield. After the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Charles I did not abdicate and formally continued to be emperor. This uncertain state of affairs lasted until 24 March 1919, when Charles and his family were forced to leave Austria and went to Switzerland. On 3 April 1919 the Austrian Parliament passed a law prohibiting the return to Austria of Charles and his wife Zita of Bourbon-Parma. Encouraged by Hungarian royalists, in 1921 Charles twice tried to assume the Hungarian throne, but both times without success. The royal couple was interned on 1 November 1921 and after a long trip transferred to Madeira Island in Portugal. Karl died there on 1 April 1922 at the age of only 34.