Austro-ugarskom nagodbom ustrojena je Dvojna Monarhija. Austrija i Ugarska utvrdile su da su vanjska politika, vojni poslovi i financije zajednički poslovi cijele monarhije, dok su sve druge poslove ...dvije strane samostalno rješavale. Ugarska je bila vezana i Hrvatsko-ugarskom nagodbom, koja je, pak, Zagrebu osiguravala punu samostalnost u pitanjima unutarnje uprave, pravosuđa, bogoštovlja i javne prosvjete, uključujući i zakonodavnu vlast u tim pitanjima (Hrvatski sabor) te izvršnu (banska vlada). Hrvati su bili priznati za politički narod (taj su status uživali i Mađari u Ugarskoj), a u Trojednoj kraljevini službeni jezik bio je hrvatski. Usto je Hrvatska mogla koristiti svoje nacionalne simbole, a imala je i svoga ministra u Ugarskoj (zajedničkoj, središnjoj) vladi u Budimpešti. U vrijeme dualizma upravljanje zemljom bilo je vrlo teško, jer su kralj, ugarski ministar predsjednik i ban bili u međusobnom odnosu subordinacije, ali su morali uživati i međusobno povjerenje. Godine 1903. došlo je do parlamentarne krize u Austriji, koja se prelila u Ugarsku, dok su u Hrvatskoj izbili nemiri protiv bana i mađarizacije. U ovom radu, na temelju arhivskih spisa Ugarskog sabora, analiziramo kako su se događaji iz Hrvatske manifestirali na Ugarsku i cijelu monarhiju, a dajemo i odgovor na tezu da je ban „pobjegao iz Hrvatske”.
The Austro-Hungarian settlement established the Dual Monarchy. Austria and Hungary established that foreign policy, military affairs and finances are the joint affairs of the entire monarchy, while all other affairs were handled independently by the two parties. Hungary was also bound by the Croatian-Hungarian settlement, which in turn ensured Zagreb full independence in matters of internal administration, judiciary, worship and public education, including legislative power in these matters (Sabor) and executive power (ban government). Croats were recognized as a political nation (Hungarians in Hungary also enjoyed this status), and in the Three Kingdoms the official language was Croatian. In addition, Croatia could use its national symbols, and it had its own minister in the Hungarian (joint, central) government in Budapest. At the time of dualism, managing the country was very difficult, because the king, the Hungarian minister, the president, and the ban were in a mutual relationship of subordination, but they also had to enjoy mutual trust. In 1903, there was a parliamentary crisis in Austria, which spilled over into Hungary, while riots broke out in Croatia against bans and Hungarianization. In this paper, based on the archive files of the Hungarian Parliament, we analyze how events from Croatia manifested themselves in Hungary and the entire monarchy, and we also give an answer to the thesis that the ban „fled from Croatia”.
U Baranjskoj županiji je potkraj 19. stoljeća došlo do osiromašenja mjesnoga pučanstva uslijed poplava, stočnih bolesti i uništenja vinove loze zbog filoxere. Istovremeno su razvojem tehnologije ...seljaci maloposjednici (stočari, mljekari) postali nekonkurentni u odnosu na poljoprivredne proizvode s baranjskih veleposjeda, pa su i zbog toga ostajali bez prihoda. Naročito teško je bilo pogođeno hrvatsko (šokačko) pučanstvo u selima uz rijeku Karašicu, pa se 1897-98. otvoreno pubunilo protiv vlasti. Središte pokreta bilo je u Dražu i Gajiću. Ovaj ustanak su tadašnje vlasti i novine zabilježile pod nazivom „Šokačka pobuna“ i htjele su ga prikazati kao izraz nezadovoljstva samo jednoga dijela baranjskoga stanovništva. Šokci su u izvješćima lokalnih organa vlasti slanima u Budimpeštu prikazani kao vjerski sektaši (pristaše nazarenskoga pokreta), socijalisti i komunisti. Činjenica je da će od tada Baranja biti jedno od središta radničkoga pokreta, a nakon propasti Socijalističke Mađarske su pristaše zbačenog režima ovdje našli sklonište. Za vrijeme srpske okupacije Baranje (1918-1921.) su Šokci pristali uz novostvorenu Kraljevinu SHS, jer im je Beograd zajamčio davanje svih agrarnih prava. Tako je naposljetku dio Baranjske županije (Prekodravlje) pripao jugoslavenskoj državi. U ovom radu analiziramo nastanak i tijek šokačkog agrarnog pokreta, njegov utjecaj na odcjepljenje dijela Baranjske županije i pripajanje Kraljevini SHS, te kako je Baranja na koncu postala hrvatska, a ne srpska regija, kako su u Beogradu planirali.
The rebellion of the Šokci that broke out in 1897 in Draž and Gajić is one of the most significant events in the history of Hungarian social democracy. It started in southeastern Baranya and was at its peak in January 1898 when the uprising had taken hold of 26 settlements in the districts of Baranyavár / Branjin Vrh, Mohács and Siklós. In the settlements of Baranyavár / Branjin Vrh, Darázs / Draž, Dályok / Duboševica, Hercegmárok / Gajić, Kásád / Kašad, Lőcs / Luč, Szentmárton / Martince, Petarda, Izsép / Topolje and Torjanci, the majority population was Croatian; among the socialist agitators the majority were Croats along with a significant share of Hungarians and a quite large proportion of Germans. Although at the time, the authorities and the newspapers reported on the nationalist movement of the Šokci-Croats, in the last few decades researchers and scholars have agreed that the socialist – agrarian movement was not marked by nationality because among the malcontents there were also Hungarians and Germans as well as Serbs living in villages affected by the rebellion. However, it must be said that although the movement enjoyed wide support among the inhabitants in the villages of the Šokci, in villages with a Hungarian majority (Kopács / Kopačevo, Sepse / Kotlina, Laskó / Lug, Csúza / Suza, Várdaróc / Vardarac) the socialist organizations that had also been established, did not have a base anything like as large as in the villages of the Šokci. By using the term “rebellion of the Šokci” the intention of the local authorities was probably to play down the severity of the rebellion, refraining from mentioning that it had also affected the villages with German and Hungarian majorities. Particular emphasis was placed on the claim that the Šokci had “separated themselves from the Church” and become members of a sect. This should be kept in mind because good Šokci were considered “good Hungarians” and “devoted believers of the Catholic Church”. It was precisely for these characteristics that the Hungarians boasted of “their Šokci”, especially in Mohač and the surroundings. However, the discontent shown in the “rebellion of the Šokci” attained such proportions that not even the police were able to control them and a military intervention was necessary. As the historical Baranya county (vármegye, županija) was occupied in 1918, the Serbian military authorities and the Belgrade government endeavoured to win the local population over. Among the population there were differences in regard to nationality, religion and world view, however, the municipality was specific in that it was the centre of the agrarian and social-democratic movement and inasmuch as the majority of the population was non-Hungarian. Along with the most numerous German community, there were also many Šokci (Croats) and Serbs whom the Kingdom of the SHS tried to win over, in order to incorporate this area as part of the Yugoslav state. Accordingly, they affirmed they would conduct an agrarian reform, accentuated the fraternal and blood relations of the Serbs and Croats (Šokci and Bunjevci) and allowed the uninterrupted operation of the socialist-democratic movement.
Nacionalno pitanje na Balkanu, a napose na južnoslavenskom području uvijek je bremenito i ima povijesne, pravne i političke konotacije. Nakon krvavog raspada bivše Jugoslavije, u posljednjih ...dvadesetak godina intenzivirano je pitanje nacionalnog identiteta Crnogoraca i njihova odnosa prema Srbiji i Srbima. Odnos između ta dva naroda zaoštren je uoči Prvoga svjetskog rata, što je kulminiralo 1918. kada je Beograd uz pomoć crnogorskih Srba pripojio dotada međunarodno pravno priznatu Kraljevinu Crnu Goru. Nakon toga je među Crnogorcima prevladavala ona grana koja se u nacionalnom smislu izjašnjavala kao Srbi. No, 2006. se na referendumu stanovništvo Crne Gore odlučilo za neovisnost. Od tada postoje dva suprotstavljena gledišta o nacionalnoj i državnoj povijesti, kulturi i identitetu najmanje post jugoslavenske republike. Ona se, dakako, manifestiraju i u političkom životu, pa su tako jednostoljetni prijepori kulminirali 2020. godine kada je na izborima prvi put od tranzicije došlo do promjene vlasti. Od tada su u još jačoj mjeri oživjele povijesne reminiscencije i stari antagonizmi čija izvorišta valja tražiti još u odlukama Podgoričke skupštine iz 1918. godine. U ovom radu analiziramo političke prilike i postojeću krizu vlasti u Crnoj Gori te etnički i kulturni identitet domicilnog naroda u svjetlu srpsko-crnogorskih nacionalnih i državnopravnih razmirica koje vuku podrijetlo iz 1918. godine.
The question of nationality in the Balkans, especially in the South-Slavic territory, has always been burdensome and it has historical, legal, and political connotations. After the bloody breakup of the former Yugoslavia, the question of Montenegrins’ national identity and their relationship with Serbia and the Serbs has intensified over the past twenty years. The relationship between these two nations became strained on the eve of the First World Warand this culminated in 1918, when Belgrade, with the help of Montenegrin Serbs, annexed the internationally recognized Kingdom of Montenegro. Since then, the branch declaring itself to be Serb in the national sense remains strong among the Montenegrins. However, the Montenegrin population voted for independence in the referendum held in 2006. Since then, there have been two views on national and state history, culture, and identity of the smallest post-Yugoslav republic. Fifteen years after the restoration of statehood (21 May2021), the population is as divided as it was at the time of independence. In this paper, we place special emphasis on the 1918 Podgorica Assembly, which is the starting point of Serbian-Montenegrin disputes regarding nationality and statehood.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, ODKLJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
4.
Hrvatski ban Heka, László
Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci (1991),
2023, Letnik:
44, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Odprti dostop
Tijekom tisućgodišnje povijesti hrvatske državnosti nositelji najviše vlasti u zemlji bili su ban i Hrvatski sabor. Dok Sabor kao zakonodavno tijelo, osim kratkog prekida tijekom Kraljevine SHS i ...Kraljevine Jugoslavije, svoju funkciju nastavlja i danas, institucija je hrvatskoga bana ukinuta jugoslavenskim saveznim Ustavom iz 1946. i Ustavom NR Hrvatske iz 1947. godine. U ovom radu, oslanjajući se na zakonske propise analizirat će se rad hrvatskoga bana, način njegova imenovanja i opoziva, njegove ovlasti od razdoblja hrvatskih kraljeva narodne krvi, preko Arpadovića, Anžuvinaca i Habsburgovca. Prikazat će se i promjene u zakonskoj regulativi koje je uvela Hrvatsko-ugarska nagodba (Zak. članak I. iz 1868.), odnosno revizija nagodbe (Zak. Članak XXXIV. iz 1873.). S obzirom na to da je Hrvatska od 1102. do 1918. bila u državnom savezu s Ugarskom, hrvatski ban ujedno je i institucija mađarske ustavnopravne povijesti te će se prikazati i kroz tu prizmu.
During a millennium of the Croatian statehood, Ban (viceroy) and the Croatian Parliament were the holders of the highest power in the country. While the Parliament as a legislative body, apart from a brief interruption during the Kingdom of SCS and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, continues its function even today, the institution of the Croatian ban was abolished by the Yugoslav Federal Constitution in 1946 and by the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Croatia in 1947. In this paper, relaying on legal regulations, the work of Croatian ban is analyzed, its appointment and recall, its rights and obligations from the period of Croatian kings of the noble line, through the Arpads, Angevins, and Habsburgs. The changes in legal regulations are examined in this study that were introduced by the Croatian-Hungarian Settlement (Leg. Article I. from 1868), i.e., the revision of the settlement (Leg. Article XXXIV. from 1873). Since Croatia was in a state alliance with Hungary from 1102 to 1918, the Croatian ban is also an institution of Hungarian constitutional history, and therefore will be presented through that prism.
The question of nationality in the Balkans, especially in the South-Slavic territory, has always been burdensome and it has historical, legal, and political connotations. After the bloody breakup of ...the former Yugoslavia, the question of Montenegrins’ national identity and their relationship with Serbia and the Serbs has intensified over the past twenty years. The relationship between these two nations became strained on the eve of the First World War and this culminated in 1918, when Belgrade, with the help of Montenegrin Serbs, annexed the internationally recognized Kingdom of Montenegro. Since then, the branch declaring itself to be Serb in the national sense remains strong among the Montenegrins. However, the Montenegrin population voted for independence in the referendum held in 2006. Since then, there have been two views on national and state history, culture, and identity of the smallest post-Yugoslav republic. Fifteen years after the restoration of statehood (21 May 2021), the population is as divided as it was at the time of independence. In this paper, we place special emphasis on the 1918 Podgorica Assembly, which is the starting point of Serbian-Montenegrin disputes regarding nationality and statehood.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, ODKLJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Prisega kao dokazno sredstvo u Vinodolskom zakonu Heka, László
Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci/Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci,
01/2020, Letnik:
41, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Odprti dostop
Vinodolski zakon najstariji je hrvatski i jedan od najstarijih pisanih slavenskih zakona. Donesen je na blagdan Sveta tri kralja ili Bogojavljenje u utorak 6. siječnja 1288. Njegova je osobitost u ...tome što nije nastao voljom vladara ili feudalnoga gospodara, nego dogovorom vinodolskih općina i kneza, pa je u biti popis lokalnoga običajnog prava. Napisan je glagoljicom na hrvatskom jeziku. Poseban je i po pravnom sadržaju, napose jer osim odredaba nasljednoga, kaznenog i postupovnog prava, uređuje i pitanja upravnoga prava. Premda obuhvaća i njemačke, talijanske, odnosno slavenske pravne institute, ipak je Vinodolski zakon nositelj hrvatskoga nacionalnog identiteta. Zbog toga ga se ne promatra samo kao jedan od glavnih izvora prava, nego i kao svjedoka hrvatskoga jezika, pisma i kulture. Iz više ga je aspekata opravdano uvrstiti među stožerne europske srednjovjekovne pravne propise pisane materinskim jezikom, uz Zakon sudnjii ljudem, Ruskaju Pravdu ili, Sachsenspiegel, odnosno
još ranije (601.-925.) nastali anglosaksonski zbornik običajnoga prava. U radu se istražuje prisega kao dokazno sredstvo u parničnom postupku i načinom kako je regulirana Vinodolskim zakonom. Također se daje i usporedna analiza ovoga načina dokazivanja sukladno s odredbama drugih onodobnih slavenskih zakona.
La Legge del Vinodol è la più antica legge scritta croata ed una
delle più antiche leggi slavene scritte. È stata adottata martedì 6 gennaio
1288 alla festa dei tre Re Magi ossia dell’Epifania. La specificità di essa sta
nel fatto che non è stata creata con la volontà del sovrano o del signore
feudale, ma con l’accordo tra i comuni di Vinodol e del principe, perciò è
sostanzialmente un elenco del diritto consuetudinario locale. È stata scritta
in glagolitico in lingua croata. È particolare anche per il contenuto
giuridico, perché salvo le disposizioni del diritto sulle successioni, penale e
processuale, regola pure le questioni appartenenti al diritto amministrativo.
Purché contiene istituti giuridici tedeschi, italiani e slaveni, la Legge del
Vinodol è portatrice dell’identità nazionale croata. Per questo motivo non la
si osserva soltanto quale una delle fonti principali del diritto, ma anche come
un testimone della lingua, dell’alfabeto e della cultura croata. Da più aspetti
è legittimo inserirla tra i regolamenti medievali europei scritti in ligua
madre, insieme al
Zakon sudnjii ljudem
,
Ruskaju Pravdu
e al
Sachsenspiegel
,
cioè alla raccolta anglosassone del diritto consuetudinario sorta ancor prima
(601-925). In questo lavoro trattiamo del giuramento come mezzo di prova nel
processo civile ed il modo in cui è stato regolato nella Legge del Vinodol,
dando un’analisi comparata di questo mezzo di prova secondo le disposizioni di
altre leggi slavene di quel tempo.
Das älteste kroatische Gesetz, Gesetz von Vinodol, gehört zu den
ältesten slawischen geschriebenen Gesetzen. Es wurde am Tag der Heiligen Drei
Könige, am Dienstag, den 6. Januar 1288 erlassen. Geschrieben in glagolitischer
Schrift und in der kroatischen Sprache, sei das Gesetz nicht als Ansporn von
Herrschern oder Feldherrn erlassen worden, sondern durch Absprache von den
Gemeinden und Fürsten Vinodols. Insofern stellt es eine Vorschrift
Gewohnheitsrechts dar, ausgeprägt durch besonderen Rechtsinhalt, der aus
Bestimmungen Erb-, Straf-, Verfahrens-, sowie Verwaltungsrechts besteht. Trotz
deutschen, italienischen und slawischen Rechtsinstituten, die in ihm vorhanden
sind, verkörpert das Gesetz von Vinodol vor * László Heka, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Faculty of Law,
University of Szeged, Institute for Comparative Law and Legal Theory;
heka@juris.u-szeged.hu.
allem die kroatische
Nationalidentität. Aus diesem Grunde kann es nicht nur als eine der
auschlaggebenden Rechtsquellen betrachtet werden, sondern auch als Zeuge der
kroatischen Sprache, Schrift und Kultur. Deswegen zählt es zu den wichtigsten
europäischen mittelalterlichen Rechtsvorschriften, die in der Muttersprache
verfasst wurden, zusammen mit
Zakon sudnyj ljudem
,
Russkaja Prawda
oder
Sachsenspiegel, bzw. dem früher (601-925) erlassenen angelsächsischen
Sammelband von Gewohnheitsrecht. Das Augenmerk in diesem Beitrag liegt auf Eid
als Beweismittel im Zivilverfahren und auf die Weise wie es durch das Gesetz
von Vinodol geregelt wurde im Vergleich zu anderen zeitgenössischen slawischen
Gesetzen, die auch analysiert werden.
The Code of Vinodol, the oldest Slavic code, was compiled in 1288. It can be classified as one of the important cornerstone in European medieval law. According to this particular code, the legal processes were accusatorial, oral and public. During the evidentiary process oath, mainly by the side of the accuser, was required. The accused party on the other hand could used oath in case of sexual violence. Later the oath of compurgators played an important role in the process. The number of compurgators ranged from 5 to 49 based on the seriousness of the crime. In case of sexual violence, compurgators swore to the innocence of the accused party. In absence of compurgators, the accused had to take as many oaths as many compurgators were lacking. It is presumed that the institution of jury and the institutionalization of testimony and documentary evidence are the result of the development of medieval litigation and oaths. This study compares the evidence process of Code of Vinodol with other Slavic processes, with special regard to the role of oaths and compurgators.
Je li tetoviranje grijeh? Heka, László
Obnovljeni život,
04/2023, Letnik:
78, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Tetovaže su prisutne u ljudskoj populaciji od davnine. U životu plemenskih kultura imale su višestruko značenje. Članovi plemena tim su ritualom postajali ravnopravni članovi zajednice, stjecali su ...društveni rang, funkciju, pokazali da su sposobni podnositi bol, a pleme je postalo dobro definirano i prepoznatljivo. To je imalo sličan učinak i na pojedine njegove članove, pomažući im u razvijanju identiteta. U 20. stoljeću taj su način obilježavanja preuzeli članovi uličnih bandi i kriminalnih organizacija radi grupne identifikacije, a u zadnja dva desetljeća postao je globalni modni trend, koji je preko američke subkulture zahvatio i velik dio europske populacije. Ipak, judaizam, kršćanstvo i islam kao vjerski pravni sustavi ne gledaju blagonaklono na tetovaže kao oblik oštećivanja tijela. U ovom radu prikazujemo stajališta ta tri pravna sustava o tetovažama.
The tattooing of human skin has been practised since ancient times. Tattoos had multiple meanings in tribal cultures. The ritual rendered the members of the tribe equal members of the community, advanced their social rank, allowed them to carry out new functions, and was a demonstration of their ability to endure pain; also, the tribe was defined and made recognizable as a result of its rituals. Rituals similarly affected individual members for they helped identity development of both the individual and the community. The custom was adopted by sailors and brought by them to Western civilization, while this type of „marking” had long existed in the East. In the beginning, sailors, prostitutes, slaves and convicts were tattooed. In mid–twentieth century tattooing was taken over by American street gangs from Japanese yakuza clans. It finally became a global fashion trend in recent decades and came to affect a large part of the European population through the American subculture. Yet Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — as religious legal systems — do not view this form of bodily self–harm favourably. Believers — be they Christians, Jews or Muslims — see the human body and face as a gift from God and therefore no correction thereof (excepting medical interventions) — tattooing in particular — may be performed. In this paper the views on tattooing of these three legal systems are presented.
PDF
