In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Russians from all ranks of society were bound together by a culture of honor. Here one of the foremost scholars of early modern Russia explores the ...intricate and highly stylized codes that made up this culture. Nancy Shields Kollmann describes how these codes were manipulated to construct identity and enforce social norms—and also to defend against insults, to pursue vendettas, and to unsettle communities. She offers evidence for a new view of the relationship of state and society in the Russian empire, and her richly comparative approach enhances knowledge of statebuilding in premodern Europe. By presenting Muscovite state and society in the context of medieval and early modern Europe, she exposes similarities that blur long-standing distinctions between Russian and European history. Through the prism of honor, Kollmann examines the interaction of the Russian state and its people in regulating social relations and defining an individual's rank. She finds vital information in a collection of transcripts of legal suits brought by elites and peasants alike to avenge insult to honor. The cases make clear the conservative role honor played in society as well as the ability of men and women to employ this body of ideas to address their relations with one another and with the state. Kollmann demonstrates that the grand princes—and later the tsars—tolerated a surprising degree of local autonomy throughout their rapidly expanding realm. Her work marks a stark contrast with traditional Russian historiography, which exaggerates the power of the state and downplays the volition of society. ; In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Russians from all ranks of society were bound together by a culture of honor. Here one of the foremost scholars of early modern Russia explores the intricate and highly stylized codes that made up this culture. Nancy Shields Kollmann describes how these codes were manipulated to construct identity and enforce social norms—and also to defend against insults, to pursue vendettas, and to unsettle communities. She offers evidence for a new view of the relationship of state and society in the Russian empire, and her richly comparative approach enhances knowledge of statebuilding in premodern Europe. By presenting Muscovite state and society in the context of medieval and early modern Europe, she exposes similarities that blur long-standing distinctions between Russian and European history.Through the prism of honor, Kollmann examines the interaction of the Russian state and its people in regulating social relations and defining an individual's rank. She finds vital information in a collection of transcripts of legal suits brought by elites and peasants alike to avenge insult to honor. The cases make clear the conservative role honor played in society as well as the ability of men and women to employ this body of ideas to address their relations with one another and with the state. Kollmann demonstrates that the grand princes—and later the tsars—tolerated a surprising degree of local autonomy throughout their rapidly expanding realm. Her work marks a stark contrast with traditional Russian historiography, which exaggerates the power of the state and downplays the volition of society.
Abstract
This article analyzes the honor court trial of Maks Szczęśliwy, former head of the Łódź ghetto Provisioning Department and one of Chaim Rumkowski’s closest associates, accused of “crimes ...against humanity.” In order to determine whether Szczęśliwy could be accepted as its member, the Jewish Community of Helsinki established a tribunal under rabbinical authority. The tribunal contacted Jewish institutions for assistance and advice in Sweden, Poland, Great Britain, and Israel, and ultimately took the case to the Rabbinic High Court of Israel. The author investigates how shifting attitudes among the transnational survivor community towards former members of Jewish councils and other alleged collaborators shaped the final outcome of the case.
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Russians from all ranks of society were bound together by a culture of honor. Here one of the foremost scholars of early modern Russia explores the ...intricate and highly stylized codes that made up this culture. Nancy Shields Kollmann describes how these codes were manipulated to construct identity and enforce social norms—and also to defend against insults, to pursue vendettas, and to unsettle communities. She offers evidence for a new view of the relationship of state and society in the Russian empire, and her richly comparative approach enhances knowledge of statebuilding in premodern Europe. By presenting Muscovite state and society in the context of medieval and early modern Europe, she exposes similarities that blur long-standing distinctions between Russian and European history.Through the prism of honor, Kollmann examines the interaction of the Russian state and its people in regulating social relations and defining an individual's rank. She finds vital information in a collection of transcripts of legal suits brought by elites and peasants alike to avenge insult to honor. The cases make clear the conservative role honor played in society as well as the ability of men and women to employ this body of ideas to address their relations with one another and with the state. Kollmann demonstrates that the grand princes—and later the tsars—tolerated a surprising degree of local autonomy throughout their rapidly expanding realm. Her work marks a stark contrast with traditional Russian historiography, which exaggerates the power of the state and downplays the volition of society.
In order to mend rifts among the victims that were created by the Nazi method of delivering orders via intercalated 'Jewish councils,' Jews who were perceived as collaborators where brought to ...criminal courts and/or internal Jewish courts after the Shoah. In this regard, little has been said about the situation of German-Jewish survivors in postwar Germany. This article expands the findings of Laura Jockusch and others on the matter of the Ehrengericht (honor court) trials of the postwar Berlin Jewish Community. The article tries to fill in the blank spaces by combining these trials with complementary sources like compensation and criminal court files from the early postwar-period in both German states. One of these blanks is the role of the Reichsvereinigung der Juden in Deutschland (RV) during the Shoah. The complicated role of this German-Jewish mock self-administration is seldomly discussed in the honor court trials although many trials revolved around the dilemmatas created by the enforced collaboration. Strikingly though, in its verdicts, the honor court retroactively legitimized the cooperation of RV members with the Gestapo - for instance following Gestapo orders to round up Jews - but condemned individuals who had not been RV employees and cracked under Gestapo torture following arrests resulting from their attempts to rescue others. The article discusses possible reasons for this incoherent practice which are related to aspects of class, gender and the contested person's standing within the postwar community. Furthermore, the article aims to show, that the internal Jewish court became intertwined with the German judicial system and the compensation administration. This resulted in the disturbing situation that the German postwar administration increasingly interspersed with former Nazi personnel could deny survivors of the Shoah their compensation and legal status as a victim or even accuse them as Nazi criminals based on an inner-Jewish honor court verdict.
In 1919, the foundation for Lithuania’s military judicial system was laid following the approval of the Regiment Court Statute on 13 February, the Court-Martial Statute on 27 March, and the Interim ...Army (Military) Court Statute on 7 July. By 1928, the system was fully developed with the release of the Statute of the Military Court of Honour, which governed the functioning of a court of honour. Thus, the permanent justice institutions of the Lithuanian Army comprised the Army (Military) Court, the Regiment Court, the Military Court of Honour, with the later addition of a temporary institution, the (Field) Court-Martial. These courts were based on the military courts of the former Czarist Russian Empire and presided over justice, discipline and order, and the speedy resolution of cases and the application of strict penalties. A military state defender/the Military Prosecutor’s Office was established, together with the Army / Military court which acted alongside. The latter was similar to the Russian Military Prosecutor’s Office, in that it performed, organised, supervised and controlled pre-trial investigations, supported charges, and supplied advice to judicial institutions on matters of procedural actions. The High Tribunal was established before the military courts, although it commenced operations at the same time. The Tribunal was entrusted with the functions of the Military Court of Cassation, since there was no separate, specialised cassation institution of military courts in Lithuania. Initially, the High Tribunal handled appeals and cassation for the Army / Military court, but only cassation for the troop court. From 1928, the Tribunal acted only in cassation. The internal structure and composition of military courts were determined by specific principles of how it was deemed courts should be organized, their various activities and functions. Accordingly, the courts were staffed with military representatives who had received a military and legal education (usually at degree level), were in good health, of the right age, and had exceptional qualities of character and manner. They were appointed by the supreme political and military leadership for a permanent and temporary office in a court. Among all the military courts, that of the army was the best in terms of its composition. Military courts exercised their intended functions, and the administration of justice aligned closely with administrative and judicial activities, which followed internal documents of the courts and the law, while efficiency of work was in line with the level of a military court. The military courts relied heavily on existing case law relating to criminal law practiced by the former the Russian Empire (as well as recent legal precedent), the statutes of local military courts, and other criminal laws. Those who came before the courts were both serving and passive military officers, military clerks, rank and file soldiers, Ministry of Defence civil servants, riflemen, war prisoners, internees and civilian cases. The matters before the court related to general crimes, crimes against military discipline, good order, service, as well offenses associated with military honour, dignity, nobility, and customs and traditions. For certain crimes and offences, military representatives could be punished by the military authorities, civil administration bodies, churches, and courts of general jurisdiction. Military courts were characterised by extensive expertise, quick decisions and strict punishments, and in response to different emergency situations that existed almost during the entire period of independence, especially during the years of conservative authoritarian rule, they were one of the most important judicial organs that maintained the régime. They dealt mostly with criminal cases and civil actions. Of all the military courts, the army court examined the greatest number of cases, including a wide variety of urgent and important cases, and highprofile cases that attracted public attention. The troop court examined fewer cases of lesser importance, while the military field courts resolved straightforward cases that were easily resolved. The Military Court of Honour examined cases involving military honour and dignity, customs and traditions. A special commission that judged only high-ranking officers operated as an alternative to the latter.
Jewish Honor Courts Jockusch, Laura; Finder, Gabriel N
2015, 2015-06-15
eBook
In the aftermath of World War II, virtually all European countries struggled with the dilemma of citizens who had collaborated with Nazi occupiers. Jewish communities in particular faced the ...difficult task of confronting collaborators among their own ranks—those who had served on Jewish councils, worked as ghetto police, or acted as informants. European Jews established their own tribunals—honor courts—for dealing with these crimes, while Israel held dozens of court cases against alleged collaborators under a law passed two years after its founding. In Jewish Honor Courts: Revenge, Retribution, and Reconciliation in Europe and Israel after the Holocaust , editors Laura Jockusch and Gabriel N. Finder bring together scholars of Jewish social, cultural, political, and legal history to examine this little-studied and fascinating postwar chapter of Jewish history.
The volume begins by presenting the rationale for punishing wartime collaborators and purging them from Jewish society. Contributors go on to examine specific honor court cases in Allied-occupied Germany and Austria, Poland, the Netherlands, and France. One essay also considers the absence of an honor court in Belgium. Additional chapters detail the process by which collaborators were accused and brought to trial, the treatment of women in honor courts, and the unique political and social place of honor courts in the nascent state of Israel. Taken as a whole, the essays in Jewish Honor Courts illustrate the great caution and integrity brought to the agonizing task of identifying and punishing collaborators, a process that helped survivors to reclaim their agency, reassert their dignity, and work through their traumatic experiences.
For many years, the honor courts have been viewed as a taboo subject, leaving their hundreds of cases unstudied. Jewish Honor Courts uncovers this forgotten chapter of Jewish history and shows it to be an integral part of postwar Jewish rebuilding. Scholars of Jewish, European, and Israeli history as well as readers interested in issues of legal and social justice will be grateful for this detailed volume.
This article deals with military honour in nineteenth-century Spain, after first examining how the meaning of this term evolved from the revolutionary Napoleonic wars onwards. This highly important ...moral value was learnt from the moment someone joined the army, and even before then, through education and common public military demonstrations. It related to individual behaviour, while also maintaining a high collective and corporative aspect, and it varied depending on gender or class and on the identity of the social group. It was part of the political thought of most relevant Spanish generals, and consequently it influenced the political dynamics of Spain. The Court of Honour, an institution in Spain that was not regulated until 1811, controlled honour compliance. The last section of this article focuses on how and why these institutions were born and explains their early legislative evolution. Spanish political and military development are inevitably bound together to the extent that an understanding of the nature of honour and its effects on the army and civilian ethics provides us with a deep socio-political and ethical analysis of the country during the nineteenth century.
PDF
