POLEMIKE O STATUSU DRŽAVE I KRALJEVINE SHS

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW Pravni Vjesnik Pub Date : 2020-12-31 DOI:10.25234/pv/10902
Igor Ivašković
{"title":"POLEMIKE O STATUSU DRŽAVE I KRALJEVINE SHS","authors":"Igor Ivašković","doi":"10.25234/pv/10902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article aims mainly at analyzing the issue of legal (dis)continuity between the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (hereinafter the Kingdom of SCS) within the context of an international dispute between Germany and the Kingdom of SCS, and to revealing the reasons for different court decisions interpretations in a particular case. By using the techniques of historical-legal and analytical methods in researching into documents and secondary opinions given by politicians and constitutional lawyers, the paper first gives a brief overview of international circumstances that enabled the post-war states formation. It also summarizes different opinions regarding the legal status of the State of SCS and the character of the First-December Act taking into account historical and modern international and constitutional criteria. The conclusion is made in the context of discussion regarding the central issue that Ivan Žolger’s interpretation that despite the verdict in the particular case, the Kingdom of SCS was a new state, since it was not created in accordance with the 1903 Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbia. In addition to the argument that the State of SCS met the basic criteria of statehood, and that the formation of the Kingdom of SCS interrupted the constitutional continuity of the Kingdom of Serbia, the contribution of the paper lies in the argument that different legal opinions were not so much the result of legal ambiguities, but primarily a reflection of one, out of many, political battles fought between the conflicting state ideologies.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pravni Vjesnik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/10902","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The article aims mainly at analyzing the issue of legal (dis)continuity between the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (hereinafter the Kingdom of SCS) within the context of an international dispute between Germany and the Kingdom of SCS, and to revealing the reasons for different court decisions interpretations in a particular case. By using the techniques of historical-legal and analytical methods in researching into documents and secondary opinions given by politicians and constitutional lawyers, the paper first gives a brief overview of international circumstances that enabled the post-war states formation. It also summarizes different opinions regarding the legal status of the State of SCS and the character of the First-December Act taking into account historical and modern international and constitutional criteria. The conclusion is made in the context of discussion regarding the central issue that Ivan Žolger’s interpretation that despite the verdict in the particular case, the Kingdom of SCS was a new state, since it was not created in accordance with the 1903 Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbia. In addition to the argument that the State of SCS met the basic criteria of statehood, and that the formation of the Kingdom of SCS interrupted the constitutional continuity of the Kingdom of Serbia, the contribution of the paper lies in the argument that different legal opinions were not so much the result of legal ambiguities, but primarily a reflection of one, out of many, political battles fought between the conflicting state ideologies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
本文的主要目的是在德国和斯洛文尼亚王国之间的国际争端背景下,分析塞尔维亚王国和塞尔维亚、克罗地亚和斯洛文尼亚王国(以下简称“斯洛文尼亚王国”)之间的法律连续性问题,并揭示在特定案件中法院判决解释不同的原因。本文运用历史法学和分析方法研究政治家和宪法律师的文件和次要意见,首先简要概述了战后国家形成的国际环境。考虑到历史和现代国际及宪法标准,它还总结了关于SCS国法律地位和12月1日法案性质的不同意见。这一结论是在讨论核心问题的背景下得出的,即Ivanžolger的解释是,尽管对特定案件作出了裁决,但SCS王国是一个新国家,因为它不是根据1903年塞尔维亚王国宪法建立的。除了认为SCS国符合建国的基本标准,SCS王国的成立中断了塞尔维亚王国的宪法连续性之外,本文的贡献还在于,不同的法律意见与其说是法律模糊的结果,相互冲突的国家意识形态之间的政治斗争。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
PRIKAZ KNJIGE: BRANKA REŠETAR, KOMENTAR OBITELJSKOG ZAKONA (KNJIGA I.), ORGANIZATOR D.O.O., ZAGREB, 2022. SINTAGME S FUNKCIONALNIM GLAGOLIMA KAO IZAZOV U PREVOĐENJU PRAVNIH TEKSTOVA S NJEMAČKOGA NA HRVATSKI JEZIK OBITELJSKOPRAVNA REGULACIJA CRESKO-OSORSKOG STATUTA IZ 1441. GODINE TROUBLED WATERS : CROATIAN SEASHORE AS RES EXTRA COMMERCIUM IN COMMERCIO NAGODBA (PORAVNANJE) KAO POSEBNI INSTITUT UGOVORNOG PRAVA
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1