Auswahl der wissenschaftlichen Literatur zum Thema „Constitutions, Germany, 1919“

The Weimar Constitution of 1919 and the St Vitus Day Constitution of 1921 were quite different in many aspects. Their comparison is nevertheless of interest not only because it shows some influences of the older one to the younger, but also for the fact that it displays the line of developments of the two countries - Germany and Yugoslavia. If considered from the standpoint of parliamentary government, territorial organization of the two states and some other features the analysis of the respective constitutional developments leads to several conclusions. The two constitutions had their initial shortcomings, but those did not belong to the same area of constitutional law. In Germany they concerned the horizontal separation of powers, whereas in Yugoslavia they belonged to the vertical division of power. Both constitutions under survey ended up in dictatorships. In both countries, attempts were made in the course of history to remedy the initial shortcomings or constructive errors of the two constitutions. In Germany such attempts were successful, which on the contrary was not the case in Yugoslavia. Germany therefore became a well-functioning liberal democracy, while Yugoslavia failed and disappeared.

The research object of this study is the provisions of the Provisional Constitutions of 1918, 1919 and 1920 concerning the establishment of the Lithuanian legal system. The aim of the study was to determine what was the basis for the reception of foreign law and the particularism of the law, what law was recepted and what was the relationship between it and the newly created national law. The main methods used are systematic, teleological, historical, linguistic, and comparative. This article presents an original vision of recepted law and a critical assessment of the interwar Lithuanian governmental decision to completely eliminate recepted law. In the authors' opinion, law reception and particularism enshrined in the Provisional Constitutions met the expectations of the citizens, and the government’s ambition to completely eliminate recepted law in all areas of people’s activities in the intensive development of the national law was in line with the strategic interests of the state and society. Particularism was a natural expression of pluralism inherent in the Western legal tradition and had a great potential for the development of Lithuanian law, which was not exploited due to the negative appreciation of particularism and the attempt to eliminate it completely. Acts issued by the Russian authorities in 1914-1915 and by the German authorities in 1915-1918 restricted the rights of Lithuanian residents, severely restricted monetary and property relations, made it difficult to rebuild the country’s economy, providing for repressive or restrictive measures against the citizens of hostile states. The restored state of Lithuania endeavoured to establish peaceful relations with all states, including those with whom Russia and Germany were at war. Cancelling the law imposed by the Russian and German authorities during the war was a reasonable and useful decision of the Lithuanian State authorities. The interpretation of the constitutional provision «[laws] which existed before the war» as «which existed before August 1, 1914», common in the historical legal literature of Lithuania, is incorrect. The question what laws were recepted has to be addressed not by the date of the adoption o a certain act, but by its content – insofar it is linked or unrelated to the First World War. All acts by which the Russian Empire intervened or were preparing to intervene in this war shall be considered to be excluded from the legal system of the restored State of Lithuania in the sense of the constitutional norm «[laws] which existed before the war» and the general spirit of this Constitution. The system of constitutional control entrenched in the Provisional Constitutions, where a court or an executive authority verified the compliance of a recepted law with the Constitution before applying it is subject to criticism from the standpoint of contemporary legal science, but under the conditions of Lithuania of 1918-1920, it was flexible, fast, allowing citizens to raise the issue of the constitutionality of the law and present their arguments.

The article describes the main stages of modern Germany’s experience in building of the parliamentary democracy. The author defines the historical progress of the German state on the wayto the formation of democratic foundations that created the basis of modern society. Three German constitutions of 1871, 1919 and 1949 were considered, they formed the basis for the development of apostwar federal state. Particular attention is focused on the transformation of the three western occupation zones of Germany into the Federal Republic of Germany and the development of the BasicLaw, which was initially regarded as temporary constitution. The author also drew attention to external factors that significantly influenced the transformation of post-Nazi Germany and theformation of the Basic Law. The historical retrospective of the formation of the second German democratic state is presented in a broad international context.

Constitutional law and international law operate in simultaneous conjunction and reciprocal tension. Both fields seem to have overcome the great challenges of destruction and neglect in the course of the 20th century. Both after World War I and World War II the world experienced new waves of constitution making. In both cases the current German constitutions (the Weimar Constitution of 1919 and the Grundgesetz of 1949) were influential. Characteristic of constitution-making in this century, is the final victory of liberal constitutions based on the rule of law, the Rechtsstaat, fundamental rights, meaningful control of public powers and the establishment of constitutional courts. Following the destruction of World War II, the notion of the Sozialstaat emerged strongly in Germany. In contrast to the Constitution of the United States of America, the principle of the responsibility of the state for social justice has emerged in almost all new constitutions, including Russia, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Italy and Portugal. Where courts are given the mandate to interpret bills of rights, fundamental rights have been developed into foundation stones of the legal system. The presence in a Bill of Rights of restrictive clauses, is important for its analysis. Generally restrictive clauses in new constitutions try to limit the possibilities of restriction. The importance of constitutional rules establishing and legitimizing the political organs, must not be overlooked. Of particular importance is the degree of control over the head of state, a positive attitude among political actors towards the constitution and the protection of the interests of minorities in a democratic system. In the field of Public International Law much of Kant's ideal of an international confederation of peace has been realized. Since 1990 the United Nation's Security Council has shown the potential of becoming a directorate for the community ofnations. International law has also been instrumental in the worldwide recognition of human rights. Especially in Europe, Convention Law has had a strong impact. Furthermore, global and regional systems of regulation have tended to alter the legal attitude towards state sovereignty. It may be that the South African constitutional approach in terms of which international law is subject to constitutional and other national law, is not in line with international tendencies.

Sorokin, Pitirim Alexandrovich, born January 21,1889, in the small village of Turia in Russia [died 1968]. Student at the Teachers' Seminary in the province of Kostroma in Russia (1903–6), at the evening school in St. Petersburg (1907–9), at the Psycho- Neurological Institute in St. Petersburg (1910–14); Magistrant of Criminal Law (1915); Ph.D in Sociology (1922); Privatdozent at the Psycho-Neurological Institute (1914–16), at the University of St. Petersburg (1916–17); Professor of Sociology at the same university (1919–22); Professor of Sociology at the Agricultural Academy (1919–22), at the University of Minnesota (1924–30); Chairman of the Department of Sociology at Harvard University from 1930. Member of the Executive Committee of the All-Russian Peasant's Soviet (1917); Secretary to the Prime Minister [ Kerensky ] (1917); member of the Russian Constitutional Assembly (1918); sentenced to death and finally exiled by the communist administration (1922); emigrated to the United States (1923), naturalized (1930). Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Sociological Association; honorary member of the International Institute of Sociology of the Czechoslovakian Academy for Agriculture, of the German Sociological Society, and of the Ukrainian Sociological Society; President of the International Institute for Sociology (1936–37). Member of the Greek-Orthodox Church.

Abstract Most of the world’s constitutions contain clauses guaranteeing sex equality, and many also extend the special protection of the state to mothers. The constitutional protection of motherhood is undertheorized and neglected in global constitutional discourse, perhaps because jurisdictions like the United States view the special protection of women as contrary to gender equality. This Essay explores the feminist meanings and possibilities of constitutional motherhood clauses, by focusing on Germany, where they originated in 1919. While motherhood clauses have had complex relationships with a range of feminist agendas, they solidified the notion that social reproduction was a subject for constitutional lawmaking. Addressing twenty-first century gender inequalities requires a more robust engagement of women’s disproportionate burdens in social reproduction. Having opened up a constitutional discourse around the challenges of social reproduction, motherhood clauses and gender equality guarantees can drive the search for new solutions.

An attempt to compare Russian Tsar Alexander I was the head of the Grand Duchy of Finland, which the Russian army captured in 1809 as a result of the Russo-Swedish war. The final act of the Congress of Vienna of June 1815 decided to establish the Kingdom of Poland. Beside the title of Grand Duke of Finland tsar, Alexander I was awarded the title of the King of Poland. From that moment on, for over one hundred years, the fate of the Grand Duchy of Finland and the Kingdom of Poland was intertwined during the rule of five Russian tsars. The aim of this paper is to answer the question whether two different ways on the road to independence – romantic Polish way with national uprisings, and pragmatic Finnish, relative loyal to the Russian tsars – had an impact on their policy towards both nations. The Kingdom of Poland and the Duchy of Finland were autonomous, were in a personal union with Russian tsars, had their own constitutions, parliaments, armies, monetary systems and educational structures, and official activities were held in Polish (Polish Kingdom) and Swedish (in the Grand Duchy of Finland). Both countries also had their own universities. The first national uprising in the Kingdom of Poland, which broke out in November 1830, resulted in a wave of repression. The Constitution was replaced by the so-called The Organic Statute, the Sejm (the Parliament) and the independent army were liquidated. The Kingdom was occupied by the mighty Russian army, and in 1833 martial law was introduced. The second national uprising of January 1863 led to another wave of repression and intensive Russification of Polish territories. In 1867, the autonomy of the Kingdom of Poland, its name and budget were abolished. From 1872 the Polish language was only an optional choice. After 1863, the policy of the Russian authorities changed towards the Grand Duchy. A session of the Finnish parliament (Eduskunta) was convened for the first time since 1809, the new parliamentary law allowed the dissemination of the Finnish language. After the deadly assault on Alexander II in 1881, his son Alexander III made attempts to limit also Finland’s autonomy. The years 1899–1904 were called the first period of Russification in Finland (“the first period of oppression”). The Manifesto of June 1900 introduced obligatory Russian language in correspondence of officials with Russia. In 1901, the national Finnish army was liquidated. In Russia this was the beginning of the process of the empire’s unification into one cultural, political and economic system. After a short thaw as a result of the 1905 revolution in Russia, the Grand Duchy of Finland, the so-called “second period of oppression” and anti-Finnish politics took place. During the great war of 1914–1918, the Grand Duchy was on the side of Russia. The territories of the former Kingdom of Poland were under German rule since 1915. After the outbreak of the revolution in Russia, the Eduskunta (on 6 December 1917) passed a Declaration of Independence. After a short period of regency, on 19 July 1919, the Finns adopted the republican system with a parliamentary form of government. On 11 November 1918 Germany surrendered on the Western Front. On that day, the Regency Council in Warsaw handed over military authority to the Polish Legion commander Józef Piłsudski. Although Poland still had to fight for the final shape of the state, the 11th of November 1918 is considered the first day of recovered Polish independence.

Many of the new states that emerged or reconstituted themselves after the First World War used declarations of independence or preliminary constitutions, or both, as organic law until the adoption of a permanent constitution. The majority of those documents did not address the civil and political rights of citizens (e.g. Germany, Ireland) or did so very briefly (e.g. Austria, Czechoslovakia, Georgia, Latvia). Estonia stood out by having a whole chapter dedicated to civil rights in its preliminary constitution. The Preliminary Constitution of Estonia (valitsemise ajutine kord) was adopted by the Constituent Assembly (Asutav Kogu) on 4 June 1919, only six weeks after the Assembly first convened on 23 April 1919. The Constituent Assembly was elected and worked on the Preliminary Constitution at the time of the War of Independence between Estonia and Soviet Russia. Strong left-wing sentiment in the country’s society was reflected in the composition of the Assembly: social democrats held 41 seats, the Labour Party (tööerakond) held 30 seats, and Socialist-Revolutionaries (esseerid) held seven seats, together accounting for 65 per cent of the total 120 seats. The centrist People’s Party (rahvaerakond) led by the journalist and renowned politician Jaan Tõnisson had 25 seats, the centre-right Rural League (maaliit) led by another prominent politician and lawyer Konstantin Päts had only seven seats, the Christian People’s Party had five seats, three seats belonged to representatives of the German minority, and one seat went to the Russian minority. Similar proportions were reflected in the 15-member Constitution Committee that was elected on 24 April 1919. The first draft of the Preliminary Constitution, and of the Civil Rights Chapter as part of it, was allegedly prepared by a young legal scholar named Jüri Uluots. Uluots was a member of the Special Committee that was already convened by the Provisional Government in March of 1919 before the election of the Constituent Assembly. The Special Committee was composed of eight lawyers, each of whom was appointed by one of the major political parties. It was assigned the task to provide first drafts of the provisional and permanent constitutions. The Committee fulfilled only the first task. Due to disagreements in the Special Committee, the draft Preliminary Constitution was submitted to the Assembly without the Civil Rights Chapter. The Constituent Assembly processed the Preliminary Constitution Bill very quickly. The Assembly and its committees worked six days a week. It took about three weeks for the Constitution Committee to modify the Bill and submit it to the plenary session of the Assembly on 18 May 1919. The plenary session read the Bill three times and adopted it on 4 June 1919. The Preliminary Constitution entered into force on 9 July 1919 and was in force until 21 December 1920, when Estonia’s first Constitution entered into full force. The Committee spent considerable time on discussing the Civil Rights Chapter. Although concerns were expressed that the Committee was losing time with such discussions and suggestions were made to develop the chapter later as part of the permanent Constitution, the majority of the Committee deemed it important to also address civil rights in the Bill. Uluots, who had been elected to the Assembly as a candidate of the Rural League and was also a member of the Committee, submitted his draft Civil Rights Chapter to the Committee. Four out of eight sections in the Uluots draft found their way into the Chapter. These included equality before the law, civil and political rights and freedoms, and extraordinary restrictions. Sections regarding the right to participate in politics and the duty to obey the law (including military duty and the duty to pay taxes) were rejected at the plenary session, and the section regarding the right to private property was already omitted by the Committee. Also, the Committee preferred the social security provision proposed by the leader of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, the schoolmaster Hans Kruus, to the one included in the Uluots draft. The Committee added a new provision concerning education and rejected the right to choose occupations and engage in business proposed by a People’s Party member, the military officer Karl Einbund, and a provision entitling citizens to bring criminal charges against corrupt officials proposed by the social democrat, lawyer and journalist Johan Jans. The first section of the Uluots draft declared all citizens equal before the law. Disputes arouse over the second sentence of the provision. Uluots had proposed that all property and other rights relating to social ranks (the privileges of the nobility) should be abolished. The social democrats (Jans, the writer Karl Ast and others) demanded that privileges and titles should be abolished immediately. Their more moderate opponents (Uluots, Tõnisson, Westholm and others) feared that this would create a legal vacuum in property, inheritance and matrimonial rights. The majority of the Assembly supported the more radical approach and declared that there are no privileges and titles relating to ranks in Estonia. The law implementing the abolition was adopted a year later, in June of 1920. The school headmaster Jakob Westholm, a member of the People’s Party, and Villem Ernits, a social democrat, proposed that the Committee should include a provision concerning education. Their original proposal was scaled back by omitting the duration of mandatory elementary education and by deleting the right to free secondary and university education for talented students. The Preliminary Constitution eventually stipulated (§ 5) that education is compulsory for school age children and is free in elementary schools, and that every citizen is entitled to education in his/her mother tongue. The Committee combined civil and political rights, which were originally in two separate provisions in the Uluots draft, into one section (§ 6) stipulating that the inviolability of the person and home, secrecy of correspondence, freedom of conscience, religion, expression, language, press, assembly, association, and movement can only be restricted in accordance with the law. There were no disputes over the provision in the Committee or at the plenary session. The Committee preferred the proposal made by Kruus as the basis for further discussions on social security: “Every citizen will be guaranteed a decent standard of living according to which every citizen will have the right to receive the goods and support necessary for the satisfaction of his/her basic needs before less urgent needs of other citizens are satisfied. For that purpose, citizens must be guaranteed the obtaining of employment, the protection of motherhood and work safety, and necessary state support in the case of youth, old age, work disability and accidents.” While the last part of Kruus’ proposal was similar to Uluots’ draft and the term “decent standard of living” resembled the German menschenwürdiges Dasein (later adopted in Article 151 of the Weimar Constitution), the origin of the middle part of the provision remains unclear. The social security provision was by far the most extensively debated provision of the Chapter. The main issue was the state’s ability to fulfil its promises and whether social security should take the form of direct allowances or mandatory insurance.Views diverged even within the same parliamentary groups. The Committee replaced “will be guaranteed” with the less imperative “must be guaranteed in accordance with the law”. As a compromise, it deleted the middle part guaranteeing satisfaction of basic needs since it was deemed ‘too communist’ for many members. The plenary session supported adding the right to acquire land for cultivation and dwelling in the second sentence of the provision (§ 7) just before the adoption of the Bill. The last section in the Chapter (§ 8) provided that extraordinary restrictions of the rights and freedoms of citizens and the imposition of burdens come into force in the event of the proclamation of a state of emergency on the basis and within the limits of the corresponding laws. In the course of the discussions led by the lawyer and member of the Labour Party, Lui Olesk, the Committee turned the original general limitations clause into an emergency powers clause resembling similar provisions in the Russian Constitution of 1906 (Article 83) and the Austrian Basic Law on the General Rights of Nationals of 1867 (Article 20). Uluots urged the Committee to include protection of private property in the Bill as a safeguard against tyranny. The provision caused long and heated debates on the limits to nationalisation of private property, especially the principle of fair compensation. The provision was rejected by the majority of both the Committee and the plenary session. In anticipation of land reform, the deputies did not want to narrow down legal options for the expropriation of large estates owned mostly by the German nobility. After their defeat on the protection of private property, the right-wing members wished to protect freedom to choose an occupation and engage in business, trade, industry and agriculture. The majority refused again, arguing that during the war, there had been too much profiteering, and speculators do not deserve protection, and also that the government should have free hands to regulate industry. Without any long deliberations, the Committee also rejected the proposal to allow citizens to sue civil servants in criminal courts. Jans defended his proposal by pointing out the high level of corruption among officials and the need to provide the people with a means for self-defence. His opponents argued that Estonia had already set up administrative courts in February of 1919, providing citizens with an avenue for challenging the corrupt practices of officials. Committee and Assembly members also discussed the legal nature of the fundamental rights and freedoms included in the Bill. Some social democrats deemed it important to craft the provisions as guarantees that citizens can enforce against the state (Jans), but the majority deemed the provisions as political guidance for the legislator. Supporters of the latter view were afraid that direct enforceability of the Civil Rights Chapter would saddle the government with an unsurmountable economic burden. The state’s only directly binding obligation was probably the right to free elementary education.

With the split of Germany in the Western Länder, the constitutional process of framing the new political and legal reality in the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany of 1949 begins. In considering and discussing the draft Basic Law of the FRG, the Parliamentary Council chose the term "basic law" instead of "constitution". The choice of this expression was intended to emphasise that the task of the Parliamentary Council was not to create a legal regime for the whole of the united German state, but only for a particular part of it, which consisted of the eleven Western states. In line with this, the German statesman G. Peters pointed out that it was the title "Basic Law" which was intended to express the will of the German Länder not to create any new "Western German State", but "to construct only something temporary and territorially limited until such time as the Federal Republic of Germany". Thus, the notion of the Basic Law was intended to denote not a part, but a general arrangement of state life; not a permanent and durable, but a temporary order in the western part of Germany. This attribute also explains the differences with the concept of the constitution. The preamble to the Basic Law contains the fundamental ideas of German unity and is the basis for its interpretation in the spirit of its founders. As the main aim of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany the preamble indicates the need to safeguard the national and state unity of the German people. It seeks to establish a new free democratic state order. The legal basis for the unification of Germany was laid down in Article 23 of the Basic Law. This article, which listed the states of the FRG, stipulated that "in the remaining parts of Germany, the Basic Law shall take effect upon their accession". Consequently, according to this article, other parts of Germany could join the Federal Republic of Germany. The Basic Law of the FRG enshrined the idea of the formal constitutionality of German unification. Article 146 stipulated that a new constitution, adopted by "the free decision of the German people," was to be drawn up. The option of unification of Germany under Article 23 was envisaged by the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany equally with the possibility of unification under Article 146 of the Basic Law. This is confirmed by the position taken by the Federal Constitutional Court in its judgment of 31 July 1973: "A provision of Article 23 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany has a constitutional legal value of its own and is one of the essential precepts of the Basic Law. Therefore, the FRG is obliged, as soon as the legal possi-bility for the accession of the 'remaining parts' of Germany arises, to do everything necessary to bring about the unity of Germany. Thus, the constitutional and legal basis for the unification of Germany was laid down in the Basic Law of the FRG of 1949. Democracy and freedom in a Western-oriented environ-ment became the priority in the Federal Republic of Germany. The idea of the unity of the country, however, was not discarded and remained one of the leading objectives of the state in the Basic Law. The main guarantor of unification was the preamble, which stated the aim of achieving unity of the country, while Art 16, Art 23, Art 116, Art 146 set out the legal mecha-nisms for the future unification of Germany.

The Constitution of 17 March 1921 against the background of the post-war republican constitutions in Europe 1919–1922 After Poland regained its independence in November 1918, the parliament, acting as a constitutional body, enacted the Constitution of the Republic of Poland on 17 May 1921. It is worth setting this event against a broader background. After the First World War, new constitutions were created in Eastern Europe, in particular in those states that had to build their political system from scratch, for example because they appeared on the map of Europe for the first time in history or were reinstated after a long break. These states, or more precisely their elites, had to draw on foreign ideas and achievements due to lack of their own experience. For the states that chose the republican system and disregarded the solutions contained in the constitutions of the United States and Switzerland, the Third Republic of France became a very important source of inspiration, thanks to the regulations contained in the three constitutional acts of 1875, as well as constitutional practice. Admittedly, from 1879 onwards, the constitutional practice increasingly diverged from the letter of the law set out in these three acts. Another source of inspiration for some of the new states in Eastern Europe was the constitution of the German Reich, adopted in 1919. In our part of Europe, if we exclude Estonia, Finland, and Austria – which made an effort to develop their own, sometimes unique, political solutions – it can be noted that the achievements of the Third Republic, in terms of the letter of law and political practice, became a decisive source of inspiration for Poland and Czechoslovakia, while the German Basic Law served as a model for Latvia (to a greater extent) and Lithuania (to a lesser extent). The choices made by the political elites of Poland and Czechoslovakia, however, differed in one fundamental aspect. Poland took as its point of departure the constitutional practice of the Third Republic, formed since 1879, while Czechoslovakia took the letter of the Constitutional Act of 1875. This substantially and differently moulded the form of the political system of each of these states, and subsequently its functioning in practice. Already in the interwar period, it became clear that the decisions taken in Warsaw to make the Sejm the highest organ in the state, modelled after the Chamber of Deputies in France, were less “correct” than the solutions adopted in Prague. In Czechoslovakia, the principle of the separation of powers was taken as the starting point. The principle of the balance of powers was then referred to and the roles of the legislative and executive branches were precisely defined so that this balance would really exist. In this way, the smooth operation of both powers was guaranteed, not only in their relations with each other, but also on a national scale. In Czechoslovakia, the architects of the constitution took into account the principle of the separation of powers alongside the principle of their balance, while in Poland the latter principle was absent, at first in the text of the constitution, and then in practice in the years 1922–1926.

This dissertation examines the evolution of federal government in the German Empire from the unification in 1871 to the collapse of the monarchy in 1918. The story of how the imperial federal state changed over the years has hitherto been hidden from view by disciplinary biases and methodological limitations. While concentrating on how Germany’s peculiar form of government oscillated between a Western-style constitutional monarchy and a semi-absolutist autocracy, historians have failed to make sense of deeper systemic issues. In order to move these to the centre of analysis, the thesis combines different perspectives from history, law, and political theory. This approach exposes an extraordinary development. The 1871 constitution left Germany’s organisational nature largely undefined. The new national state possessed only very few institutions and competences. There was not even a national government. The Reich completely depended on the constituent states. This weakness was no coincidence. Bismarck’s plan was to secure the dominance of the Prussian monarchy by giving the union enough flexibility to develop either into an integrated composite state or a loose cooperative assembly of states. But the decades after unification turned out differently. By seizing control over the Prussian administration, the federal bureaucracy gradually acquired so many competences that by the outbreak of the First World War Germany had changed into a centralised state. Rather than by the collaboration of the monarchical state governments, national decision-making was now shaped by the competition and cooperation of the federal parliament – the Reichstag – and the newly emerged federal government around the Chancellor. This transformation came about, the thesis argues, because both monarchical and democratic actors – above all the Prussian government, the federal bureaucracy, and the national parliament – saw federal structures primarily as an instrument of power to be manipulated for their own purposes, namely for the preservation of princely prerogatives or for the expansion of parliamentary rights. There was little respect for federalism as an organisational principle that was beneficial per se. Rather, most executives, administrators, and parliamentarians understood Germany’s federal organisation – albeit for different reasons – as a necessary evil and a means to an end. This attitude had a lasting impact on German political culture, with federal structures remaining at the mercy of power interests throughout the twentieth century. The dissertation is woven from three different strands. By combining them, it can draw connections that would not come into view if it concentrated on just one of these themes. First, it is a history of German federalism that focuses on the key question of the political history of the Empire: who or what actually governed Germany? As it thus exposes the anatomy of power in the imperial state, it is also a contribution to one of the biggest controversies in modern European history, namely the debate on Germany’s alleged ‘special path’: where did Germany go wrong? Thirdly and lastly, the thesis offers a systemic analysis of federal structures whose observations are relevant for federal orders – such as the European Union – more generally.

The aim of the PhD thesis is to describe the emergence and functioning of the Deutschböhmen and Sudetenland provinces' governments proclaimed by Czech, Moravian and Silesian Germans in the autumn of 1918 and consecutively to compare their practical politics in the selected fields. The emphasize is put especially on the building of the state administration and defence mechanisms, foreign political relations as well as relations with the Czech minority inhabiting the disputed territory. The thesis should contribute to understanding the extent to which the declaration of these provinces was an immediate response to developments in Central Europe, or whether it was the result of long-term trends in Czech-German relations. One of its parts is dedicated to conceptions of a dissolution of the Czech lands, which were created in the years 1848-1918. Conclusion of this thesis is focused on the comparsion of the political activities of the both provincional governments and author tries to answer the question, how much are these policies similar and which governement better reacted to he challenges of the turning points of the autumn 1918.

AbstractGerman public administration is rooted in the tradition of the Rechtsstaat, which aims at the protection of human dignity and individual freedom by providing rules, principles and institutions that ensure the prevention of arbitrary state action and the protection of individual rights. At supranational and international levels, the principle of the Rechtsstaat has been merging with the common law concept of the rule of law. A dynamic interpretation of the Basic Law (the German constitution) of 1949 by the Federal Constitutional Court has constantly specified and extended the normative scope of the fundamental rights, which are directly binding on the legislative, executive and judicial powers. The constitutional principle of the social state (Sozialstaat) has enhanced not only the dynamic evolution of the law, but also the creation of largely equivalent levels of infrastructure and services in the different territories of the German state.

Adult education has multiple histories in countries around the globe. In the case of Germany, the year 1919 is of high importance, as the Volkshochschulen (vhs)—literally translated as folk high schools, more broadly as adult education centres—became a constitutional matter. Today, they are the largest institutionalized form of adult education in Germany with millions of participants every year. In 1969, the ongoing international activities of the vhs were insti-tutionalized into what is known today as DVV International. This year’s celebrations are used for contextualizing the development of adult education and thus for remembering the past with a view to the future of our profession.

This chapter provides answers to some common objections to the case for a new written constitution. It refers to the argument against written constitutions that state they are unnecessary or insufficient for a flourishing democratic state. It reviews cases where seemingly well-intentioned democratic written constitutions have failed and were unable to contain or withstand the forces of oligarchy or authoritarian populism. The chapter talks about the German Constitution of 1919 as the most notorious example of such a failed constitution, which ultimately could not save the Weimar Republic from Adolf Hitler and Nazi tyranny. It claims that many of the European constitutions of that era suffered a similar fate as inter-war Germany, such as the Polish Constitution of 1921 that failed to provide a stable foundation for democracy and was replaced in 1935 by an authoritarian constitution concentrating power in the hands of the President.

Abstract Unlike the situation in other socialist Eastern European states, the revolution of 1989 did not lead to an internal rejuvenation or to a new constitution in the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Instead, the GDR acceded to the Federal Republic of Germany and the West German Constitution was adopted. At the end of the post-war era, therefore, the particular position which the GDR had occupied from the start once again becomes apparent. After the Second World War, only the smaller part of Germany had come under the control of the Soviet Union. What had been intended as an administrative division into occupation zones led to the emergence of two states with antagonistic constitutions, an outcome representing not the wish of the Germans but the will of the Allied Powers. Both German states, however, stressed in their respective constitutions reunification as a goal, albeit under different assumptions about the political order.

Abstract This chapter describes the course of the Revolution in Austria that resulted in the creation of the Republic and the Constitution of 1920. The loss of the Habsburg Court as a site of monarchical legitimacy and of the Empire as a system of meaning and self-identity left German-speaking Austrians in a dreadful dilemma. No longer citizens of a great multinational empire, they were compelled to search for new structures of civic community and new modes for the exercise of legitimate power. In contrast to Germany, where the army, the “Junkers,” and “militarism” shared in the objectification of guilt, the Habsburg dynasty and its subservient bureaucracy in Austria became the most convenient scapegoat for war-guilt acrimony. This chapter describes the jockeying for power that defined the early weeks and months of the Revolution, and fatefully, how the Czech occupation of the German-speaking parts of Bohemia and Moravia eliminated those electoral constituencies from voting in the national elections for the Constituent Assembly called for February 1919. The loss of the Sudeten territories—the former heartland of German Nationalist politics in the old Empire—meant that “small” republican Austria would become exclusively defined by the Alpine lands and Vienna, and, in turn, that the control of the new Republic would rest in the hands of a coalition government made up of the Christian Socials and Social Democrats. Both of these ideological parties were then forced to collaborate in writing a new constitution for the Republic, the first draft of which was prepared by Hans Kelsen. Once the constitution was approved in 1920, the revolutionary Coalition collapsed and the Social Democrats, now led by Otto Bauer, abandoned Karl Renner’s hope for ongoing cooperation with the Catholics and went into what became a permanent minority opposition for the rest of the First Republic.

Abstract The most striking thing about the German revolution was the unrelenting intransigence of the SPD’s moderation. Rather than harnessing working-class militancy, the leaders did their best to suppress it. The SPD upheld the constitutional reforms of late September 1918 in the hour of Germany’s military defeat, as the old regime tried to legitimize itself for negotiating with the Western Allies. For the SPD Right, this constitutional transition completed the policies of August 1914. It vindicated their patriotism. The measures making Germany a constitutional monarchy, reached after the SPD joined the coalition government on 3 October, already satisfied the party’s cochairmen, Friedrich Ebert and Philipp Scheidemann. The party’s impending parliamentary dominance seemed sufficient guarantee of further reforms.

This chapter looks at the German system of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation, which has been borrowed by virtually all of the civil law countries in the world as being the one that is the most compatible with their legal system. The historical lessons drawn from Germany’s experience with the Third Reich made Germans acutely aware of the need for constitutional protection of rights growing out of the great historical wrongs of Nazism and of the Holocaust. Thus, the fundamental core explanation of the origins and growth of German judicial review is that it is a rights from wrongs phenomenon. That being said, the growth of German judicial review was made easier by the fact that the German Basic Law constituted the Constitutional Court to act as a federalism and separation of powers umpire. The German Constitutional Court has performed those umpiring function from 1949 down to the present day with great deftness and ability. Thanks to the great scholar, Hans Kelsen, the Germans borrowed a greatly modified system of U.S. judicial review, which was specially designed to work well in civil law countries. The German Model has, in turn, been borrowed by every oother country discussed in Volume II of my two part book series.

Abstract Why has a fascination with Germany under Otto von Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm II persisted to this day, even though a more recent and darker period of German history— the Third Reich — competes for attention? The following chapters provide their own answers to this question and suggest starting points for further study. They consider the German Empire (das Deutsche Reich) of 1871 – 1918, which emerged from the diverse collection of kingdoms, grand duchies, principalities, and free cities in central Europe. This new empire was a semi-parliamentary constitutional monarchy of about 41 million inhabitants (growing to over 65 mil- lion in 1914). It was founded in January 1871 not only on the basis of Bismarck’s ‘blood and iron’ policy in the 1860s but also with the support of liberal nationalists. Under Bismarck and Wilhelm II, Germany became the dynamo of Europe. Its economic and military power were pre-eminent; German science and technology, education, and municipal administration were the envy of the world; and its avant-garde artists reflected the ferment in European culture. But Germany also played a decisive role in tipping Europe’s fragile balance of power over the brink and into the cataclysm of the First World War, eventually leading to the empire’s collapse in military defeat and revolution in November 1918.

One of the important magazines of the Second Constitutional period was the magazine Şehbâl, which was published between 14 March 1909 and 14 July 1914. Political events and comments in Şehbâl magazine; culture, literature, music; painting, sculpture, architecture; health,sport; inventions and inventions, discoveries, accounting, humor, fashion, make-up, embroidery, housework; articles on many subjects such as information about new publications and selections from English, French, German and American magazines have been published. Another important feature of Şehbâl magazine is that it organizes competitions on various subjects. One of these competitions organized by the Magazine is The Competition to Find an Equal to The Twelve Foreign Words In this competition, it was requested to find the equivalents of the words bibliographie, boycottage, caprice, caricature, clup, conference, concert, decor, monologue, paradoxe, surprise, taximetre. Various words were suggested to this competition by 517 people. However, none of the suggested words are used in standard Turkey Turkish instead of the desired word. However, this competition is important in terms of showing the influence of foreign languages on Turkish and the awareness and resistance shown against this influence. Key words: Şehbâl Magazine, Competition, Second Constitutional, Foreign Languages, Turkish Equivalent.

В статье анализируется становление австрийского федеративного государства в 1918–1920 гг. В течение этого времени Австрия прошла путь от классической империи с монархической формой правления к федеративной республике. Государство возникло на части территории Австро-Венгрии в результате ее распада осенью 1918 г., причиной которого стал рост национально-освободительных движений населявших ее народов. Становление австрийского государства происходило двумя путями: «сверху», через взаимодействие политических партий, и «снизу», благодаря инициативе земель. Законами от 30.10 и 12.11.1918 провозглашалось создание республики Немецкая Австрия как части немецкого государства. В 1920 г. была принята демократическая конституция, закрепившая федеративное государственное устройство. Поскольку принятию Конституции предшествовали переговоры между представителями политических партий и земель, ее можно характеризовать как договор. Важнейшим источником австрийской конституции стал Сен-Жерменский мирный договор, которым утверждалась независимость Австрии. В соответствии с ним государство стало называться «Республика Австрия». Автор приходит к выводу об успешности создания австрийского федеративного государства в годы Первой республики. Федерализм как принцип государственного устройства предотвратил дезинтеграцию собственно австрийских земель и заложил основы государственности Австрии. Одновременно он способствовал развитию самостоятельности, инициативы и культурного многообразия австрийских земель. Социал-демократы, придя к власти в Вене, получили возможности проведения там социальных реформ «Красной Вены». The article analyzes the formation of the Austrian federal state in 1918-1920. During this time, Austria went from a classical empire with a monarchical form of government to a federal republic. The state was created on a part of the territory of Austria-Hungary, which disintegrated in the autumn of 1918, due to the growth of national liberation movements of the peoples dwelling in the empire. The formation of the Austrian state took place in two ways: through the interaction of political parties, and thanks to the initiative of the lands (Länder). The acts of 30.10 and 12.11.1918 proclaimed the foundation of the republic of German Austria as part of the German state. In 1920 a democratic constitution was adopted, which created the Austrian Federation. The Constitution can be characterized as a contract, because its adoption was preceded by negotiations between representatives of political parties and lands. An important source of the Austrian constitution was the Saint-Germain Peace Treaty, which consolidated the independence of Austria. In accordance with it, the state became known as the "Republic of Austria". The author comes to the conclusion about the success of the creation of the Austrian federation in the years of the First Republic. Federalism as a principle of state structure prevented the disintegration of the Austrian lands and laid the foundations of Austrian statehood. At the same time, it promoted the development of autonomy, initiative and cultural diversity of the Austrian lands. The Social Democrats who came to power in Vienna were given the opportunity to carry out social reforms of the "Red Vienna" there.

Abstract In this paper, three goals are attacked, namely synthesis of nanostructured hydroxyapatite (HA) powder, obtaining HA phase constitution close to that of the bone hydroxyapatite, and preserving the initial HA composition and crystal structure in the sprayed coating. HA-aluminum composite coatings are produced using the cold gas dynamic spray method (CGDS). It is observed that the CGDS process enables the application of coatings without changing the phase composition of the HA, whereby the HA biocompatibility is retained. Paper includes a German-language abstract.

Географический фактор играет двоякую роль в истории Финляндии и ее взаимоотношений с внешним миром. С одной стороны, территориальное положение на окраине Европы обусловило то, что финны сравнительно поздно включились в цивилизационный процесс. С другой стороны, земли, омываемые водами дальних заливов Балтийского моря, находятся в одном из наиболее важных со стратегической точки зрения европейских регионов. Хотя к «финским территориям» издавна проявляли интерес также Англия, Германия и Франция, влияние извне связано для финнов прежде всего с соперничеством ближайших соседей. Политический вакуум, в котором финны пребывали вплоть до начала XI в., пытались заполнить с запада – Швеция и римскокатолическая церковь, с востока – Россия (Великий Новгород) и православная церковь. Первая граница между Швецией и Россией была установлена в 1323 г. Согласно Ореховскому мирному договору Швеция получила юго-западные и западные финляндские территории, Россия – Восточную Карелию. В XVIII в. Россия приступила к поэтапному возвращению финляндских земель, присоединив Финляндию по итогам войны 1808–1809 гг. В границах архиконсервативной Российской империи родилось и постепенно оформилось финляндское государство западного типа. Финляндия получила широкую политическую и экономическую автономию – правительство, четырехсословный орган народного представительства (сейм), налоговую и финансовую систему, свое гражданство, валюту и пр. Финляндию от новой метрополии изначально отделяла таможенная граница. Главой законодательной власти являлся император, управлявший Финляндией на основе коренных законов (конституции) шведского времени. Будучи частью Российского государства, Финляндия постепенно стала политической общностью, а также одним из наиболее экономически развитых регионов империи. Уступки со стороны России были связаны с необходимостью обеспечить безопасность западной границы. The geographical factor plays a twofold role in the history of Finland and its relations with the outside world. On the one hand, the territorial situation on the edge of Europe caused the Finns to join the civilizational process relatively late. On the other hand, the lands washed by the waters of the far reaches of the Baltic Sea are located in one of the most strategically important European regions. Although England, Germany and France have long been interested in the "Finnish territories", external influence for Finns is primarily connected with the hostility of their closest neighbors. It was the political vacuum in which the Finns remained until the beginning of the XI century, that Sweden and the Roman Catholic Church tried to fill from the west, Russia (Veliky Novgorod) and the Orthodox Church – from the east. The first border between Sweden and Russia was established in 1323. According to the Orekhov Peace Treaty, Sweden received the southwestern and western Finnish territories, Russia – East Karelia. In the XYIII century Russia began the gradual return of the Finnish lands, annexing Finland after the results of the war of 1808–1809. Within the borders of the arch-conservative Russian Empire, a Western-type Finnish state was born and gradually took shape. Finland received a wide political and economic autonomy – the government, the four–member body of the People's representation (Seim), the tax and financial system, its citizenship, currency, etc. Finland and the new metropolis were initially separated by the customs border. The head of the legislative power was the emperor, who ruled Finland on the basis of the fundamental laws (constitution) of the Swedish period. Being a part of the Russian state, Finland gradually became a political community, as well as one of the most economically developed regions of the empire. Russia's concessions were determined by the need to ensure the security of the western border.

On 4 February 2022, the Polish Journal of Laws published a new ordinance of the Minister of Education and Science, implementing cuts in the funding of education of German as a minority language. Consequently, the hourly length of such lessons will be significantly reduced. This regulation applies exclusively to the German minority, and the official motive for introducing discriminatory measures is to improve the situation of Polish diaspora in Germany. This is the first time after 1989 when the Polish state authorities introduce a law limiting the rights of Poland’s citizens belonging to a national minority (in this situation children), as a retaliation for the alleged situation of a kin-community elsewhere. Importantly, the adopted regulations are not only discriminatory towards one of the minorities; their implementation may in fact contribute to the dysfunctionality of the entire minority education system in Poland. This is also an obvious violation of the constitutional principle of equality before the law, the right of minorities to ‘maintain and develop their own language’, international standards of minority rights protection, as well as a threat to the very functioning of human rights protection mechanisms in the country.