Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne
Not a member yet
3153 research outputs found
Sort by
Kolokwium habilitacyjne dra Jana Majchrowskiego
Get PDFKolokwium habilitacyjne dra Jana Majchrowskieg
„Dla powszechnego rozwoju, podniesienia i poprawy naszego księstwa”. Lokacje miast mazurskich w Prusach Książęcych (1525-1701)
Get PDFThe article presents the process of creation of new towns in the Duchy of Prussia (1525-1701), which later became Masuria. More specifically, the paper describes how a hamlet received a location privilege. The establishment of towns described here (Olecko, Gołdap, Węgorzewo, Giżycko, Pisz and Ełk) was initiated by Albert, the Duke of Prussia (1525-1568). He was motivated by the idea partially formulated in the location privilege: “For the general growth, elevation and betterment of our duchy”. The duke personally granted the location privilege only to Olecko, which was the sole town established on previously unsettled land. In the remaining cases, he only gave a verbal promise. This did not guarantee a rapid grant of the location privilege as the promise was fulfilled by the duke’s successors in the remaining cases. It happened first in case of Gołdap and Węgorzewo, just several years after the promise had been made. It took a little longer in case of Giżycko (after several decades), while Pisz and Ełk had to wait the longest (almost or more than 100 years). Each town had its own different origins. Gołdap was created quickly (1565-1570) on an area which used to be a duke’s grange. Węgorzewo, Giżycko, Pisz and Ełk waited for several hundred years for a legally binding location privilege. It is important to note that each of the aforementioned towns was established near a former castle of the Teutonic Order. Moreover, the hamlets which developed near the former castles had a different status but they all performed a market or craft function. With time, this function served as a basis for applying for the town privilege. The market function was originally carried out by the peasant hamlets in Węgrorzewo and Giżycko, even though the towns were created on the tenant farmer villages. Furthermore, the old peasant hamlets still functioned but as the contemporary out-of-town jurydykas (German Schloβfreiheit). Pisz was established on the basis of an old peasant hamlet and it never was a tenant farmer village. In case of Ełk it was the exact opposite, there never was a separate peasant hamlet. The tenant farmer village located there evolved into a town. Only two towns were founded due to the inhabitants’ initiative, namely Olecko and Gołdap. The remaining ones were established collectively by the whole community. Most frequently, it took place with the participation of the inhabitants of the former hamlets (Giżycko, Pisz, and Ełk). The former inhabitants did not participate in the process of town building only in the case of Węgorzewo and Gołdap. Generally speaking, each location privilege described here gave the towns the so-called town privilege (German Stadtrecht). It described in detail the area of land and the type of the town privilege which was granted (Culm law in each case). Moreover, it allowed the creation of town authorities (mayor, council and bench) and granted them the option to issue documents and statutes (German Willkür) as well as allowed them to possess a seal. Furthermore, it allowed the towns to organize markets and fairs on certain fixed dates as well as regulated the rights and obligations of the townsmen. Even though the location privilege formally meant the end of the town creation process as far the law was concerned, it did not mean that it was the end of its formation. Further steps had to be made to constitute the authorities and the bench, to write statutes (German Willkür), guild regulations, etc
Krystyna Kamińska, Andrzej Gaca, Historia powszechna ustrojów państwowych, 2011
Get PDFKrystyna Kamińska, Andrzej Gaca, Historia powszechna ustrojów państwowych, 201
Kilka uwag na temat pojęcia rozwoju w myśli politycznej i prawnej
Get PDFKilka uwag na temat pojęcia rozwoju w myśli politycznej i prawne
Armenii droga do leninowsko-kemalowskiego rozbioru (1917–1921)
Get PDFAfter the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia, the former nations of the Russian Empire searched for the possibility of forming their own independent countries. The situation was the same with three nations of Transcaucasia, namely Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. After the separatist Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (signed on the 3rd of March 1918), Bolshevik Russia in practice gave away the Transcaucasia region to Germany and Turkey. Especially Turkey assumed an aggressive and annexationist stance at the time. And it was the Armenians who mainly put up the resistance. Armenia, together with Azerbaijan and Georgia, first created the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic. However, the state was short-lived and it soon collapsed due to different approaches to preserving independence by the three countries. Azerbaijan tried to unite with Turkey, Georgia with Germany,while Armenia counted on the White movement Russians (led by General Denikin). Each of the three countries formed separate independent republics and one of them was the First Republic of Armenia. Germany and Turkey lost the First World War soon after but Caucasia was first attacked from the north by the White General Anton Denikin, who was supported by England and France. And later (in 1920) the country was invaded by the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks, thanks to the military might of the Red Army, overthrew the independent governments of those republics one by one. Subsequently, they introduced their own governments and annexed the countries into the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). The RSFSR signed the Treaty of Brotherhood with Turkey on the 16th of March 1921, which was mainly directed against Great Britain and France. In order to realize this alliance, Russia and Turkey divided between themselves the Armenianlands
Instytucja sędziego śledczego w II Rzeczypospolitej
Get PDFThe institution of an investigating judge emerged in all three parts of then partitioned Poland at almost the same time, i.e. in the 70s of the 19th century, as the Austrians introduced it in 1873, the Russians in 1876, and the Germans in 1877. The very idea of an investigating judge and its model, however, derives from the legal system of Napoleonic France. During the period between two World Wars, the institution of an investigating judge functioned fi rst, as part of the legislation inherited from the occupant’s legal system, and then as part of the Polish legal system resulting, mainly, from the implementation of the ordinance on the regime of common courts of law of 1928 and the code of criminal procedure of the same year. The function of an investing judge was for and foremost connected with the preliminary stage of criminal proceedings, and the investigation process in particular. However, the main overall task of that stage was protection of an individual’s rights in a criminal proceeding. In the twenty years’ history of the interwar Poland, the role of an investigating judge in a criminal proceeding had been gradually limited, while the prosecutor’s role had increasingly strengthened. Although the prosecutor’s supervision sensu stricto was formally non-existent, a prosecutor could, inmany cases, restrict a judge’s independence by issuing binding conclusions. Such practice was further facilitated by the fact that the Ministry of Justice’s policy was to recruit for the position of an investigating judge from among the least experienced, usually junior judges. Thus the institution of an investigating judge was subsequently subjected to strong criticism by many lawyers, both theorists as well as practitioners of a criminal trial. Its supporters criticised the infl uence that procurators could exercise on the judges and demanded their independence of the former, whereas its critics questioned the very sense or idea of an investigating judge, emphasising that it only constituted an interim form between a prosecuting organ and an independent court and, as such, performed neither of those two had functions suffi ciently satisfactory
