scholarly journals LIETUVOS VALSTYBĖS VADOVO INSTITUTAS 1990–1992 m.

Teisė ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 92 ◽  
pp. 148-155
Author(s):  
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Independent State ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Supreme Council ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic

Seime įregistruotas įstatymo „Dėl Lietuvos Respublikos Aukščiausiosios Tarybos – Atkuriamojo Seimo Pirmininko teisinio statuso“ projektas1, kuriame konstatuojama, kad 1990–1992 m. dirbusios Aukščiausiosios Tarybos – Atkuriamojo Seimo Pirmininkas yra valstybės vadovas. Seimo nariai projektą vertina nevienodai: vieni teigia, kad toks įstatymas yra būtinas, kiti tvirtina, kad jis prieštarauja Konstitucijai ir Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo (toliau Konstitucinio Teismo) 2002 m. birželio 19 d. nutarimui. Aukščiausiosios Tarybos – Atkuriamojo Seimo Pirmininko teisinis statusas mokslinėje literatūroje mažai nagrinėtas2. Aukščiausiosios Tarybos – Atkuriamojo Seimo Pirmininko teisinio statuso analizė ir jo įprasminimas įstatymu yra būtinas, siekiant užtikrinti teisinį aiškumą ir tikrumą bei įtvirtinti atkurtos nepriklausomos Lietuvos valstybės vadovo institucijos istorinį ir teisinį tęstinumą nuo to laiko, kai po Lietuvos nepriklausomybės atkūrimo 1918 m. vasario 16 d. buvo išrinktas pirmasis Lietuvos Respublikos Prezidentas.  A draft Law “On the Legal Status of the Chairman of the Supreme Council-Reconstituent Seimas” has been registered at the Seimas, in which it is stated that the Chairman of the 1990–1992 Supreme Council-Reconstituent Seimas was the Head of State. The members of the Seimas are somewhat ambivalent about the draft law: some of them assert that such a law is necessary, whereas some others maintain that this law is in conflict with the Constitution and the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 19 June 2002. According to the Provisional Basic Law (Provisional Constitution), the Chairman of the 1990–1992 Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania was the highest official of the Republic of Lithuania with the powers to represent the Republic of Lithuania in international relations, to sign laws of the Republic of Lithuania and other acts passed by the Supreme Council, hold talks and sign international treaties of Lithuania, and submit them for ratification to the Supreme Council. He also had the powers to recommend candidates for the appointment or election to the posts of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Lithuania, the President of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, chairmen of divisions of this court, the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Lithuania, etc. The Provisional Basic Law (Provisional Constitution) does not contain the words “the Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania shall be Head of State”, however, it does not mean that the independent State of Lithuania restored on 11 March 1990, purportedly, did not have any institution of its Head of State, and that the Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania, purportedly, was not Head of State. The fact that the Chairman of the Supreme Council was Head of State is confirmed by the provision “[t]he Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania shall be the highest official of the Republic of Lithuania” of the Provisional Basic Law and by the powers provided for the Chairman of the Supreme Council. The compliance of the provisions of the draft Law “On the Legal Status of the Chairman of the Supreme Council-Reconstituent Seimas” with the Constitution of 1992 that is valid at present cannot be questioned on the grounds that, purportedly, this draft law is not in line with both the Provisional Basic Law of 1990 and such a concept of its provisions that were presented by the Constitutional Court in its ruling of 19 June 2002. This draft law should only be viewed through the prism of the Constitution of 1992 that is valid at present.

scholarly journals Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Terhadap Pembubaran Partai Politik Di Indonesia

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-239
Author(s):  
Hasir Budiman Ritonga
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Party Members ◽  
The Republic

Judicial power in Indonesia under the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia shall be exercised by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. One of the authority of the Constitutional Court according to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia is to decide the dissolution of political parties. The facts in the current Indonesian system of ketatanegaran no cases of political parties that were dissolved through the decision of the Constitutional Court, it's just that the problem is when the Constitutional Court uses its authority to break the dissolution of political parties there are things that are formal juridically there is no clear rules, such as the legal status of party members who are not directly involved in the violation committed by the party and the status of party members who hold the position of members of the legislature both at the center and in the regions. So for that must be resolved by emphasizing the certainty, justice and benefit in the decision of the constitutional court

scholarly journals Contestation of Kosovo’s Statehood from Within: EULEX Judges Adjudicating Privatization Matters through ‘Status Neutrality’

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 432-443
Author(s):  
Kushtrim Istrefi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Independent State ◽  
Political Status ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Republic

Abstract Kosovo’s statehood has been contested by foes as well as friends. Much is known about the former and less about the latter. This contribution explores the contestation of Kosovo’s independence by the judges of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (eulex) working on privatization matters before Kosovo courts. As put by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo (kcc), eulex judges working on privatization matters, “simply continued to ignore the existence of Kosovo as an independent State and its legislation emanating from its Assembly”. The kcc stated this after eulex judges working on privatization matters had refused to respect Kosovo laws and institutions subsequent to the 2008 Kosovo Declaration of Independence. This paper explores the judicial dialogue on Kosovo’s independence between eulex judges and the kcc and identifies the limitations and risks of the ‘status neutral’ policy applied by international organizations to collaborate with Kosovar institutions without prejudging its political status. This submission suggests that ‘status neutrality’ leads to either acceptance or contestation of Kosovo’s statehood and thus brings more uncertainty than clarity to Kosovo’s position in international relations.

Kazakstan's Political Transformation since 1991

1998 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 545-555 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhanylzhan Dzhunusova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Political Transformation ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Legislative Body ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Republic ◽  
And Function

According to the 1993 Constitution, the Republic of Kazakstan was proclaimed as a democratic, secular, and unitary state. Human beings, their life, freedom, and inherent rights were granted the status of supreme value. A presidential republic as a form of government arose from the functions of the head of state and executive. The supreme legislative body, a one-chamber parliament (Supreme Soviet), preserved remnants of the old Soviet state system in name and function, denying the principle of the division of power. The Supreme Soviet was the only legislative and higher representative body that did not correspond to its legislative function, since that implied a hierarchical power structure. As the only legislative body, parliament could not have subordinate structures. According to the Constitution, the Supreme Soviet issued laws, controlled the observance of laws, and made formal interpretations of laws. This contradicted the power-division principle, according to which it should be the legislative body only. Judicial power in the republic in accordance with the 1993 Constitution belonged to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court of Arbitration, which was to be elected by the Supreme Soviet. But this also contradicted the power-division principle.

The Federal Constitutional Court in Germany and the “Southwest Case”

1952 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 723-731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerhard Leibholz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
The Republic

The new German Constitution, the Basic Law for the German Federal Republic of May 23, 1949, provides in Article 92 that the highest judicial power shall be vested in a Federal Constitutional Court. Although the Bonn Basic Law thus created a new institution, it is an institution with a precedent in the former Weımar Constitution of 1919. In accordance with the latter, the Constitutional Tribunal (Staatsgerichtshof) had jurisdiction over constitutional controversies within any Land which had no tribunal of its own for the adjustment of such controversies, as well as over controversies, other than civil law matters, among the various Laender or between the Reich and one of the Laender. And the Supreme Court (Reichsgericht), as the highest authority, could establish finally whether disputed Land statutes were compatible with the federal Constitution.The Basic Law, however, grants the new Federal Constitutional Court considerably wider jurisdiction than that accorded either to the Constitutional Tribunal or to the Supreme Court under the Weimar Constitution. The Federal Constitutional Court must, above all, arbitrate both disputes which may arise among the constitutional organs of the Republic, the so-called “federal constitutional” cases, and the so-called “conflicting rules” (Normenkollisionen) cases—the latter designating disputes involving the compatibility of the written federal law or Land law with the Basic Law, as well as the compatibility of the Land law with the federal law.

scholarly journals Laws of Ratification of an International Treaty in Indonesian Laws Hierarchy

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 171
Author(s):  
Noor Sidharta
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
State Administration ◽  
The Republic

This journal article discusses the laws of ratification of an international treaty in Indonesian laws hierarchy. This journal uses a normative research approach where a draft agreement and laws are used as primary data apart from the laws and international treaties. There are some issues that still unsettled related to the legal status of the laws of ratification of an international treaty that have impacts in the implementation of the treaty. The laws of ratification of an international treaty now is still classified as general laws whose the content of the norm has been discussed by the People’s Representatives Council, therefore the laws of ratification of an international treaty automatically become the object of Judicial Review at the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. The cancellation of the laws of ratification of an international treaty impacts the cancellation of the deal on the treaty and it has failed the pacta sunt servanda principle, which becomes the basis of a treaty. To solve problems related to the cancellation of laws of ratification of an international treaty at the Constitutional Court, there are several efforts on state administration by classifying the laws which differ the general laws from the laws whose contents are related to the international treaty. Furthermore, a progressive new method on the state administration is needed by giving a Judicial Preview right to the Constitutional Court to conduct a review on the bill of the ratification of an international treaty based on its suitability to the constitution.

International Treaties and The German Constitution

2019 ◽  
pp. 171-190
Author(s):  
Stefan Kadelbach
Keyword(s):  
German Law ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
Federal Constitutional

This chapter deals with the making, status, and interpretation of international treaties under the German Constitution. It describes the interrelationship of the different institutions in treaty-making and shows how a comparatively old provision of the German Basic Law has been adapted slowly to new circumstances over the past decades. Thus, even though foreign affairs has remained a domain of the executive, several developments have contributed to an enhanced role of Parliament over time. These developments are partly due to the role of special sectors of law such as EU law and the law governing the use of force and partly due to changes in constitutional practice. As for the status of treaties in German law, the Federal Constitutional Court has developed a stance according to which treaties generally share the rank of the legal act that implements them into domestic law. A notable exception is the European Convention of Human Rights, which has assumed a quasi-constitutional rank by means of consistent interpretation. Some reference is made to other continental systems to assess how far different constitutions bring about certain features; various systems appear similar in many respects at first sight, whereas features in which they differ may be a source of inspiration for future constitutional practice.

scholarly journals Pozycja prawna wojewody w procesie przemian II Rzeczypospolitej

2021 ◽  
pp. 9-53
Author(s):  
Krystyna Wojtczak
Keyword(s):  
Local Government ◽  
Interwar Period ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Local Administration ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
State And Local Government ◽  
The Republic ◽  
State And Local ◽  
The Government

The article considers the legal status of the voivode during the interwar period, the time of the difficult restoration of the Polish identity and the creation of the Polish state in the post-Partition lands with three separate systems of territorial division and local administration. The legal situation of the office of the voivode is closely related to the establishment of the systemic foundations of the highest Polish authorities (legislative and executive) and local administration (initially, on the territory of the former Kingdom of Poland and then on the gradually annexed former Polish territories). The author refers to both spheres of legal activity of the Polish state at that time. She discusses the primary political acts, i.e. the March Constitution (1921), the April Constitution (1935) and the Constitutional Act (1926), as well as regulations concerning county administrative authorities of the first instance, situated in the then two-tier (ministries – county offices) administrative apparatus. Attention is primarily focused on the acts directly concerning the position of the voivode, i.e. the Act of 2 August 1919, the Regulation of the President of the Republic of 19 January 1928, and executive acts issued on the basis of these, and against whose background the importance of the legal institution of the voivode is presented: during the time of attempts to unify the administrative system (1918–1928), and in the period of changes leading to a uniform organisational structure of voivodship administrative authorities (1928–1939). The analysis makes it possible to state that successive legal conditions strengthened the political position of the voivode. In both periods covered by the analysis, the voivode was a representative of the government (with broader competences in 1928–1939), the executor of orders from individual ministers, the head of state and local government authorities and offices (1918–1928), the head of general administrative bodies subordinate to him, and the supervisory body over local government (1928–1939). The position of the voivode in the interwar period was unquestionably very strong.

scholarly journals Constitutional and legal status of the Constitutional Council of France

2020 ◽  
pp. 138-141
Author(s):  
Andrey Irkliienko
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Dual Nature ◽  
National Assembly ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Made In

he Constitutional Council of France is a body of constitutional control established by the Constitution of 1958. The ConstitutionalCouncil is not the only body that carries out the control over constitutionality. The peculiarity of constitutional control in France consistsin the fact that it has a dual nature and goes beyond well-known models of constitutional control. The constitutionality of acts, issuedby the Parliament, is considered by the Constitutional Council, and after the executive bodies do that, it is passed on to the State Council.Despite the fact that the Constitutional Council is not nominated by a court, its decisions, by their essence, are judicial acts and,likewise the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, are endowed with the property of binding force. They are obligatory forall administrative and judicial bodies and are not subjected to revision (the Paragraph 3 of the Article 62 of the French Constitution).However, it should be taken into account that in addition to binding decisions, the Constitutional Council “expresses opinions” that areadvisory in their nature.In addition to carrying out constitutional control, the Constitutional Council has a number of other functions, such as political,advisory and acts as a court to assess the results of elections of deputies to the National Assembly and the Senate, and elections of thePresident of the Republic. Perhaps that is why the Constitutional Council classifies its decisions due to the types of its own powers.Herewith, the noted specific peculiarities are denoted by the Constitutional Council with the help of fixed letter combinations, which are included in the numbers of decision: REF, enacted on referendum issues; ORGA, enacted on issues of the organization of the Cons -titutional Council, etc.Since, despite all the diversity of functions of the Constitutional Council of France, therefore, its main purpose remains the cons -titutional control. Therefore, using the criterion of powers, under which decisions are made, in terms of initial graduation one shouldpoint out the decisions on issues, which are connected with providing compliance of the Constitution with regulatory acts (assuring thepriority of the Constitution), and decisions passed while carrying out other powers.Decisions of the Constitutional Council outstand with being formal and brief. A decision can take literally a few paragraphs. Themost frequently, the Constitutional Council merely refers to a constitutional norm or is limited to the phrase “these provisions do notcontradict the Constitution”, giving guidance and justifying its position in the least.

scholarly journals Head of State: Function of the President of the Republic of Belarus

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 148-160
Author(s):  
I. G. Skorokhod
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The State ◽  
State Function ◽  
Organizational Forms ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Legitimate State ◽  
State Body

According to the author of the paper, the head of state is not a position, not a title, not any state body, but the function of the President of the Republic of Belarus, along with the function of the guarantor of the Constitution, human and civil rights and freedoms. The function of the head of state is unchanged and is due to his position in the system of state authorities. This function manifests the nature and essence of the institution of the presidency, which cannot be reduced to specific actions or practices, therefore, it is implemented through the exercise of powers in various organizational forms. In this regard, the concept of “president”, unlike “head of state”, is not static, but dynamic, since the list of rights and duties of the President of the Republic of Belarus is open.Powers are unambiguous, substantive rights and duties of the President, legitimized from the functions and expressed in various organizational forms of his activities. At the same time, the characteristics of the President’s powers can only show the external side of his activities. The powers of the President, in contrast to the functions, are a variable value. The President through representative, legitimation, arbitration, control, rulemaking, personnel, integration, symbolist and ceremonial state powers carries out the function of the head of state.The function of the head of state is the superiority and precedence of the President over all state officials. In accordance with it, the idea of the Republic of Belarus is personified. This function allows the President of the Republic of Belarus to be the main public representative and act on behalf of the Belarusian state both within it and in international relations. This is the result of the state obtaining the status of a legitimate state, the continuity and interaction of state authorities, mediation between them. The constitutional function of the head of state makes it necessary for the President to have instruments of power-state bodies operating within this function.

scholarly journals ANALISIS PENYELESIAN SENGKETA INTERNAL LEMBAGA NEGARA (STUDI KASUS PELANTIKAN PIMPINAN DEWAN PERWAKILAN DAERAH REPUBLIK INDONESIA PERIODE 2017-2019)

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 364
Author(s):  
Yanzah Bagas Nugraha ◽  
Dwi Andayani Budisetyowati
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
State Institution ◽  
The State ◽  
The Body ◽  
Internal Conflict ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Leadership Tenure ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic

The establishment of the Regional Representative Council of the Republic of Indonesia so called Dewan Perwakilan Daerah (DPD-RI) at least has two objectives. The first is to enhance justice for the people in the region. Secondly, to expanding and increasing the participation of local communities in national life. The process to form this state institution is done by amending the 3rd amendment of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic Indonesia. However, in doing that  amendment there was an internal conflict within the body of DPD-RI involving the old and the new leaders of this institution last year. The length of leadership tenure which was initially made 5 years was amended to became 2.5 years. The different length of leadership tenure was then canceled by the Supreme Court and it was decided to be the same as other institution such as The People’s Consultative Assembly and The House of Representative in that the leadership tenure should be in accordance with the electoral cycle of 5 years. However, although the regulation of DPD-RI has been canceled, the Supreme Court keeps sending its representative to guide the oath of position of the new DPD-RI leadership. The only regulation that has been introduced by the state was regulation toward conflict between state institutions and this conflict can merely be resolved by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the state to seek solution to solve this problem to prevent the same thing happened to other state institution in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document