Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Vicarius regis. Rola arcybiskupa gnieźnieńskiego pod nieobecność króla elekcyjnego

100%

Lewandowska-Malec I.

|

tom 3

PL

The Archbishop of Gniezno who was the ﬁrst senator of the Polish‐Lithuanian Republic, played one of the most signiﬁcant roles in the State. His signiﬁcance was due to this rights of vicarii regis that were granted to him as early as during the reign of Władysław Jagiełło. These rights were however not precisely formulated. The Archbishop of Gniezno performed the function of vicarious regis only sporadically, when this was indispensable. His position in this respect was subjected to legal regulations during the elective King’s era. The emergencies of the hour lead to the regulation of the Archbishop’s competence on occasion of Sigismund III’s trip abroad. Archbishop as Primate of Poland was authorized to call the Senate (but not the Seym) in order to receive the legations arriving in Poland (but only those arriving from Turkey, Tartar State or Muscovy). Also, if the State was threatened by an unexpected attack of the enemy the Archbishop could call the Senators to facilitate their joint proclaiming the third summons to arms addressed to levy in mass. According to the common belief, Primate Stanislaw Karnkowski exceeded his competence. Therefore in 1598, before the next trip of the monarch there was a tendency toward limiting his power to take the decisions unipersonally. The Archbishop however decidedly oppose the idea of limiting the power that he exercised in the King’s absence. The developments of the 1590s (organization of the assemblies of the nobles who protested against the poll‐tax) as well as those of 1593–94 and of 1598–99, testify to the emancipating efforts as made by the Primate in order to arrive at the speciﬁc political goals.

2

Wolna elekcja króla Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów

100%

Lewandowska-Malec I.

Z Dziejów Prawa

|

2019

|

tom 12

147-162

EN

The right to vote is either active or passive; it means the right to vote and to be elected. During the period of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, one of the fundamental principles of the political system was the right to “free election” of the king. It was understood as electio viritim, i.e. casting a vote by each nobleman. This was considered to be the greatest success of the noble nation in the Republic of Poland. In the passive aspect, electoral law was not a subject of broader considerations in contemporary journalism and public life. This issue requires scientific research, taking into account the provisions of Henrician Articles and pacta conventa.

DE

Wahlrechte sind aktiv oder passiv; sie bedeuten das Recht zu wählen und gewählt zu werden. In der Republik beider Nationen war das Recht auf „freie Wahl“ des Königs eines der grundlegenden Prinzipien im politischen System. Verstanden wurde es als das Recht auf die Wahl viritim, was bedeutete, dass jeder Adlige seine Stimme abgeben konnte. Dies galt als der größte Erfolg der Adelsnation in der Republik. Das passive Wahlrecht war kein Gegen- stand weiterer Überlegungen in der damaligen Publizistik und im öffentlichen Leben. Dieser As- pekt muss unter Berücksichtigung der Bestimmungen der Articuli Henriciani und Pacta conventa erforscht werden.

PL

Prawa wyborcze mają charakter czynny albo bierny; oznaczają prawo wybierania i bycia wybranym. W okresie Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów jedną z podstawowych zasad ustrojowych było prawo „wolnej elekcji” króla. Rozumiano je jako prawo do elekcji viritim czyli oddania głosu przez każdego szlachcica. To uważano za największy sukces narodu szlacheckiego w Rzeczypospolitej. Prawo wyborcze w aspekcie biernym nie było przedmiotem szerszych rozważań w ówczesnej publicystyce i życiu publicznym. To zagadnienie wymaga badań naukowych z uwzględnieniem przepisów Artykułów henrykowskich oraz paktów konwentów.

3

Demokracja deliberacyjna w Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów

100%

Lewandowska-Malec I.

Z Dziejów Prawa

|

2012

|

tom 5(13)

57-91

EN

This article concerns the matter of democracy in The First Republic of Poland (1569/73— 1795). The author puts forward the thesis that fundamental rules of the concept of deliberative democracy, postulated today, were realized in the old polish times, but only in sphere of noblemen. Then democracy was largely open; noblemen very active took part in public debate on local councils and through their deputies. It was a debate with equals participators, open, based on arguments, which were used to convince opponents. Freedom of speech was unlimited. A public debate realized informative and educational functions. It was possible, because on local councils and diets operated a rule of common agreement; all participants in the debate had to agree to make an united decision — otherwise thought that a decision was not adopted. When the conflict between noblemen and the king began to grow The First Polish Republic lost its power and falled.

4

Artykuł recenzyjny książki Jana Sowy Fantomowe ciało króla. Peryferyjne zmagania z nowoczesną formą, Universitas, Kraków 2012

100%

Lewandowska-Malec I.

|

EN

The main thesis of the book reviewed is an assumption that Poland and other countries of East-Central Europe suffer from a chronic underdevelopment, whose sources the Author is trying to find in the past. The review focuses on one of the two main themes of the book, i.e., leaving out the economic issues, it concentrates on the politics. The Author sets out to claim that only those countries develop correctly which have experienced absolute monarchy in their history. Referring to the idea of Ernst Kantorowicz, Jan Sowa assumes that such a political system is the only guarantee of stability and continuity of a country: on the death of the “physical body” of the king, his “political body” continues to last. In Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, because of the elective character of the monarchy and the claims of the nobility to play the role of the sovereign, the “political body” disappeared, and the country turned out to be a “phantom body.” For the Author, this means an atrophy of the country following the death of the last Jagiellonian king, Sigismund II Augustus. Between 1572 and 1795 there is no Polish statehood, since the Author regards the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as only an “illusion.” Both the theories presented above and the sources used to prove their correctness raise substantial doubts. The Author confuses basic notions, identifying sovereignty with absolutism, and he makes basic historical mistakes, regarding the Jagiellons’ throne in the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland as hereditary, and also assuming the factual decay of statehood as early as in 16th century, with its symbolic confirmation in 18th century. He finds the grounds for his theories in political theology and psychoanalysis, using historical and legal historical sources to a very limited extent.

5

Rola legacji i propozycji królewskiej w procedurze ustawodawczej na sejmach walnych koronnych za panowania Zygmunta III Wazy

100%

Lewandowska-Malec I.

|

tom 2

PL

When viewed from the perspective of the hitherto made research, the royal legacja and royal proposal are regarded as the manifestation of the monarch’s right to introduce bill. If that opinion were true the subject of debate held in the General Seym of the Crown should be the preliminary bills as contained in these two undertakings: the one made in writing (legacja), the other articulated by the words of mouth (proposal). These preliminary bills should be also reflected in the content of statutory law as adopted on their basis. Yet when thoroughly read, the texts of preserved legacjas and proposals, dating back to the reign of Sigismund III, do not seem to support that opinion. In fact the legacjas and proposals contained no – even those preliminarily formulated – bills. The legacjas and proposals may only fall under the category of programs of sessions of the Seyms that were planned to be convened.These were first of all the deputies who had the right to introduce bills. It was therefore in the lower house that, as a result of debates, the bills were formed. The concepts of such bills, when unanimously adopted by lower house deputies, were subsequently subjected to conclusive acceptance in the Senate, the acceptance being made in the presence of three debating estates

6

I Sympozjum Historyków Państwa i Prawa Polskiego w Krakowie (16 stycznia 2012)

63%

Lewandowska-Malec I. , Fokt K.

Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne

|

2012

|

tom 64

|

nr 1

317-318

PL

I Sympozjum Historyków Państwa i Prawa Polskiego w Krakowie (16 stycznia 2012)

7

Sympozjum Historyków Państwa i Prawa Polskiego w Krakowie

63%

Lewandowska-Malec I. , Fokt K.

Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne

|

2012

|

tom 64

|

nr 2

549-550

PL

Sympozjum Historyków Państwa i Prawa Polskiego w Krakowie