%0 Journal Article
%T „Konstytucja Grévy’ego” i „konstytucja de Gaulle’a”. Dwa kierunki relokacji władzy prezydenckiej w historii konstytucyjnej Francji
%A Jakubiak, Łukasz
%J Krakowskie Studia z Historii  Państwa i Prawa
%V Tom 15 (2022)
%R 10.4467/20844131KS.22.039.16736
%N Tom 15, Zeszyt 4
%P 557-576
%K Jules Grévy, Charles de Gaulle, Francja, III Republika, V Republika, konstytucja, władza prezydencka, system parlamentarny, racjonalizacja, polityczna odpowiedzialność rządu; Jules Grévy, France, Third Republic, Fifth Republic, constitution, presidential power, parliamentary system, rationalization, political responsibility of government
%@ 2084-4115
%D 2022
%U https://ejournals.eu/czasopismo/kshpp/artykul/konstytucja-grevyego-i-konstytucja-de-gaullea-dwa-kierunki-relokacji-wladzy-prezydenckiej-w-historii-konstytucyjnej-francji
%X 
	The “Grévy Constitution” and the “de Gaulle Constitution”: Two Directions for the Relocation of Presidential Power in the Constitutional History of France

	The paper deals with two different political interpretations of presidential power under the Third and Fifth French Republics, which clearly changed the position of the head of state in relation to the letter of constitutional acts that were in force at the time. Both of these interpretations were im- posed by the presidents in office in the first years after the proper structures of the system of gov- ernment had been established. The former (commonly known as the “Grévy constitution”) led to the weakening of presidential power, and the latter (described as the “de Gaulle constitution”) to its strengthening. Particular attention is thus paid to the formation of such particular unwritten norms of constitutional law in rationalized and non-rationalized parliamentary systems. In both cases, their basic feature turned out to be the ability to significantly modify the parliamentary system of gov- ernment. In the last part of the paper, the stability and durability of the above-mentioned political interpretations of the aforementioned constitutions are discussed. It is indicated that in both cases there were attempts to challenge these non-codified standards. Although the causes of such actions were different from each other, neither brought any meaningful success.