Bohumil Jiroušek
Cracow Studies of Constitutional and Legal History, Volume 10, Issue 4, Volume 10 (2017), pp. 567-577
https://doi.org/10.4467/20844131KS.17.023.8406Bohumil Jiroušek
Cracow Studies of Constitutional and Legal History, Volume 13, Issue 3, Volume 13 (2020), pp. 321-328
https://doi.org/10.4467/20844131KS.20.023.12518The following text examines the topic of unifying territories with disparate legal traditions as exemplified by Czechoslovakia during the first years of its existence and interpreted by Vratislav Kalousek (1883–1936), an unjustly forgotten clerk at the Ministry of the Interior, a lawyer and a contributor to inter-war legal magazines. He analyzed how the Czechoslovak law –drafted by the Czechoslovak officials of the Cisleithanian tradition –was implemented in the newly acquired lands, namely in Slovakia and in Carpathian Ruthenia. Vratislav Kalousek perceived the foundation of Czechoslovakia, based on uniting lands with a different history, as well as cultural, social and legal traditions, as a situation in which it was necessary to act swiftly, instead of slowing the process down with emphasis on accuracy typical for legal theory.
Bohumil Jiroušek
Cracow Studies of Constitutional and Legal History, Volume 6, Issue 3, 2013, pp. 277-284
https://doi.org/10.4467/20844131KS.13.017.1611The Czech history of the second half of the 20th century is marked by a number of historical twists which suppressed the public discussion of past history; however, the discussion was sometimes possible in the form of allusions. This essay focuses on one of those discussions; i.e. the one organized by Plamen magazine in 1969. The participants knew that they could not openly express their opinions on the invasion of the Warsaw Pact armies in August 1968. Thus, they used the 500th anniversary of Niccolo Machiavelli´s birth (1469–1527) to both recollect his personality and his work and to discuss the question of whether small countries were allowed to defend themselves against big ones. The message and topicality of the discussion constituted an unambiguous criticism of the Soviet Union, which claimed supremacy over its neighbors: its bloc.