Államfői testületek, kollektív államfők Magyarországon a XIX-XX. században

E dolgozat témáját az államfői testületek adják (kitekintéssel a XIX. századra is), időrendi sorrendben: a Honvédelmi Bizottmány (1848-1849), a Nemzeti Tanács (1918-1919), a Szövetséges Központi Intéző Bizottság (1919), az Országtanács (1944), a Nemzeti Főtanács (1945-1946) és a Népköztársaság Elnöki Tanácsa (1949-1989)

Minek nevezzelek? : a minisztériumok elnevezésének egyes kérdései a dualizmus korában

The main aim of this paper is to show the connection between the Hungarian governmental structure and the specific names of the ministries. There are three questions chosen to be shown here. The first one is the role of act III of 1848 in determining the names of the ministries. This act is fundamental to the Hungarian governmental structure, that is why it is a justifiable expectation from the act to give at least the first names of the ministries. Contrarily, the specific names of the original ministries were not defined, just the approximate spheres of action of the government’s departments. This manner of the regulation caused great variance in the usage of the ministry names. The second question to be examined in this paper is the first amendment of the original act III of 1848 concerning the ministry names. Act XVIII of 1889 changed the names of two ministries. The real reasons of this amendment are not known, but the initiative to make this change lead to the articulation of some important principles regarding the names and the sphere of action of the ministries. The main principle was that the names, the number and the competence of the ministries may only be determined and regulated by acts, and not lower laws. The third question discusses the greatest change in the governmental structure during the era of the dualistic monarchy, act XI of 1917. This act created an opportunity for the government to increase the number of the ministries with four new ministers without portfolio. The act did not determine the names of the new ministries, nor the competencies of the specific ministries. This routine was new and unique to the Hungarian public law

V. Ferdinánd lemondásának törvényessége és törvényesítése = The Legality and Legitimacy of the Abdication of Ferdinand V.

V. Ferdinánd császár és király lemondásának körülményei, annak magyar közjogi megítélése és következményei ismertek. Az uralkodóház és a birodalom külső és belső körülményeinek értékelése, esetleges újraértékelése elvezethetnek bennünket ahhoz a gondolathoz, hogy V. Ferdinánd lemondása körül hiányzott az önkéntesség, nem az uralkodó akarata érvényesült. Erre tekintettel a lemondás másként, akár trónfosztásként is értékelhető

Government Acting on Itself: Hungarian Cabinet in the Interwar Period

Act XI of 1917 gave the opportunity to the Hungarian government to increase the number of the government members with four ministers without portfolio. This was meant to be a temporary opportunity almost at the end of World War I. The act declared that four ministers without portfolio may be appointed “for the time of the war and the transition to peace”. The determination of the temporal effect seems to be inaccurate and loose. Especially this characteristic gave the base of my paper. In my paper, I am showing the expressed reasons for such a regulation, and the original interpretation of the act and the practice based on it. According to the Hungarian constitutional tradition, an act was the only tool to change the ministerial structure of the government, and changing ministries and competencies could only be done by acts. Later the practice changed, which meant the contemporaneous change in the interpretation of Act XI of 1917 as well. These mutual effects lead to a situation in which it was totally acceptable to appoint a minister without portfolio in 1944 legally based on an act that was meant to solve the extraordinary questions of World War I