Policija i unutrašnja uprava u Kraljevini SHS/Jugoslaviji (1918-1931)

The paper entitled The Police and the Internal Administration of the Kingdom of SCS / Yugoslavia (1918-1931) deals with the organization of public administration and, within it, the first organization of the police in a joint state of the Yugoslav peoples. The union created in 1918 resulted in a state encompassing six different legal areas. The political representatives were not willing to give up the existing administrative apparatus in order to create a unified national government. The police service was organized differently in some provinces until the period of the dictatorship when its unification took place. Regulations on internal administration and police issued from 1929 to 1931 represented a more lasting basis of Yugoslav administrative and police practice.Rad 'Policija i unutrašnja uprava u Kraljevini SHS/Jugoslaviji (1918-1931)' bavi se organizacijom državne uprave i, u okviru nje, organizacijom policije u prvoj zajedničkoj državi jugoslovenskih naroda. Ujedinjenjem izvršenim 1918. godine u okviru jedne države našlo se šest različitih pravnih područja, čiji politički predstavnici nisu bili spremni na potpuno odricanje od postojećih upravnih aparata radi stvaranja jedinstvene državne uprave. I policijska služba je bila različito organizovana u pojedinim pokrajinama sve do perioda diktature kada je izvršena njena unifikacija. Propisi o unutrašnjoj upravi i policiji doneti od 1929. do 1931. predstavljali su trajniji temelj jugoslovenske upravne i policijske prakse

Parlamentarna vlada u Srbiji od 1888. do 1914. godine - između prava i politike

The paper analyses the institutions of modern constitutionality in the Kingdom of Serbia in the period since it became a parliamentary state by the adoption of the Constitution in 1888 until the end of the Great War which marked the end of its independent state development. The answer to the key question raised in the paper - what was the political regime of Serbia in that period - demanded the assessment of the parliamentary system established by the constitution of 1888 to be made after analysing the application of nominal constitutional solutions. The Constitution of 1888, as one of the most liberal constitutions in Europe, undoubtedly allowed the political life in Serbia to be in line with the standards of modern democratic European states of that time. On the other hand, the absence of certain social and political characteristics that constitutional theory deems necessary for the successful functioning of parliamentarism was in the contemporary Serbia the hindering factor in the construction of the liberal-democratic regime. It is precisely for this reason that the conclusion on whether the introduction of modern state institutions by the constitution of 1888 meant the establishment of a modern political regime in Serbia, stated in the paper, is based on the analysis of constitutionality and political institutions in the light of the relation between the nominal and the real. Under the powerful authority of the Crown during the rule of the Obrenovic dynasty, the Radicals experienced strong pressure from the monarchy. Starting from the so-called Timocka rebellion in 1883 until the May 1903 coup, they gradually gave up their program based on the idea of national sovereignty embodied through the Parliament with supreme power and comforted to the concept of parliamentary monarchy which promoted both the Liberals and the Progressives. The result was an agreement with the Crown and the other two political parties, giving birth to the Constitution of 1888. Only four years later, it was annulled by a coup d'etat provoked by the Crown, who had power still strong enough to resist the Radicals who persisted in building a party state, rather than a parliamentary regime. In the internal political life in Serbia after the annulment of the Constitution of 1888, until 1903, two main features were growing limitation of political freedoms with frequent coups, on the one hand, and a growing readiness of the Radical party for a compromise, on the other. The politics of compromise led by the Radicals chief Pasic resulted in separating and creating a new, Independent radical party in 1904. After the May coup the Constitution of 1888 was brought back to life with certain changes in electoral system which was tilted to the majority system as the Constitution of 1903, which returned the political system in Serbia in a parliamentary form. The several limitations that the parliamentary practice in Serbia experienced until the outbreak of the Great War were not the same during the whole period, but were enough to form a special model of the parliamentary system with the domineering Radical's interpretation of the principle of majority as its essence.U radu se analiziraju institucije moderne ustavnosti u Kraljevini Srbiji u razdoblju od kada je ona, usvajanjem Ustava od 1888, postala parlamentarna država do Velikog rata, čiji je završetak označio i kraj njenog samostalnog državnopravnog razvitka. Odgovor na ključno pitanje koje se u radu postavlja ‒ kakav je politički režim Srbija imala u tom periodu, zahtevao je, najpre, osvrt na razvoj ideje parlamentarizma u Srbiji, potom analizu nominalnih ustavnih rešenja i njihove primene u vreme kada je Ustav od 1888. bio na snazi, kao i poređenje političkih režima uspostavljenih u prvoj i drugoj fazi primene tog ustava. Zaključci o karakteru tog političkog režima, nesumnjivo, ne bi bili potpuno utemeljeni ukoliko bi se iz diskursa izostavilo razdoblje od 1894. do 1903. godine, tokom kojeg nije bilo uslova za parlamentarnu vladavinu pošto je, umesto suspendovanog Ustava od 1888, podlogu razvitka ustavnosti činio najpre Ustav od 1869, a potom Ustav od 1901. godine. Ustav od 1888, kao jedan od najliberalnijih ustava u Evropi, nesumnjivo je omogućavao da se politički život u Srbiji odvija u skladu sa standardima modernih demokratskih evropskih država onoga doba. S druge strane, nepostojanje izvesnih socijalnih i političkih karakteristika, koje ustavnopravna teorija smatra neophodnim za uspešno funkcionisanje parlamentarizma, bilo je u onovremenoj Srbiji ometajući faktor u izgradnji liberalno-demo­kratskog režima. Upravo je zbog tog, uočenog nesklada zaključak o tome da li je uvođenje institucija moderne države Ustavom od 1888. značilo i uspostavljanje modernog političkog režima u Srbi­ji u radu utemeljen na analizi ustavnosti i političkih institucija u svetlu odnosa nominalnog i stvarnog

Donošenje i značaj policijske uredbe iz 1850. godine

The police directive act from 1850 is one of the oldest and also one of the most complete and most modern laws in the nineteenth-century Serbia. Although many of its articles were suspended or changed by latter Serbian laws, directives and rules, it had been lawful for more than half of century. It was made in the period known as regime of defenders of constitution, and it is a product of need to make the authority of the police stronger and to keep justice in order at the same time. Before its enactment most of police violations of law were proceeded by courts, without any special procedure for their investigation and judging, and also without systematical criminal police law. The result of this complexion in which the police had no resources to attempt its objectives, was passing many offenders derelictioned and insufficiently personal and ownership safeness. By the Police directive act from 1850 police service was authorized to investigate and lawsuit police violations of law, which were defined and proceeded in the Criminal police directive act prescriptioned also in the year of 1850.Policijska uredba od 18. maja 1850. godine jedan je od najstarijih, a za vreme i prilike u kojima je nastala, i jedan od najpotpunijih i najsavremenijih zakona. Iako su mnogi njeni paragrafi izrično ili prećutno ukinuti ili izmenjeni donošenjem novih zakona, ona je u Kneževini/Kraljevini Srbiji bila na snazi duže od pola veka. Uredba je nastala u vreme tzv. ustavobraniteljskog režima, a iz potrebe da se autoritet policijskih vlasti ojača uz očuvanje 'pravde i pravice'. Do izdavanja ove Uredbe za suđenje istupnih dela bili su nadležni uglavnom sudovi, pri čemu nije bilo ni specijalnog postupka za njihovo izviđanje i presuđenje, niti sistematskog kaznenog zakonika za njihovo kažnjavanje. Preopterećenost i nedovoljna specijalizovanost sudova za suđenje istupnih dela, rezultirali su izostankom njihovog kažnjavanja, što je negativno uticalo na ličnu i imovinsku sigurnost, o čemu se imala starati policija, ali ona, pak, nije u svojim rukama imala opipljiva sredstva kojima bi svoje ustavne obaveze mogla izvršavati na odgovarajući način. Uredbom iz 1850. godine izviđanje i suđenje istupnih dela (tzv. policijskih prestupaka) preneto je u nadležnost policijskih vlasti, propisan je poseban postupak za njihovo izviđanje i određene kazne za počinioce ovih dela. Kaznitelni zakonik za policajne prestupke od 27. maja 1850. godine donet je u istom cilju kao i Uredba, a njime su obuhvaćeni policijski prestupi razvrstani u grupe prema zaštitnom objektu

Dalibor Elezović, Uroš Šuvaković, Branko Rakić: NATO aggression in the light of justice, University of Pristina, Faculty of Philosophy, Kosovska Mitrovica, 2019

Book revie

Analiza propisa o radu beogradske policije iz 1831. godine

After the Second Serbian Uprising in Serbia, a mixed Serbian-Turkish Administration was established, based on the agreement of Prince Milos and Marasli-Ali Pasha in 1815. Essentially, this meant that the Turkish authorities had jurisdiction over the Turks, while the newly established national authorities had jurisdiction over the Serbs. The so-called Kadi and Muselim had the power of a judge for the Turks, while the Duke was the chief of police - as a separate authority. The headquarters of the Turkish police commanding officers were in the administrative units called Nahiyah (or Nahia), and there was one Duke in Belgrade and one in Grocka. Even though the Dukes were formally subordinated and exclusively responded to the Vizier in Belgrade for their work, in practice they paid much more attention to the opinion of the Serbian Prince, who they were financially dependent on. The National Princes had the power of a judge for the Serbs, and simultaneously were in charge of policing. They usually arbitrated 'in the field', and carried out the sentences themselves with the assistance of armed young men. In Belgrade, these jobs were mainly performed by the Princes of the National Office (the Court). Due to the constant presence of the Turks in Belgrade and their sensitivity to any independent decisions made by the Serbian authorities, the conditions of their work were much more complex than those in somewhere up country. This is the reason why the Princes of the National Office did not dare to bring verdicts and carry out sentences themselves, so in each spe­cific case they would first ask for the instructions of Prince Milos. Realizing that one Bulibasha with about 15 policemen (which formed the Belgrade police at the time) objectively was not able to serve the National office, guard the Palace in Topcider and maintain order in the Serbian part of Belgrade, Prince Milos decided to introduce changes - a decision which resulted from his incredible pre­sentiment of the events that Serbia was yet to face. In 1826 Prince Milos turned the National office into the Belgrade court (so-called Magistrate) and appointed its employees himself. In mid-1828 Prince Petar Lazarevic was appointed by the Prince Milos to be the first Director of the Belgrade police, which was part of the court at the time. Three years later, a regulation on Belgrade policing was brought by the prince, which tasked the police forces with the following: to maintain the peace, order and cleanliness of the town, to make proposals to the Magistrate and be at hand for its every need, to monitor the local people and the foreigners, to control and verify passports, and to carry out sentences upon the offenders ordered by the Magistrate. This regulation for the first time clearly separated the executive and the judicial power: the Director of the police had no authority to sentence the offenders - instead he delivered them before the court and waited for the verdict; while the right for punishment was limited to 25 blows with a stick (more serious penalty could only be imposed by the Magistrate). The director of police was at the same time a full member of the Magistrate with the voting right during pronouncing sentences. However, he was directly subordinated only to the Prince.Nakon Drugog srpskog ustanka u Srbiji je uspostavljena mešovita, srpsko-turska uprava, zasnovana na usmenom sporazumu kneza Miloša i Marašli-Ali paše iz 1815. godine. U osnovi, to je značilo da nadležnost nad Turcima imaju turski organi vlasti, dok su za Srbe bili nadležni novoformirani domaći organi. Turcima su sudili kadija i muselim, a na čelu policije kao posebne ustanove bio je vojvoda. Sedište turskih policijskih starešina bilo je u nahijskim centrima, a po jedan vojvoda obitavao je u Beogradu i Grockoj. Iako su formalno bile neposredno potčinjene veziru u Beogradu i za svoj rad odgovarale isključivo njemu, vojvode su u praksi mnogo više vodile računa o mišljenju srpskog kneza od koga su finansijski zavisile. Srbima su sudili narodni knezovi, nahijski i knežinski, koji su istovremeno obavljali i policijske dužnosti. Oni su po unutrašnjosti sudili 'na terenu' i svoje presude uz pomoć naoružanih momaka sami i izvršavali. U tom pogledu izdvajao ce Beograd, y kome su maj posao uglavnom obavljali knezovi Narodne kancelarije (suda). Imajući u vidu stalno prisustvo Turaka u Beogradu i njihovu osetljivost na svako samostalno rešenje srpskih organa, uslovi njihovog rada bili su mnogo složeniji od onih u unutrašnjosti. Upravo zato knezovi Narodne kancelarije i nisu smeli sami presuđivati i kažnjavati, već su u svakom konkretnom slučaju najpre tražili uputstva za rad od kneza Miloša. Sa neverovatnom osobinom tačnog predosećanja događaja kojima je Srbija išla u susret, a i uviđajući da jedan buljubaša sa petnaestak pandura koji su činili beogradsku policiju objektivno ne može da opslužuje Narodnu kancelariju, čuva konak u Topčideru i pazi i održava red u srpskom delu beogradske varoši, knez Miloš se rešio na promene. Narodna kancelarija je 1826. pretvorena u Beogradski sud (magistrat), čiji je personal odredio knez Miloš. Polovinom 1828. Miloš je postavio kneza Petra Lazarevića za prvog 'direktora' beogradske policije, koju je istovremeno uključio u sastav suda. Tri godine kasnije beogradska policija je od kneza dobila 'propis' o radu, kojim joj je u zadatak stavljeno: da motri na mir, red i čistoću u varoši, da čini predloge Magistratu i bude mu pri ruci za svaku potrebu, da nadgleda domaće ljude i strance, da pregleda i overava pasoše i da izvršava kazne nad prestupnicima koje Magistrat izrekne. Ovim propisom prvi put su jasnije razdvojene izvršna i sudska vlast: direktor policije nije imao pravo kažnjavanja krivaca, već ih je predavao sudu i očekivao njegovu presudu, a i pravo kažnjavanja podređenih mu je ograničeno na 25 udaraca štapom (kazne veće od ove mogao je izreći Magistrat). Direktor policije je istovremeno bio punopravni član Magistrata sa pravom glasa pri izricanju presuda. Ipak, neposredno je bio podređen samo knezu

The naissance of forensics in Serbia

The Serbian police gradually implemented scientific methods in legal proceedings and determinately kept up with the world in the application of the latest scientific achievements. The first step in this field was made by establishing the State Chemical Laboratory in 1859, which performed various expert analyses of evidence for the purpose of criminal investigation. Educa-tion in forensic medicine performed at the Faculty of Law starting from 1863 provided conduct-ing forensic medical and anatomical pathological investigations, as well as histopathological and bacterial examinations. The same as in other European countries, starting from 1897, pho-tography in Serbia was used in the investigation of criminal events in the penal system. So-called „Bertillonage“, based on anthropometry and also accepted worldwide as a reliable method for identification of criminals, was introduced in Serbia in 1904 when the Anthropometric Police Department was established. As soon as the methods of classification of the fingerprints were developed, dactyloscopy was advocated in Serbia and practiced in the Anthropometric Police Department since 1912. The developments interrupted by the Great War continued after its end. The Department of Technical Police established in 1921 in Belgrade and with jurisdiction on the entire state territory successfully performed its main task: it took care of photographing criminals and other dangerous persons, registered criminals and was a forensic-medical labora-torium. The analysis of birth and youth of forensic methods in Serbia will be performed in this paper in order to indicate that regarding forensic development Serbia in the 19th and early 20thcenturies was not outside the European mainstream as well as it is not today

Памћење живи кроз комуникацију : Представљен зборник докумената "Извештаји и наредбе Недићеве Владе народног спаса за Округ пожаревачки 1941-1942. година"

Поводом обележавања Дана Историјског архива Пожаревац и 75 година од победе над фашизмом, у свечаној сали Скупштине града Пожаревца представљен је Зборник докумената ИАП и Војног архива Министарства одбране Републике Србије „Извештаји и наредбе Недићеве „Владе народног спаса“ за Округ пожаревачки 1941 – 1942. година“ – том 1, приређивача др Јасмине Николић и др Маријане Мраовић.Приказ публикације: Извештаји и наредбе Недићеве "Владе народног спаса" за Округ пожаревачки, 1941-1942. године : [зборник докумената]. Том 1, приредиле Јасмина Николић и Маријана Мраовић ; аутори предговора Јасмина Николић, Горан Петровић, Маријана Мраовић. - Пожаревац : Историјски архив ; Београд : Војни архив, 2018 (Смедерево : Newpress). - 269 стр. : илустр. ; 25 cm. - (Зборници докумената / [Историјски архив Пожаревац] ; зборник 4) ISBN 978-86-84969-89-

Beogradska varoška policija u doba uspostavljanja vlasti ustavobranitelja

Prince Mihailo Obrenovic took over the administration of the country in the significantly altered the constitutional situation, created by the adoption of the Constitution of 1838 and the departure of Serbian Prince Milos 1839. Constitution ensured the supremacy of the State Council as an oligarchic body of the prince in the adoption of new legislation expanded and contrary to the constitution. Gradual narrowing and even abolishing competences of prince in the legislative and executive branches Constitutionalists are aimed to ensure the constitutionally established order. One of the measures taken to this aim was the adoption of regulations by which the Belgrade police under the control of Constitutionalist Party. The Belgrade police which in the time of Miloš rule was subordinated directly to the prince, by the Decree of 1840 came under the jurisdiction of the competent ministry. The contents of the this Decree that remained in Serbia in force throughout the nineteenth century shows how wide was the scope of its work. Specifically, the Board took care of law and order, personal safety or property of citizens, conducted surveillance of suspicious persons, travelers, foreigners and idles, worried about traffic safety and the safety of roads, alleys, and cobblestone bridge, followed the proper operation of the innkeepers, butchers and traders worried about neatness squares and product prices, participated in the settlement of disputes between creditors and debtors, secured and numbered the property of deceased persons and fallen into bankruptcy, suppress immorality, watch the correctness water supply, public fountains and street lighting, directing the development of settlements, undertook measures to protect against fire, suppressing the fights, riots and rebellions, took care of the health of citizens and public hygiene, issued an order on line and order in the town, enforce court decisions, took care of the prisoners, carried a list of public and private property at the request of his superiors authorities , state revenues collected from the population, participated in the division of the borough plots for raising houses in the area of Batal mosque, in Sava-waving, Palilula, Terazije, past ponds Venice, and finally led to a variety of correspondence - submitted reports to the competent organs of the state administration and consisted of a number of proposals from the circle of their activity. On the other hand, the Decree on the duties of the administration of the City of Belgrade in 1840 must be seen as part of a comprehensive legislative activities Constitutionalist aimed at establishing a highly branched and durable state organization. As part of the whole legal regulations governing the then ruling political elites govern executive, Regulation confirms the conclusion that the Constitutionalist have achieved a lot in terms of formal legislate lofty police power over the people, but failed to sufficiently develop the system control apparatus of executive power. In addition to subjective, there are objective factors that limited Constitutionalist efforts in this direction. Ideas of modern civil state objectively could not be quickly accepted in the still traditional-patriarchal Serbian society.U radu se analizira sadržina propisa o radu beogradske policije iz 1840. godine u okviru društvenih i političkih prilika u Kneževini Srbiji na početku ustavobraniteljske vladavine. Knez Mihailo Obrenović preuzeo je upravu zemljom u bitno izmenjenoj ustavnoj situaciji, stvorenoj donošenjem Ustava 1838. i odlaskom iz Srbije kneza Miloša 1839. godine. Ustavom obezbeđena prevlast Državnog saveta kao oligarhijskog tela nad knezom u praksi je određenim uredbama proširena i protivno ustavu. Pokušaj kneza u takvoj situaciji da odbrani svoja ustavna ovlašćenja u zakonodavnoj i izvršnoj vlasti i uspostavi ravnotežu u odnosima sa Savetom nije uspeo. O tome svedoči i donošenje propisa kojim beogradska policija, u Miloševo vreme podređena neposredno knezu, dolazi pod nadležnost resornog ministarstva. S druge strane, Uredba o dužnostima uprave varoši Beograda iz 1840. deo je široke zakonodavne aktivnosti ustavobranitelja usmerene na uspostavljanje razgranatije i trajnije državne organizacije. Primenom istorijskog i sociološkog metoda, kao i metoda analize i sinteze, indukcije i dedukcije, autori objašnjavaju motivaciju za izdavanje ovog propisa čija je sadržina bila presudno determinisana interesima tadašnje političke elite u Srbiji