Birtok, hatalom, jog : a korona birtokjoga az Árpád-korban

When talking about the state, several key words of the aspect of the investigation may be: substance, royalty and law. In regard of the Arpad Era, the key word 'substance' can be found in the theory of patrimonial monarchy while the word 'royalty' belongs to the theory of personal monarchy. If we choose the key word 'law' for the investigation, our way of describing the evolving state, state organization, the power of the monarch and the legal system goes through 'ius regium'. Ius regium – in a wider sense – means: laws and legal institutions establishing the power of the monarch based on public law, also providing him with political our economic benefit. Searching for a new aspect in the investigation of ius regium, I try to adopt a simplified general systems theory to the elements of ius regium. In doing so I hope to find a theoretic way to compare the evolving state and public legal system of the Arpad Era to those of nowadays which comparison could bring legal history closer to our contemporaries. In this simplified general systems theory the starting point is the function and designation of the elements of ius regium, which I find quite similar to those of the elements of the state organization nowadays (legislation, public administration, jurisdiction, fiscal, monetary or military policy, etc.)

Lex Baiuvariorum - jogfelfogás és társadalomkép a kora középkorban = Lex Baiuvariorum - Legal Order and Social Structure in Early Middle Ages

A kutatás célja a Lex Baiuvariorum, a kora középkori bajor népjog komplex vizsgálata volt. Ennek során a törvény keletkezésének körülményeit, annak jogtörténeti jelentőségét, szabályozási rendszerét és nyelvi jellegzetességeit vizsgáltuk. Ezen keresztül képet kaptunk a kora középkori jogfelfogásról, a jogalkotónak a törvény társadalmi szerepéről alkotott képéről, a törvényalkotói szuverenitás jogforrásbeli megjelenéséről, valamint a társadalmi statusok és a társadalom jogforrásbeli megjelenéséről. A projekt eredményei a következő kiadványokban kerültek összefoglalásra: egy magyar nyelvű és két külföldön megjelent angol nyelvű monográfiában, egy latin-magyar kétnyelvű forráskiadványban és egy angol nyelvű tanulmánykötetben, valamint kilenc magyar nyelvű és négy idegen nyelvű tanulmányban. A kutatás részeredményei ezen felül három nemzetközi és négy hazai konferencián kerültek ismertetésre. | The present research study set the aim to perform a complex processing of Lex Baiuvariorum, to investigate the conditions of its creation, the significance of the law in legal history, its linguistic character and background. Through that we could have a detailed view of early medieval concept of law, the lawmaker’s approach to the social function of law, the manifestation of the sovereignty of the state in statutes, the reflection of personal status and view of society in legal sources. Results of this project have been published in one Hungarian and two English monographs, one bilingual (Latin-Hungarian) edition, one volume of studies, nine Hungarian and four German and Englished papers. Further results of this research have been published at three international and four Hungarian conference papers

A királyi jog a Szent István korabeli jogforrásokban

The era of the first monarch of Hungary, István I the Saint is not only the beginning of the establishment of the (new) Hungarian state after the era of tribal society, but the first written legal sources of Hungary also date back to these decades. Among these written legal sources the two decrees of the monarch are widely wellknown as the statutes of István I. Besides however, historians and legal historians have found and studied ten more letters of privileges edited in the name of István I, mainly consisting of royal donations and privileges of monasteries and episcopates. As these letters also declare the legally binding will of the king, they can also be considered as statutes, some of which may be formally falsified (which means that the were written some decades or centuries later) but their content seems to be more or less valid. While all these statutes contain a lot concerning the elements of ius regium (royal privileges), unfortunately no more royal letters or other sources of case law (e.g. judicial verdicts or administrative decisions) were identified from that era. Four more pieces of written sources related to István I may be found however if we are to examine the elements of ius regium. The first of which is the so-called 'king's mirror' of István I, the king's Admonitions to his son, prince Imre. The Admonitions are mainly concerned with the requested behavior and administration of the good Christian king. Further written sources to get to know the administration, governance, society and royal privileges of the era of István I are the Legends (the Minor Legend, the Major Legend and the Legend by bishop Hartvik) of István I the Saint, all noted down decades after the death of the first king. All these sources had and have their own characteristics and purpose which must be carefully taken in consideration when examining the decrees, the letters of privileges, the Admonitions or the Legends. Finally, through these sources, we can also see and interpret the establishing of some kind of legal grounding and state-organization, and thus, some kind of constitution by the monarch for his country

Az egy politikai nemzet versus nemzetállam koncepciója Deák és Eötvös gondolkodásában

In Hungary we distiungish two different interpretations, used in two different periods, for the idea of nation: the feudal (estates of the realm) terminology and the modern (national) terminology. The former is based on Werboczy's idea of the nation, who divided the residents of Hungary into two major groups according to customary law: into populus Werbocyanus and into plebs. In a society divided by customary law the nobility – a community of privileged landowner “residents” – made up the people of Werbocy, as opposed to the plebs who included the rest of the residents (all ethnics). The democratic element in this society was the possibility of gaining a title of nobility, that was there for everyone regardless if ethnicity.The situation changed when the nobility, fighting against the absolute monarchy, wished to transform the constitution of the Estates into a national institute, from being only a summary of the ruling elite's interest by customary law into an establishment of generally defending public interest. This idea was brought upon by the Enlightenment, and primarily manifested itself in bringing the case of the right to useHungarian in public life into limelight. The right to use Hungarian in public life was considered to be the most important factor of national development which was not compatible with the institutes of the estates of the realm any more.Nationalism, however, was meant to be a basis for conflicts in a country, where the majority of its citizens belonged to different ethnic groups. Pushing the idea of equal civil rights by the liberal nobility was not enough to avoid conflicts when you had to belong to the Hungarian nation in order to get your share of governing power which had an exclusive criteria: the knowledge of Hungarian.In the time of the estates of the realm being “Hungarian” or being merely a “resident” of Hungary made no difference because only the nobility had privileges and rights. The rise of the modern state, on the contrary, had to answer the following question: If Hungary is a multi-ethnic country but only the supreme “race” can be called a nation than what do we call the whole of its citizens altogether? In response, the concept of “one political nation” was born in 1868. The concept of the Natio Hungarica was extended to all the peoples in Hungary so that everybody was part of the Hungarian nation regardless of ethnicity and therefore the Hungarian people were not allowed to be called the Hungarian nation any more but all the ethnic groups were name the Hungarian nation. As a result, the new Hungarian Kingdom can not be purely described as a nation state of the Hungarians but as political nation state born out of the marriage between the once supreme “race” Hungarians and all the other nationalities. A state, which is named after (Hungarian Kingdom) the supreme nationality and has supremacy over all the others