Ove godine navršava se 150. obljetnica donošenja Austro-ugarske nagodbe,
kompromisa između Austrije i Ugarske koji je u mnogim segmentima poslužio
kao predložak za godinu dana kasnije sklopljenu Hrvatsko-ugarsku nagodbu.
Ovima dvjema nagodbama Mađari su uredili svoje odnose s dvorom i s
Trojednom Kraljevinom Hrvatskom, Slavonijom i Dalmacijom, s kojom se
Ugarska od 1102. nalazila u državnoj zajednici. Tako je okončan dugotrajni
sukob s Austrijom, a i hrvatsko pitanje je u Budimpešti i Beču skinuto s
dnevnog reda.
Nagodbe su usvojene na sličan način, pregovorima kraljevinskih odbora, prihvaćanjem
zakonskih članaka u zemaljskim saborima, njihovim sankcioniranjem
od strane kralja, a potom proglašavanjem u saborima. Broj članaka (69
odnosno 70), kao i mnoge formulacije u njima, čine temelj za njihovu poredbenu
analizu. Objema je zajedničko i to da su ih ugovorne stranke (Austrija i
Ugarska s jedne strane te Hrvatska i Ugarska s druge) različito tumačile, pa
su nagodbe služile i kao stalno sredstvo javnopravnoga prijepora i političke
borbe unutar pojedinih dijelova monarhije, kao i između dviju polovina dvojne
monarhije.Year 2017 marks the 150th anniversary of the adoption of the Austro-Hungarian
Compromise, compromise between Austria and Hungary, which in many
segments served as a template for the Croatian-Hungarian deal assembled one year
later. These settlements helped Hungary to establish its relations with the court and
with the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, and it also served
Hungary since 1102 to establish itself into the State Union. Thus ended the longstanding
conflict with Austria and resolved the Croatian question in Budapest and
Vienna as it was finally taken off the agenda. The Settlements were adopted in a
similar way; by negotiations of the Royal Committee, by adopting legal articles in
the Provincial Assembly, by sanctions imposed by the King, and then by declaring it
in the Parliament. The number of articles (69 or 70), and many of its formulations,
are the basis for their comparative analysis. They both have in common that they
are contracting parties interpreted in various ways (Austria and Hungary on the one
hand and Croatia and Hungary on the other hand), but the settlement served as a
permanent tool of political struggle within the individual parts of the monarchy, as
well as between the two halves of the Dual Monarchy
