Stefanovski, Mirjana

Link to this page

Authority KeyName Variants
115c5a5b-e6be-444d-ac0b-f6b1746b266a
  • Stefanovski, Mirjana (6)
Projects

Author's Bibliography

Pravo disolucije u nacrtu ustava komisije jugoslovenskih profesora iz 1920. godine

Stefanovski, Mirjana

(2019)

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Stefanovski, Mirjana
PY  - 2019
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1749
AB  - U radu se razmatraju teorijska stanovišta koja su opredelila normativno uređenje prava disolucije u ustavnom nacrtu vladine komisije iz 1920. godine. Imajući na umu iskustva parlamentarne prakse u sledu spornih upotreba kraljevskih prerogativa, komisija je u prvoj ustavnoj odredbi formulisala proklamaciju parlamentarizma kao opšteg interpretativnog načela, čiji je smisao bio da utvrdi vezanost akata krune konvencijama parlamentarnog režima i tako najvećma suzi područje diskrecionog postupanja. Uloga kralja u parlamentarnoj monarhiji koncipirana je u skladu sa postavkama teorije o parlamentarnoj vladi kao sistemu ustavne ravnoteže vlasti. Kruna je shvaćena kao moderatorna vlast, koja je pozvana da ocenjuje opravdanost vladinih disolucija kada treba ostvariti harmoniju između parlamenta i ministarstva i obezbediti stabilnu vladu, ali i kao vanredni, neutralni autoritet, koji se kao protivteža isključivoj partijskoj vladavini može protivstaviti svemoći parlamenta i apelom na narod sa izbornom vladom iz manjine intervenisati zarad uspostavljanja saglasja političkog lika parlamenta i raspoloženja biračkog tela.
AB  - The subject of this article are the theoretical views that determined the regulation of the right of dissolution in the Constitutional Draft produced in 1920 by the Commission of the most prominent Yugoslav legal experts. Having in mind the experience of parliamentary practice of controversial use of royal prerogatives, the Commission formulated a solemn proclamation of parliamentarism as a general interpretative principle, whose purpose was to establish limits of royals acts. The role of king in the parliamentary monarchy was conceived in accordance with the theory of parliamentary government, as a system of a constitutional balance of powers. The Crown was conceived as an moderating power, authorised to dissolve Parliament, when it is necessary to maintain harmony between Parliament and the ministries, but also as an extraordinary neutral authority, which may check Parliaments omnipotence and intervene to secure harmony between the political character of Parliament and the inclination of electorate.
T2  - Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
T1  - Pravo disolucije u nacrtu ustava komisije jugoslovenskih profesora iz 1920. godine
T1  - The right of dissolution in the Constitutional Draft produced by the Commission of Yugoslav professors in 1920
EP  - 54
IS  - 3
SP  - 32
VL  - 67
DO  - 10.5937/AnaliPFB1903034S
UR  - conv_3310_6
ER  - 
@article{
author = "Stefanovski, Mirjana",
year = "2019",
abstract = "U radu se razmatraju teorijska stanovišta koja su opredelila normativno uređenje prava disolucije u ustavnom nacrtu vladine komisije iz 1920. godine. Imajući na umu iskustva parlamentarne prakse u sledu spornih upotreba kraljevskih prerogativa, komisija je u prvoj ustavnoj odredbi formulisala proklamaciju parlamentarizma kao opšteg interpretativnog načela, čiji je smisao bio da utvrdi vezanost akata krune konvencijama parlamentarnog režima i tako najvećma suzi područje diskrecionog postupanja. Uloga kralja u parlamentarnoj monarhiji koncipirana je u skladu sa postavkama teorije o parlamentarnoj vladi kao sistemu ustavne ravnoteže vlasti. Kruna je shvaćena kao moderatorna vlast, koja je pozvana da ocenjuje opravdanost vladinih disolucija kada treba ostvariti harmoniju između parlamenta i ministarstva i obezbediti stabilnu vladu, ali i kao vanredni, neutralni autoritet, koji se kao protivteža isključivoj partijskoj vladavini može protivstaviti svemoći parlamenta i apelom na narod sa izbornom vladom iz manjine intervenisati zarad uspostavljanja saglasja političkog lika parlamenta i raspoloženja biračkog tela., The subject of this article are the theoretical views that determined the regulation of the right of dissolution in the Constitutional Draft produced in 1920 by the Commission of the most prominent Yugoslav legal experts. Having in mind the experience of parliamentary practice of controversial use of royal prerogatives, the Commission formulated a solemn proclamation of parliamentarism as a general interpretative principle, whose purpose was to establish limits of royals acts. The role of king in the parliamentary monarchy was conceived in accordance with the theory of parliamentary government, as a system of a constitutional balance of powers. The Crown was conceived as an moderating power, authorised to dissolve Parliament, when it is necessary to maintain harmony between Parliament and the ministries, but also as an extraordinary neutral authority, which may check Parliaments omnipotence and intervene to secure harmony between the political character of Parliament and the inclination of electorate.",
journal = "Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu",
title = "Pravo disolucije u nacrtu ustava komisije jugoslovenskih profesora iz 1920. godine, The right of dissolution in the Constitutional Draft produced by the Commission of Yugoslav professors in 1920",
pages = "54-32",
number = "3",
volume = "67",
doi = "10.5937/AnaliPFB1903034S",
url = "conv_3310_6"
}
Stefanovski, M.. (2019). Pravo disolucije u nacrtu ustava komisije jugoslovenskih profesora iz 1920. godine. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 67(3), 32-54.
https://doi.org/10.5937/AnaliPFB1903034S
conv_3310_6
Stefanovski M. Pravo disolucije u nacrtu ustava komisije jugoslovenskih profesora iz 1920. godine. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu. 2019;67(3):32-54.
doi:10.5937/AnaliPFB1903034S
conv_3310_6 .
Stefanovski, Mirjana, "Pravo disolucije u nacrtu ustava komisije jugoslovenskih profesora iz 1920. godine" in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 67, no. 3 (2019):32-54,
https://doi.org/10.5937/AnaliPFB1903034S .,
conv_3310_6 .

Postanak Ustava od 1901. godine

Stefanovski, Mirjana

(Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje, 2015)

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Stefanovski, Mirjana
PY  - 2015
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1984
AB  - У раду се разматрају побуде краља Александра Обреновића
да октроише нови устав и разлози који су навели страначке вође да
прихвате да се уставна промена изврши путем октроисања. Истражује се
порекло важнијих уставних одређења и анализирају становишта која су
се исказала у преговорима око различитих солуција, нарочито у погледу
решења кључних уставних питања: конструкције горњег дома, домашаја
прерогатива круне и мере одступања од класичних правила парламентарног
режима. За истраживање постанка Устава у раду су коришћене преписка
учесника конференције на којој је био разматран уставни пројект и њихова
мемоарска казивања. Од особите важности за реконструкцију обликовања
уставних решења јесте нацрт устава који су израдили министри Милован
Миловановић и Пaвле Маринковић. Занемарен у историографији, тај уставни
пројект није до сада био анализиран у правноисторијској литератури.
AB  - This article examines the incentives of King Aleksandar to decree (F. octroyer) a
new Constitution and the reasons which led the party leaders to accept the constitutional
alternation by royal decree. The subject matter is the origin of more
important constitutional provisions and the analysis of views expressed during the
negotiations concerning different solutions: construction of the Second Chamber,
range of royal prerogatives and the measure of aberration from classic parliamentary
regime. In this article are used letters of the participants of the conference
which considered the constitutional project and their memoirs for the examination
of the genesis of the Constitution. The constitutional draft made by ministers
Milovan Milovanović and Pavle Marinković is of particular importance for the
reconstruction of framing constitutional solutions. This constitutional project was
not up to now analyzed in our legal and historical literature.
PB  - Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje
T2  - Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 5 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume V
T1  - Postanak Ustava od 1901. godine
T1  - Outset of the Constitution of 1901
EP  - 114
SP  - 91
ER  - 
@inbook{
author = "Stefanovski, Mirjana",
year = "2015",
abstract = "У раду се разматрају побуде краља Александра Обреновића
да октроише нови устав и разлози који су навели страначке вође да
прихвате да се уставна промена изврши путем октроисања. Истражује се
порекло важнијих уставних одређења и анализирају становишта која су
се исказала у преговорима око различитих солуција, нарочито у погледу
решења кључних уставних питања: конструкције горњег дома, домашаја
прерогатива круне и мере одступања од класичних правила парламентарног
режима. За истраживање постанка Устава у раду су коришћене преписка
учесника конференције на којој је био разматран уставни пројект и њихова
мемоарска казивања. Од особите важности за реконструкцију обликовања
уставних решења јесте нацрт устава који су израдили министри Милован
Миловановић и Пaвле Маринковић. Занемарен у историографији, тај уставни
пројект није до сада био анализиран у правноисторијској литератури., This article examines the incentives of King Aleksandar to decree (F. octroyer) a
new Constitution and the reasons which led the party leaders to accept the constitutional
alternation by royal decree. The subject matter is the origin of more
important constitutional provisions and the analysis of views expressed during the
negotiations concerning different solutions: construction of the Second Chamber,
range of royal prerogatives and the measure of aberration from classic parliamentary
regime. In this article are used letters of the participants of the conference
which considered the constitutional project and their memoirs for the examination
of the genesis of the Constitution. The constitutional draft made by ministers
Milovan Milovanović and Pavle Marinković is of particular importance for the
reconstruction of framing constitutional solutions. This constitutional project was
not up to now analyzed in our legal and historical literature.",
publisher = "Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje",
journal = "Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 5 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume V",
booktitle = "Postanak Ustava od 1901. godine, Outset of the Constitution of 1901",
pages = "114-91"
}
Stefanovski, M.. (2015). Postanak Ustava od 1901. godine. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 5 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume V
Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje., 91-114.
Stefanovski M. Postanak Ustava od 1901. godine. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 5 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume V. 2015;:91-114..
Stefanovski, Mirjana, "Postanak Ustava od 1901. godine" in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 5 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume V (2015):91-114.

Rasprava o gornjem domu u nikoljskom odboru 1868

Stefanovski, Mirjana

(Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje, 2014)

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Stefanovski, Mirjana
PY  - 2014
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1962
AB  - Постављено као кључни проблем уставне реформе, питање горњег
дома било је претресано у првој уставној расправи у Србији у децемб-
ру 1868. године. У раду се анализирају образложења супротстављених
схватања о двојакој улози горњег дома у очувању уставне равнотеже
власти: с једне стране, да буде брана скупштинској свемоћи и да уме-
рава пренагљености и једностраности изабраног дома, те као елемент
стабилности отклања употребу владаочевог вета, а с друге стране, да
организован као надзорна власт, буде јак центар отпорa према влади.
Предлози начина образовања горњег дома (начело изборности са мода-
литетима посредног или корпоративног избора, принцип именовања
са варијантама везаности прописаним својствима или кандидaтским
листама, чланство по положају, трајање мандата) разматрају се са
становишта обезбеђивања заступљености друштвених редова, пред-
стављености образоване мањине и јемстава самосталности. У погледу
овлашћења горњег дома, већина учесника у расправи заложила се за пра-
во законодавне иницијативе оба дома и превагу скупштине у случајеви-
ма несагласности, или у солуцији гласања на заједничкој седници, или у
решењу апела на народ. Такође, већина се изјаснила за суделовање горњег
дома у поступку кривичне министарске одговорности и у фази опту-
жења и у фази суђења, док проблем политичке одговорности министара
пред домовима парламента није подробније расправљан. Аутор закљу-
чује да су за Јована Ристића гледишта исказана у Никољском одбору
била упозорење да би горњи дом могао делотворније да контролише и
обуздава владу него скупштина и да је то пресудно утицало да дводом-
ни систем није био усвојен у Намесничком уставу.
AB  - Nominated as a key problem of constitutional reform the question of Second
Chamber was discussed in the first constitutional debate in Serbia in December
1868. In this article are analysed expositions of opposite conceptions of twofold role of the Second Chamber aimed at preservation of constitutional balance of
powers: on one side, to be a bulwark against parliamentary omnipotence and
to moderate recklesses and one–sidednesses of the elected chamber, and as an
element of stability to disuse the monarch’s veto; on the other side, organized as
control power to be a strong resistent centre against the government. The propositions
of organizing principles of the Second Chamber (electoral principle with
modalities of indirect or corporative election, principle of appointment with the
variations of binding by prescribed qualities or candidate lists, membership by
position, duration of mandate) are analysed from the standpoint of providing
proper representation of social orders and educated minority and guarantees
of individual independence. Concerning the powers of the Second Chamber
the majority of participants in debate stood for the legislative initiative of both
chambers and preponderance of elected chamber in cases of disagreement, or by
voting in the joint session or by appeal to electoral body. The majority also stated
for the participation of the Second Chamber in the procedure of ministerial
criminal responsibility both in phases of accusation and of trial, while the problem
of ministerial political responsibility in bi-cameral system was not fully discussed.
The author concludes that for Jovan Ristić the standpoints expressed in
Saint Nicholas’ Day Committee were warning that the Second Chamber would
more effectively control and restrain government than the elected body alone;
and that was the decisive reason why the bi-cameral system was not adopted in
Regent Constitution of 1869.
PB  - Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje
T2  - Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 4 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume IV
T1  - Rasprava o gornjem domu u nikoljskom odboru 1868
T1  - Discussion on Second Chamber in Saint Nicholas’ Day Committee in 1868
EP  - 108
SP  - 87
ER  - 
@inbook{
author = "Stefanovski, Mirjana",
year = "2014",
abstract = "Постављено као кључни проблем уставне реформе, питање горњег
дома било је претресано у првој уставној расправи у Србији у децемб-
ру 1868. године. У раду се анализирају образложења супротстављених
схватања о двојакој улози горњег дома у очувању уставне равнотеже
власти: с једне стране, да буде брана скупштинској свемоћи и да уме-
рава пренагљености и једностраности изабраног дома, те као елемент
стабилности отклања употребу владаочевог вета, а с друге стране, да
организован као надзорна власт, буде јак центар отпорa према влади.
Предлози начина образовања горњег дома (начело изборности са мода-
литетима посредног или корпоративног избора, принцип именовања
са варијантама везаности прописаним својствима или кандидaтским
листама, чланство по положају, трајање мандата) разматрају се са
становишта обезбеђивања заступљености друштвених редова, пред-
стављености образоване мањине и јемстава самосталности. У погледу
овлашћења горњег дома, већина учесника у расправи заложила се за пра-
во законодавне иницијативе оба дома и превагу скупштине у случајеви-
ма несагласности, или у солуцији гласања на заједничкој седници, или у
решењу апела на народ. Такође, већина се изјаснила за суделовање горњег
дома у поступку кривичне министарске одговорности и у фази опту-
жења и у фази суђења, док проблем политичке одговорности министара
пред домовима парламента није подробније расправљан. Аутор закљу-
чује да су за Јована Ристића гледишта исказана у Никољском одбору
била упозорење да би горњи дом могао делотворније да контролише и
обуздава владу него скупштина и да је то пресудно утицало да дводом-
ни систем није био усвојен у Намесничком уставу., Nominated as a key problem of constitutional reform the question of Second
Chamber was discussed in the first constitutional debate in Serbia in December
1868. In this article are analysed expositions of opposite conceptions of twofold role of the Second Chamber aimed at preservation of constitutional balance of
powers: on one side, to be a bulwark against parliamentary omnipotence and
to moderate recklesses and one–sidednesses of the elected chamber, and as an
element of stability to disuse the monarch’s veto; on the other side, organized as
control power to be a strong resistent centre against the government. The propositions
of organizing principles of the Second Chamber (electoral principle with
modalities of indirect or corporative election, principle of appointment with the
variations of binding by prescribed qualities or candidate lists, membership by
position, duration of mandate) are analysed from the standpoint of providing
proper representation of social orders and educated minority and guarantees
of individual independence. Concerning the powers of the Second Chamber
the majority of participants in debate stood for the legislative initiative of both
chambers and preponderance of elected chamber in cases of disagreement, or by
voting in the joint session or by appeal to electoral body. The majority also stated
for the participation of the Second Chamber in the procedure of ministerial
criminal responsibility both in phases of accusation and of trial, while the problem
of ministerial political responsibility in bi-cameral system was not fully discussed.
The author concludes that for Jovan Ristić the standpoints expressed in
Saint Nicholas’ Day Committee were warning that the Second Chamber would
more effectively control and restrain government than the elected body alone;
and that was the decisive reason why the bi-cameral system was not adopted in
Regent Constitution of 1869.",
publisher = "Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje",
journal = "Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 4 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume IV",
booktitle = "Rasprava o gornjem domu u nikoljskom odboru 1868, Discussion on Second Chamber in Saint Nicholas’ Day Committee in 1868",
pages = "108-87"
}
Stefanovski, M.. (2014). Rasprava o gornjem domu u nikoljskom odboru 1868. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 4 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume IV
Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje., 87-108.
Stefanovski M. Rasprava o gornjem domu u nikoljskom odboru 1868. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 4 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume IV. 2014;:87-108..
Stefanovski, Mirjana, "Rasprava o gornjem domu u nikoljskom odboru 1868" in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 4 / Perspectives of Implementa                  tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume IV (2014):87-108.

Odgovornost ministаrа. Slučаj Nаstаsа Petrovićа 1907–1911

Stefanovski, Mirjana

(Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje, 2013)

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Stefanovski, Mirjana
PY  - 2013
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1942
AB  - Случај Настаса Петровића особен је у нашој парламентарној по-
вести по томе што су паралелно била покренута питања политичке
и кривичне министарске одговорности, расправљана у опсежним
скупштинским расправама о двема интерпелацијама (новембар–де-
цембар 1907. и март 1911. године) и о предлогу парламентарне оптужбе
(април 1911. године). У раду су приказана схватања која су тада била
исказана о важним питањима министарске одговорности: комплемен-
тарности политичке и кривичне одговорности, разграничења сфера
индивидуалне и колективне одговорности, солидарности хомогених ка-
бинета и коалиционих влада, разграничења јурисдикција државног суда
и редовног кривичног правосуђа, природе министарских кривица и прин-
ципа и критеријума парламентарне оптужбе.
AB  - Concerning the dramatic assassination in the prison in 1907 in the Assembly
were initiated the questions of political and criminal responsibility of minister in
office and collective responsibility of the government. In November and December
1907 and in March and April 1911 an comprehensive discussion took place
during parliamentary debates concerning two interpellations and the motion of
accusation. Party leaders, among which were some excellent intellectuals and
respective scholars, expressed on those occasions their conceptions on important
questions of ministerial responsibility: mutuality of legal and political responsibility,
delimitation of the spheres of individual and collective responsibility, solidarity
of homogeneous cabinets and coalition governments, delimitation of jurisdictions
of the State court and ordinary criminal judiciary, the nature of ministerial guilt
and principles and criteria of parliamentary accusation. Parliamentary debate of
those questions reflected a developed comprehension of notion of ministerial responsibility
as fundamental principle of parliamentary government and guaranty
of constitutionality and legality. In spite of that the result of voting on interpellations
and on the motion of accusation demonstrated in case of Nastas Petrović
that party discipline prevailed over both conventions of parliamentary system and
idea of legality. Led by party interest Radical party parliamentary majority protected
the minister of nonconfidence vote and subsequently of accusation and also
by parliamentary support kept in power both Pašić’s cabinets.
PB  - Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje
T2  - Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 3 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume III
T1  - Odgovornost ministаrа. Slučаj Nаstаsа Petrovićа 1907–1911
T1  - Ministerial Responsibility. The Case of Nastas Petrović 1907–1911
EP  - 101
SP  - 81
ER  - 
@inbook{
author = "Stefanovski, Mirjana",
year = "2013",
abstract = "Случај Настаса Петровића особен је у нашој парламентарној по-
вести по томе што су паралелно била покренута питања политичке
и кривичне министарске одговорности, расправљана у опсежним
скупштинским расправама о двема интерпелацијама (новембар–де-
цембар 1907. и март 1911. године) и о предлогу парламентарне оптужбе
(април 1911. године). У раду су приказана схватања која су тада била
исказана о важним питањима министарске одговорности: комплемен-
тарности политичке и кривичне одговорности, разграничења сфера
индивидуалне и колективне одговорности, солидарности хомогених ка-
бинета и коалиционих влада, разграничења јурисдикција државног суда
и редовног кривичног правосуђа, природе министарских кривица и прин-
ципа и критеријума парламентарне оптужбе., Concerning the dramatic assassination in the prison in 1907 in the Assembly
were initiated the questions of political and criminal responsibility of minister in
office and collective responsibility of the government. In November and December
1907 and in March and April 1911 an comprehensive discussion took place
during parliamentary debates concerning two interpellations and the motion of
accusation. Party leaders, among which were some excellent intellectuals and
respective scholars, expressed on those occasions their conceptions on important
questions of ministerial responsibility: mutuality of legal and political responsibility,
delimitation of the spheres of individual and collective responsibility, solidarity
of homogeneous cabinets and coalition governments, delimitation of jurisdictions
of the State court and ordinary criminal judiciary, the nature of ministerial guilt
and principles and criteria of parliamentary accusation. Parliamentary debate of
those questions reflected a developed comprehension of notion of ministerial responsibility
as fundamental principle of parliamentary government and guaranty
of constitutionality and legality. In spite of that the result of voting on interpellations
and on the motion of accusation demonstrated in case of Nastas Petrović
that party discipline prevailed over both conventions of parliamentary system and
idea of legality. Led by party interest Radical party parliamentary majority protected
the minister of nonconfidence vote and subsequently of accusation and also
by parliamentary support kept in power both Pašić’s cabinets.",
publisher = "Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje",
journal = "Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 3 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume III",
booktitle = "Odgovornost ministаrа. Slučаj Nаstаsа Petrovićа 1907–1911, Ministerial Responsibility. The Case of Nastas Petrović 1907–1911",
pages = "101-81"
}
Stefanovski, M.. (2013). Odgovornost ministаrа. Slučаj Nаstаsа Petrovićа 1907–1911. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 3 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume III
Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje., 81-101.
Stefanovski M. Odgovornost ministаrа. Slučаj Nаstаsа Petrovićа 1907–1911. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 3 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume III. 2013;:81-101..
Stefanovski, Mirjana, "Odgovornost ministаrа. Slučаj Nаstаsа Petrovićа 1907–1911" in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 3 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume III (2013):81-101.

Pojam ministarske krivice u ustavnom razvitku Srbije 1869-1918. godine

Stefanovski, Mirjana

(Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje, 2012)

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Stefanovski, Mirjana
PY  - 2012
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1924
AB  - У раду се приказује изградња појма министарске кривице у српском
уставном праву од увођења института парламентарне оптужбе ми-
нистара у склопу уставне реформе из 1869. године. Анализирају се ус-
тавни прописи о кривичној одговорности министара и одредбе зако-
на о министарској одговорности, њихова тумачења у скупштинским
расправама седамдесетих година XIX века и у дебати у уставотворном
одбору 1888. године, критика у литератури и конструкција министар-
ских кривица у нацртима устава. Указује се на порекло одговарајућих
решења у упоредном праву и, посебно, разматрају се питање примене
начела поротног суђења и проблем разграничења јурисдикција државног
суда и редовног правосуђа.
AB  - The institution of parliamentary accusation, conceived as the highest guarantee
of constitutionality, had been introduced within the framework of the constitutional
reform in 1869. The system of the enumeration of ministerial guilts
had been taken from Prussian Constitution, but with expressed aspiration for
general conception of delict and full respect of their essentially political nature.
Legal system of ministerial responsibility had been established by scrupulous
preservation of the principle of legality and with judicious delimitation of judicial
aspect of dual elements – political and legal-criminal – in the mixed nature
of ministerial guilt. As a particular forum of political judiciary the state court,
adjudicating according to the jury principles, could only pass sentence on penalty
of grade deprivation and disability for governmental service. The guarantee
of ordinary court jurisdiction was prescribed for crimes punishable according to
criminal law. Taking almost literary the Belgian Constitution solutions, Milan
Piroćanac Government’s draft of the Constitution from 1883, by discretionary
powers of the chambers concerning the accusation, and the judicial non-binded
by normative determination of crimes which invoke ministerial responsibility,
and prescribed penalities, was also on the track of the view widely accepted
in French theory and adopted by Senate case law as the court for dispensing
justice in case of ministers. The Radical Party draft of the constitution of 1883,
parallely with the widest determination of unlawfulness, openly introduces the
appreciation of ministerial acts’ purposefulness. The relinquishment of principal
delimitation of jurisdictions of the state court and ordinary judiciary within
the system of criminal ministerial responsibility in the constitutional reform
of 1888, was relieved by high quality of the court composition and limitation
of implementing the principle of jury-adjudication. The concept of ministerial
guilt had also been essentially changed. Characteristic delicts which had been
separated as possible misuse of ministerial powers had got clear criminal-legal
feature and were subjected to penalties appropriate to responsibility for crimes.
By excepting the acts of discretionary powers and deducing the sphere of responsibility
to unlawfulness the Serbian legislator paves the way for the tendency
which later on will become predominant in European constitutional solutions.
PB  - Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje
T2  - Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 2 / Perspectives of Implementa                                                                     tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume II
T1  - Pojam ministarske krivice u ustavnom razvitku Srbije 1869-1918. godine
T1  - The concept of ministerial guilt in the constitutional development of Serbia 1869-1918
EP  - 131
SP  - 110
ER  - 
@inbook{
author = "Stefanovski, Mirjana",
year = "2012",
abstract = "У раду се приказује изградња појма министарске кривице у српском
уставном праву од увођења института парламентарне оптужбе ми-
нистара у склопу уставне реформе из 1869. године. Анализирају се ус-
тавни прописи о кривичној одговорности министара и одредбе зако-
на о министарској одговорности, њихова тумачења у скупштинским
расправама седамдесетих година XIX века и у дебати у уставотворном
одбору 1888. године, критика у литератури и конструкција министар-
ских кривица у нацртима устава. Указује се на порекло одговарајућих
решења у упоредном праву и, посебно, разматрају се питање примене
начела поротног суђења и проблем разграничења јурисдикција државног
суда и редовног правосуђа., The institution of parliamentary accusation, conceived as the highest guarantee
of constitutionality, had been introduced within the framework of the constitutional
reform in 1869. The system of the enumeration of ministerial guilts
had been taken from Prussian Constitution, but with expressed aspiration for
general conception of delict and full respect of their essentially political nature.
Legal system of ministerial responsibility had been established by scrupulous
preservation of the principle of legality and with judicious delimitation of judicial
aspect of dual elements – political and legal-criminal – in the mixed nature
of ministerial guilt. As a particular forum of political judiciary the state court,
adjudicating according to the jury principles, could only pass sentence on penalty
of grade deprivation and disability for governmental service. The guarantee
of ordinary court jurisdiction was prescribed for crimes punishable according to
criminal law. Taking almost literary the Belgian Constitution solutions, Milan
Piroćanac Government’s draft of the Constitution from 1883, by discretionary
powers of the chambers concerning the accusation, and the judicial non-binded
by normative determination of crimes which invoke ministerial responsibility,
and prescribed penalities, was also on the track of the view widely accepted
in French theory and adopted by Senate case law as the court for dispensing
justice in case of ministers. The Radical Party draft of the constitution of 1883,
parallely with the widest determination of unlawfulness, openly introduces the
appreciation of ministerial acts’ purposefulness. The relinquishment of principal
delimitation of jurisdictions of the state court and ordinary judiciary within
the system of criminal ministerial responsibility in the constitutional reform
of 1888, was relieved by high quality of the court composition and limitation
of implementing the principle of jury-adjudication. The concept of ministerial
guilt had also been essentially changed. Characteristic delicts which had been
separated as possible misuse of ministerial powers had got clear criminal-legal
feature and were subjected to penalties appropriate to responsibility for crimes.
By excepting the acts of discretionary powers and deducing the sphere of responsibility
to unlawfulness the Serbian legislator paves the way for the tendency
which later on will become predominant in European constitutional solutions.",
publisher = "Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje",
journal = "Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 2 / Perspectives of Implementa                                                                     tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume II",
booktitle = "Pojam ministarske krivice u ustavnom razvitku Srbije 1869-1918. godine, The concept of ministerial guilt in the constitutional development of Serbia 1869-1918",
pages = "131-110"
}
Stefanovski, M.. (2012). Pojam ministarske krivice u ustavnom razvitku Srbije 1869-1918. godine. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 2 / Perspectives of Implementa                                                                     tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume II
Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje., 110-131.
Stefanovski M. Pojam ministarske krivice u ustavnom razvitku Srbije 1869-1918. godine. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 2 / Perspectives of Implementa                                                                     tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume II. 2012;:110-131..
Stefanovski, Mirjana, "Pojam ministarske krivice u ustavnom razvitku Srbije 1869-1918. godine" in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 2 / Perspectives of Implementa                                                                     tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume II (2012):110-131.

Nepostojanje ministarskog premapotpisa u Ustavu Srbije od 2006. godine

Stefanovski, Mirjana

(Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje, 2011)

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Stefanovski, Mirjana
PY  - 2011
UR  - https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1901
AB  - Неусловљеност председничких аката министарским премапотпи-
сом у Уставу Србије од 2006. године представља крупну аномалију у сис-
тему одговорности власти. У раду се разматрају њени домашаји у скло-
пу уставних решења о одређивању мандатара и избору владе, гласању о
неповерењу влади и распуштању скупштине и о поступку разрешења
председника Републике. Указује се на порекло идеје о арбитражној уло-
зи председничких прерогатива, на њене иманентне слабости и непос-
тојање јемстава и санкција против злоупотреба.
AB  - The Constitution of 2006 took over from the previous constitution nonexistence
of ministerial contra-signature. In that way has been removed the
very foundation of parliamentary system without which there is no responsible
government. According to the Constitution all acts and official deeds of the
President of the Republic are his/her personal prerogatives. The President of the
Republic not only performs traditional powers of the chief of the state but also
disposes with influential means of power: the right to determine mandatary for
the composition of the government, the right to dissolve the assembly and the
right of suspensive veto. By disposing of the right to determine mandatary he/
she can substantially influence the composition of the government, and he/she
can force it to resign by non-cooperation in guiding foreign policy or in case
of nomination or dismissing in diplomacy or the military. By his/her discretion
concerning government’s proposal for the dissolution of the assembly the
President has become the arbiter who according to his/her own consideration
decides on the destiny of ministry as well as on the destiny of parliamentary
majority. By refusing to dissolve the assembly the President may overthrow the
government for which the further co-operation with the parliament has become
politically imposible, and remaining in power untenable; and would in that way
be forced to resign. By accepting government’s proposal the President may by
dissolving the assembly frustrate the creation of some other even more solid majority
in the parliament able to establish more stable government.
Along side with unlimited sphere of discretion which easily can glide into
arbitrariness and cross into political misuse of powers, the presidential acts are
released of any political responsibility. Within an extraordinary difficult procedure
for the release, the legal responsibility of the President is set in a very strait
form as a responsibility for acts counter some explicit constitutional provision.
In that case if a proposal for a release would be accepted by absolute majority
in the assembly, and later on be approved by the Constitutional Court, the
Constitution provides even more bizarre solution – remaining of the President
in power by the will of only one third of people’s representatives despite the fact
that he/she as a chief of the state has violated the Constitution. The responsibility
of executive power cannot be in fact solved by personal responsibility of the
chief of the state, since so highly established it is mainly illusory. The prerogatives
of the President can be brought into conformity with profound principle of
government’s responsibility only if it is conditioned by a co-operation of parliamentary
ministry through the institution of contra-signature.
PB  - Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje
T2  - Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 1 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume I
T1  - Nepostojanje ministarskog premapotpisa u Ustavu Srbije od 2006. godine
T1  - Non/Existence of Ministerial contra-signature in The constitution of Serbia of 2006
EP  - 85
SP  - 67
ER  - 
@inbook{
author = "Stefanovski, Mirjana",
year = "2011",
abstract = "Неусловљеност председничких аката министарским премапотпи-
сом у Уставу Србије од 2006. године представља крупну аномалију у сис-
тему одговорности власти. У раду се разматрају њени домашаји у скло-
пу уставних решења о одређивању мандатара и избору владе, гласању о
неповерењу влади и распуштању скупштине и о поступку разрешења
председника Републике. Указује се на порекло идеје о арбитражној уло-
зи председничких прерогатива, на њене иманентне слабости и непос-
тојање јемстава и санкција против злоупотреба., The Constitution of 2006 took over from the previous constitution nonexistence
of ministerial contra-signature. In that way has been removed the
very foundation of parliamentary system without which there is no responsible
government. According to the Constitution all acts and official deeds of the
President of the Republic are his/her personal prerogatives. The President of the
Republic not only performs traditional powers of the chief of the state but also
disposes with influential means of power: the right to determine mandatary for
the composition of the government, the right to dissolve the assembly and the
right of suspensive veto. By disposing of the right to determine mandatary he/
she can substantially influence the composition of the government, and he/she
can force it to resign by non-cooperation in guiding foreign policy or in case
of nomination or dismissing in diplomacy or the military. By his/her discretion
concerning government’s proposal for the dissolution of the assembly the
President has become the arbiter who according to his/her own consideration
decides on the destiny of ministry as well as on the destiny of parliamentary
majority. By refusing to dissolve the assembly the President may overthrow the
government for which the further co-operation with the parliament has become
politically imposible, and remaining in power untenable; and would in that way
be forced to resign. By accepting government’s proposal the President may by
dissolving the assembly frustrate the creation of some other even more solid majority
in the parliament able to establish more stable government.
Along side with unlimited sphere of discretion which easily can glide into
arbitrariness and cross into political misuse of powers, the presidential acts are
released of any political responsibility. Within an extraordinary difficult procedure
for the release, the legal responsibility of the President is set in a very strait
form as a responsibility for acts counter some explicit constitutional provision.
In that case if a proposal for a release would be accepted by absolute majority
in the assembly, and later on be approved by the Constitutional Court, the
Constitution provides even more bizarre solution – remaining of the President
in power by the will of only one third of people’s representatives despite the fact
that he/she as a chief of the state has violated the Constitution. The responsibility
of executive power cannot be in fact solved by personal responsibility of the
chief of the state, since so highly established it is mainly illusory. The prerogatives
of the President can be brought into conformity with profound principle of
government’s responsibility only if it is conditioned by a co-operation of parliamentary
ministry through the institution of contra-signature.",
publisher = "Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje",
journal = "Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 1 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume I",
booktitle = "Nepostojanje ministarskog premapotpisa u Ustavu Srbije od 2006. godine, Non/Existence of Ministerial contra-signature in The constitution of Serbia of 2006",
pages = "85-67"
}
Stefanovski, M.. (2011). Nepostojanje ministarskog premapotpisa u Ustavu Srbije od 2006. godine. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 1 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume I
Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje., 67-85.
Stefanovski M. Nepostojanje ministarskog premapotpisa u Ustavu Srbije od 2006. godine. in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 1 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume I. 2011;:67-85..
Stefanovski, Mirjana, "Nepostojanje ministarskog premapotpisa u Ustavu Srbije od 2006. godine" in Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 1 / Perspectives of Implementation of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume I (2011):67-85.