Ustavna istorija kao samostalna disciplina?

Abstract

Cilj ovog rada je da analizira mogućnosti postojanja ustavne istorije kao samostalne discipline. To je učinjeno posredno, na osnovu analize monografskih dela, odnosno sinteza ustavne istorije Srbije XIX veka. Sinteze koje su predmet ovog rada nastajale su u raznim vremenskim periodima. U ovom radu se nude prikazi tih dela, ali ne njihove sadržine, već prvenstveno metodološkog pristupa koje njihovi autori zastupaju. Pretpostavka je da ustavna istorija, premda nikada na pravnim fakultetima u Srbiji nije postojala kao samostalna disciplina, ima svoj predmet i specifičan metodološki pristup. Na osnovu analize tih dela, na kraju se izvode zaključci o osobenostima ustavne istorije, širini njenog predmeta, kao i vezama sa drugim disciplinama.

The constitutional history never had the status of an independent discipline on faculties of law in Serbia. On the other hand, there are a few synthesis in Serbian and in English with monographic characteristics regarding the constitutional history of Serbia. Occasionally there are some concerning the entire constitutional history, but most of them are about 19th century. Some of those monographs are analyzed in this paper: the works of Slobodan Jovanović regarding 19th century constitutional history of Serbia 'Constitutional Development and Constitutional Fights in Serbia' by Jaša Prodanović, 'The Development of Parliamentary Government in Serbia' by Alex Dragnich and 'Constitutional history of Serbia' by Dragoljub Popović. In consideration are taken a few Serbian Constitutional law textbooks which traditionally contain general as well as national constitutional history. Those works are taken as examples for analyzing the possibility of constitutional history being an independent discipline. It was done through an indirect approach, by analyzing the monographic works, that is, the synthesis of constitutional history of Serbia in 19th century. This paper doesn't give a review of the content of the abovementioned works but a review of the methodological approach used by its authors. Although the constitutional history was never considered as an independent discipline on faculties of law in Serbia, the assumption is that it has its own subject and specific methodological approach. All the works that have been the subject of analysis show a certain methodological specifics. However, the authors do not explicitly state their methodological approach. For example, Slobodan Jovanović distinctly says that he writes about the constitutional history and states some notions in regards to a potential subject of that discipline which he understands it to be quite broadly. The analysis of Jaša Prodanović and Alex Dragnich are predominantly based on chronological approach, whereas the analysis of Dragoljub Popović are based on chronological and thematic approach. The conclusion is that the constitutional history lays between the use of the historical method and the method of the constitutional law. And, as there can't be an understanding of constitutional legal phenomenon without its overall comprehension which includes not only the analyze of the constitutional norms but also the 'life' of those norms, their practical shaping, neither can constitutional history be limited to merely give a description of the constitutional norms which existed in the past. Constitutional history must leap into the past and understand which conditions lead to certain ideas or were of great significance in shaping the political institutions. Hence, the subject of constitutional history, at first glance, can be seen as unspecified. However the subject is clear, and a successful result requires a perception of the subject of constitutional history from various perspectives.