DAIS - Digital Archive of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
    • English
    • Српски
    • Српски (Serbia)
  • English 
    • English
    • Serbian (Cyrillic)
    • Serbian (Latin)
  • Login
View Item 
  •   DAIS
  • Cрпска академија наука и уметности / Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  • Зборник за историју Босне и Херцеговине / Recueil de l'histoire de Bosnie et Herzegovine
  • View Item
  •   DAIS
  • Cрпска академија наука и уметности / Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  • Зборник за историју Босне и Херцеговине / Recueil de l'histoire de Bosnie et Herzegovine
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Босански устав - "Штатут" из 1910.

Bosnian Constitution - "Štatut" of 1910

Thumbnail
2012
statut.pdf (299.3Kb)
Authors
Микић, Ђорђе
Article (Published version)
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
За Босански устав 1910, чија је годишњица била 2010, наши преци су, у недостатку бољега, живели, борили се и умирали. Он је за њих, као и данашњи устав за нас, био знак слободе, закона и реда. Зато је стогодишњица овог Устава, чији су доносиоци били странци, важна и за данашње уставно питање у Босни и Херцеговини.
Bosnian Constitution of 1910 was passed in difficult times and strained inner and international circumstances. In such condition of a colonial occupation and political organization on national and religious basis, this constitution, as it was the case with all movements for liberation, was not a product of a battle of the population with the foreigners but was an “imposed compromise”. There did not exist any organized national and political power for such kind of struggle. Those who were present, like leaders of the newly arisen civic political groups, avoided any action on side of the people, partly because of the feudal and clerical interests. It was because of their class interests that they were adjustable to the foreign authorities. The powers of opposition, like workers and their movement, were at the beginnings of founding and organizing themselves and lacked the support of the far numerous peasant masses and contact with other progressive social forces. This const...itution was imposed by foreign invader in form of the “extraordinary” gift which did not satisfy the population because it served to extinguish the revolutionary national fire. At the same time, it reflected reactionary beliefs of the foreign aggressor and represented, formally, a kind of progress while being, in fact, in its greater part, a confirmation of the existing state formed in the long period of the occupational absolutistic rule. B&H remained dependent on the Monarchy, with bureaucratic Government which was in no way responsible to the Sabor, which was national representative body of “little influence”, without constituent initiative and with limited legislative functions. This is why the Constitution of 1910, with its main regulations represented a new form of the old absolutism and in its essence was an “illusion”. Of utmost importance were Hungarian jealousy and fears that solving of the Bosnian question would be followed by settling of the Yugoslav issues. Also, the Austrians were suspicious of the population, especially of the Serbs. Because of such politics, and, after the Constitution, the problem of Bosnia and Herzegovina remained an “open wound”, said in words of the very joint Minister of finances, Stefan Burijan, a longstanding supreme chief of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s government. Bearing in mind the “wound” which Bosnia and Herzegovina experienced with the Constitution of 1910 in World War I, in order that the Constitution of Deiton should not become a new “permanent wound”, a new constitution should preserve the principles of Deiton. It should, also, have “special connections” of not only of Republika Srpska with Serbia but of Muslim-Croatian’s Federation with Croatia, too. Also, both of them, as well as the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina have similar or same ethnical and religious structure with those of Serbia, Croatia and Montenegro. The State of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Republika Srpska and the Federation should involve in a struggle which would suppress Serbian and Croatian separatism. It should, also, calm the Bošnjaks and prevent possible pretensions of Serbia and Croatia on Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this way, the new Constitution could have a better future than the Constitution of Deiton, and, especially, the Bosnian Constitution of 1910 have had.

Keywords:
Босна и Херцеговина / Босански устав / Беч / Пешта / Аустрија / Угарска / Срби / Муслимани / Хрвати / Босански сабор / Данило Димовић / Глигорије Јефтановић / Никола Стојановић
Source:
Зборник за историју Босне и Херцеговине, 2012, 7, 301-319
Publisher:
  • Београд : Српска академија наука и уметности
Note:
  • Recueil de l’histoire de bosnie et herzegovine, 7

Cobiss ID: 1538126826

ISSN: 0354-9461

[ Google Scholar ]
Handle
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_dais_9686
URI
https://dais.sanu.ac.rs/123456789/9686
Collections
  • Зборник за историју Босне и Херцеговине / Recueil de l'histoire de Bosnie et Herzegovine
Institution/Community
Cрпска академија наука и уметности / Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
TY  - JOUR
AU  - Микић, Ђорђе
PY  - 2012
UR  - https://dais.sanu.ac.rs/123456789/9686
AB  - За Босански
устав 1910, чија
је годишњица
била
2010, наши
преци
су, у недостатку
бољега,
живели,
борили
се и умирали.
Он је за
њих, као и данашњи
устав за нас, био знак слободе,
закона
и реда.
Зато
је
стогодишњица
овог Устава,
чији
су доносиоци
били
странци,
важна
и за
данашње
уставно
питање
у Босни
и Херцеговини.
AB  - Bosnian Constitution of 1910 was passed in difficult times and strained
inner and international circumstances. In such condition of a colonial
occupation and political organization on national and religious basis,
this constitution, as it was the case with all movements for liberation,
was not a product of a battle of the population with the foreigners
but was an “imposed compromise”. There did not exist any organized
national and political power for such kind of struggle. Those who were
present, like leaders of the newly arisen civic political groups, avoided
any action on side of the people, partly because of the feudal and clerical
interests. It was because of their class interests that they were adjustable
to the foreign authorities. The powers of opposition, like workers and
their movement, were at the beginnings of founding and organizing
themselves and lacked the support of the far numerous peasant masses
and contact with other progressive social forces.
This constitution was imposed by foreign invader in form of the
“extraordinary” gift which did not satisfy the population because it served
to extinguish the revolutionary national fire. At the same time, it reflected
reactionary beliefs of the foreign aggressor and represented, formally, a
kind of progress while being, in fact, in its greater part, a confirmation
of the existing state formed in the long period of the occupational
absolutistic rule. B&H remained dependent on the Monarchy, with
bureaucratic Government which was in no way responsible to the Sabor,
which was national representative body of “little influence”, without
constituent initiative and with limited legislative functions. This is
why the Constitution of 1910, with its main regulations represented
a new form of the old absolutism and in its essence was an “illusion”.
Of utmost importance were Hungarian jealousy and fears that solving
of the Bosnian question would be followed by settling of the Yugoslav
issues. Also, the Austrians were suspicious of the population, especially
of the Serbs. Because of such politics, and, after the Constitution, the
problem of Bosnia and Herzegovina remained an “open wound”, said
in words of the very joint Minister of finances, Stefan Burijan, a longstanding
supreme chief of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s government.
Bearing in mind the “wound” which Bosnia and Herzegovina
experienced with the Constitution of 1910 in World War I, in order
that the Constitution of Deiton should not become a new “permanent
wound”, a new constitution should preserve the principles of Deiton. It
should, also, have “special connections” of not only of Republika Srpska
with Serbia but of Muslim-Croatian’s Federation with Croatia, too.
Also, both of them, as well as the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina have
similar or same ethnical and religious structure with those of Serbia,
Croatia and Montenegro. The State of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as
Republika Srpska and the Federation should involve in a struggle which
would suppress Serbian and Croatian separatism. It should, also, calm
the Bošnjaks and prevent possible pretensions of Serbia and Croatia on
Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this way, the new Constitution could have
a better future than the Constitution of Deiton, and, especially, the
Bosnian Constitution of 1910 have had.
PB  - Београд : Српска академија наука и уметности
T2  - Зборник за историју Босне и Херцеговине
T1  - Босански устав - "Штатут" из 1910.
T1  - Bosnian Constitution - "Štatut" of 1910
SP  - 301
EP  - 319
IS  - 7
UR  - https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_dais_9686
ER  - 
@article{
author = "Микић, Ђорђе",
year = "2012",
abstract = "За Босански
устав 1910, чија
је годишњица
била
2010, наши
преци
су, у недостатку
бољега,
живели,
борили
се и умирали.
Он је за
њих, као и данашњи
устав за нас, био знак слободе,
закона
и реда.
Зато
је
стогодишњица
овог Устава,
чији
су доносиоци
били
странци,
важна
и за
данашње
уставно
питање
у Босни
и Херцеговини., Bosnian Constitution of 1910 was passed in difficult times and strained
inner and international circumstances. In such condition of a colonial
occupation and political organization on national and religious basis,
this constitution, as it was the case with all movements for liberation,
was not a product of a battle of the population with the foreigners
but was an “imposed compromise”. There did not exist any organized
national and political power for such kind of struggle. Those who were
present, like leaders of the newly arisen civic political groups, avoided
any action on side of the people, partly because of the feudal and clerical
interests. It was because of their class interests that they were adjustable
to the foreign authorities. The powers of opposition, like workers and
their movement, were at the beginnings of founding and organizing
themselves and lacked the support of the far numerous peasant masses
and contact with other progressive social forces.
This constitution was imposed by foreign invader in form of the
“extraordinary” gift which did not satisfy the population because it served
to extinguish the revolutionary national fire. At the same time, it reflected
reactionary beliefs of the foreign aggressor and represented, formally, a
kind of progress while being, in fact, in its greater part, a confirmation
of the existing state formed in the long period of the occupational
absolutistic rule. B&H remained dependent on the Monarchy, with
bureaucratic Government which was in no way responsible to the Sabor,
which was national representative body of “little influence”, without
constituent initiative and with limited legislative functions. This is
why the Constitution of 1910, with its main regulations represented
a new form of the old absolutism and in its essence was an “illusion”.
Of utmost importance were Hungarian jealousy and fears that solving
of the Bosnian question would be followed by settling of the Yugoslav
issues. Also, the Austrians were suspicious of the population, especially
of the Serbs. Because of such politics, and, after the Constitution, the
problem of Bosnia and Herzegovina remained an “open wound”, said
in words of the very joint Minister of finances, Stefan Burijan, a longstanding
supreme chief of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s government.
Bearing in mind the “wound” which Bosnia and Herzegovina
experienced with the Constitution of 1910 in World War I, in order
that the Constitution of Deiton should not become a new “permanent
wound”, a new constitution should preserve the principles of Deiton. It
should, also, have “special connections” of not only of Republika Srpska
with Serbia but of Muslim-Croatian’s Federation with Croatia, too.
Also, both of them, as well as the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina have
similar or same ethnical and religious structure with those of Serbia,
Croatia and Montenegro. The State of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as
Republika Srpska and the Federation should involve in a struggle which
would suppress Serbian and Croatian separatism. It should, also, calm
the Bošnjaks and prevent possible pretensions of Serbia and Croatia on
Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this way, the new Constitution could have
a better future than the Constitution of Deiton, and, especially, the
Bosnian Constitution of 1910 have had.",
publisher = "Београд : Српска академија наука и уметности",
journal = "Зборник за историју Босне и Херцеговине",
title = "Босански устав - "Штатут" из 1910., Bosnian Constitution - "Štatut" of 1910",
pages = "301-319",
number = "7",
url = "https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_dais_9686"
}
Микић, Ђ.. (2012). Босански устав - "Штатут" из 1910.. in Зборник за историју Босне и Херцеговине
Београд : Српска академија наука и уметности.(7), 301-319.
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_dais_9686
Микић Ђ. Босански устав - "Штатут" из 1910.. in Зборник за историју Босне и Херцеговине. 2012;(7):301-319.
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_dais_9686 .
Микић, Ђорђе, "Босански устав - "Штатут" из 1910." in Зборник за историју Босне и Херцеговине, no. 7 (2012):301-319,
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_dais_9686 .

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
About DAIS - Digital Archive of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts | Send Feedback

CoreTrustSealre3dataOpenAIRERCUB
 

 

All of DSpaceInstitutions/communitiesAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis institutionAuthorsTitlesSubjects

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
About DAIS - Digital Archive of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts | Send Feedback

CoreTrustSealre3dataOpenAIRERCUB