STATUTORY COURT: LEGISLATION, DRAFT LAWS, AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS (1930-1935)
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
This article reveals the circumstances of the establishment of the Statutory Court, and the reasons for the laws that are simultaneously being drafted. This research analyses the status, structure, competence of the Statutory Court, some aspects of judicial process, and the relation with the Statute of the Memel Territory. As the chronological research boundaries are 1930-1935, and at that time there were no verbatim transcripts of the legislators’ meetings, the article follows the draft laws and explanatory notes found in the archives in an order to restore the course and content of the drafting of the Statute of the Court and other laws. The article also provides summaries of the talks between politicians and diplomats concerning the Statutory Court and the Memel Territory, which reveals why the Statutory Court did not start its activities, and the new legal regulation did not come into force.
The article concludes that the main reasons for the establishment of the Statutory Court were disputes that arose between the central and the Memel Territory authorities, the solutions of which were not regulated by the Statute of the Memel Territory.
More than ten draft laws concerned with Statutory Court Law were submitted by the Council of the State. The main objective of the draft laws was the protection of the Statute from the actions of autonomous bodies of the Territory and of central Lithuanian authorities that were contrary to the Statute.
Together with the draft laws concerning the Statutory Court Act, the drafts laws on the Governor’s Rights Act were submitted. It seems that the creation of the latter was affected by the decision of the Hague Tribunal on August 11 of 1932, as it was emphasized that the state should not only have certain legal instruments on the laws of the Memel Territory (veto of governor), but also on the activities of the local government.
None of the aforementioned draft laws were adopted by the legislator, with the exception of the Act on Statutory Court. However, the Statutory Court did not begin its work, and the main reason for this was the international political situation at that time.
The article concludes that the main reasons for the establishment of the Statutory Court were disputes that arose between the central and the Memel Territory authorities, the solutions of which were not regulated by the Statute of the Memel Territory.
More than ten draft laws concerned with Statutory Court Law were submitted by the Council of the State. The main objective of the draft laws was the protection of the Statute from the actions of autonomous bodies of the Territory and of central Lithuanian authorities that were contrary to the Statute.
Together with the draft laws concerning the Statutory Court Act, the drafts laws on the Governor’s Rights Act were submitted. It seems that the creation of the latter was affected by the decision of the Hague Tribunal on August 11 of 1932, as it was emphasized that the state should not only have certain legal instruments on the laws of the Memel Territory (veto of governor), but also on the activities of the local government.
None of the aforementioned draft laws were adopted by the legislator, with the exception of the Act on Statutory Court. However, the Statutory Court did not begin its work, and the main reason for this was the international political situation at that time.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
