Search

The Paper deals with the importance of the Slovak influence (the role of Hungarian law and Slovak commissions) in the and recodification of civil law in Czechoslovakia for the time period 1918-1948 using the example of inheritance law. Firstly, different approaches in private law legislation after 1918 are presented (discontinuity, compromise, continuity with Hungarian law, continuity with Austrian law). Secondly, attention is paid to the inspiration of Slovak (Hungarian) law in the course of the recodification of inheritance law, which together with family law was one of the areas differing the most in the Czech lands and Slovakia, while receiving the most attention in the literature of the time and compared to other areas of civil law, which also influenced the further legal development the most significantly (Slovak law, the preparation of the Civil Code of 1950, the interwar curricula of 1931 and 1936/37, as well as the preparation of the Civil Code of 2012). In particular, the issues discussed in the so-called Slovak commissions (the Commission for the Civil Law established in Bratislava in 1922 and partly also the Commission under the Justice Commission for the Codification and Unification of Civil Law established in 1946), such as the acquisition of inheritance, incapacity to inherit (crime against the testator, the status of members of religious orders, adulterers and deserters), waiver of the right of inheritance, oral will, testamentary succession, protection of the surviving wife, extraordinary right of inheritance of legatees, determining the value of the gift by collation, transfer of the testator's debts, contract of inheritance, war will, annulment of last will and testament and protection of illegitimate children. The ABGB was chosen as the basis for the recodification, which was only to be modernised (mainly the codification of Austrian law, its applicability to the majority of the population of the new state and its familiarity with Slovak lawyers were the reasons given for the preference of Austrian law), however, the law in force in Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia was also to be taken into account. However, the reality was different, and the comments of the Slovak Commissions were only marginally taken into account. The dismissive attitude towards Slovak law and, indirectly, towards Slovak lawyers was also one of the reasons why only partial unification took place in the interwar era and the Civil Code was not adopted in the end. Comprehensive unification of private law, which followed the interwar recodification (albeit to a limited extend), only took place after the communist overturn within the framework of the so-called legal biennium from 1948 to 1950, which took real account of the Slovak legal situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes the development of the tourism management and organizational structure in the Sudetenland. At first, the development is briefly outlined from the beginning of the Habsburg monarchy, when locally operating so-called foreign associations (Fremdenverkehrsverein) began to arise, then through the period of interwar Czechoslovakia, which retained the current federal structure, until the Sudetenland joined Nazi Germany. The main core of the article is the transformation in tourism management after the annexation of the Sudetenland by Germany. Paper describes dissettlement of the existing associations as well as the introduction of the tourism management structure based on the German model. Also, particular specifics of individual areas are pointed out. The Sudetenland was to some extent exceptional in its interconnectedness with the Czech lands, but at the same time it was oriented towards Reich tourists. The paper is based mainly on archive sources stored in the Czech, Moravian, Austrian and German archives additionally supported by periodical literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal for Central European German Studies / Zeitschrift für Mitteleuropäische Germanistik is the property of Praesens Verlag and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Two aims are pursued in this paper. On the one hand, a connecting line between the novels and the essay work of Ludwig Winder should be shown here by way of example, based on the journalistic treatment of ’people of will and power’ who are also central to Winder’s novels. On the other hand, based on selected journalistic articles in the Deutsche Zeitung Bohemia (DZB), Winder is to be anchored in the cultural and political milieu of the first Czechoslovak Republic. Both goals should arrive to one conclusion: For Ludwig Winder, many more cultural-political contexts are relevant, than just the few in which his writing to date, primarily in Jewish and German literature in Prague, has been put. The context the relevance of which for Winder is outlined in this article is the one that unfolds from the position of a journalist from Czechoslovakia who writes in German (taking into account, however, the culture, politics and literature in Czech language too). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper deals with the early reception (using the concept of the “early wave of reception” [prvotní recepční vlna] suggested by Dalibor Tureček) of Ludwig Winder’s novel Der Thronfolger which was published in November 1937 in Switzerland and in the spring of 1938 in Czechoslovakia in Czech translation. The reviews of the novel are researched in both the German-speaking and the Czech-speaking contexts in Czechoslovakia, in Austria and in the German-speaking exile, especially in Switzerland. Special attention is paid to the strategies of the publisher and the author when presenting the work to the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Forschungen zur Volks- und Landeskunde is the property of Romanian Academy Publishing House / Editura Academiei Romane and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article deals with the region of Subcarpathian Rus (Uhors'ka Rus'/Podkarpatská Rus/Zakarpattja), a contact zone which belonged to the Habsburg-ruled Kingdom of Hungary before 1918 and to the Czechoslovak Republic up until 1938/39, before returning to Hungary during the Second World War. Since then, it has been part of Ukraine. Special emphasis is given to the year 1918 as a caesura in the production of knowledge about the region. Looking closely at the groups of historical actors involved, the author shows how this was a contact zone in which the interests of internationally active scientists encountered one another, as well as those of non-scientific publicists. In line with their respective political orientations, they wrote works directly opposed to one another or wilfully ignored each other's findings. In effect, they also interpreted the region over the heads of the local population through the fact that the knowledge they generated was increasingly politicized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on Yugoslav citizens' involvement in illegal cross-border trade in Czechoslovakia during state socialism. Topics include the negative consequences of Yugoslav tourists' activities in Bratislava, the emergence of cross-border trade due to socialist changes, and the interaction between Yugoslav traders and Czechoslovak state authorities. The study examines the differences in policies between the two socialist regimes, their impact on illegal trade, and the evolution of such activities from the 1960s to the late 1980s.

Copyright of Studia Historica Brunensia is the property of Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Masaryk's attitudes changed during his life. At the same time, however, it is also possible to observe certain constants of his thinking and political attitudes on this issue. The interpretive perspectives in historiography are very different: on the one hand, there is the view that the Czech nationalist was betraying the declared humanist ideals; on the other hand, he is portrayed as an scholar exalted above nationalist animosities. It must be acknowledged that he was not always completely coherent in his attitudes and changed accents depending on political circumstances throughout his life. To emphasize these differences, Masaryk's life is divided into three phases. As a pre-war politician, he understood Czech historical state law as a fact in which he tried to propose a compromise solution for the coexistence of both nationalities based on a high degree of district self-government, which he did not owe to any of the unmatched national camps. During the war, his arguments were dominated by international aspects and the formation of Czechoslovakia as a nation state with the status of the Germans as a minority with equal individual rights. The third part about Masaryk as an interwar president deals mainly with the reasons for the failure to build a «political» nation that would overlap ethnic differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on decision on the demarcation of the border between the Czechoslovak Republic and the Republic of Austria as the state name had to be changed due to the peace treaty was made at the peace conference that began in January 1919 in Paris and some of its suburbs. Topics include considered that the German-Austrian delegation was unable to negotiate directly with the victorious powers.