Criminal liability of the head of the state on the example of the President of Romania

The Constitution of Romania of 1991 provides the President with an immunity. Exclusion from prosecution granted by the immunity is not only connected with the lack of legal liability for statements or political opinions stated by the President in the course of his office and after. The President is protected from the liability during the course of office and after his mandate expires also as far as actions and damages inflicted in connection with his powers are concerned. Analysis of the President’s liability requires distinction of constitutional and criminal liability. Constitutional liability includes liability towards the electorate as well as suspension from the office which can result in the recall of the President. Criminal liability, on the other hand, should be associated with the lack of civil and penal liability for actions and opinions stated by the President in the course of his office and after. However, according to the Article 96 (1) of the Constitution the Parliament is entitled to indict the President for the high treason. The constitution limits the President’s criminal liability only to penal liability for the high treason. It does not regulate the President’s immunity in other penal issues.

Koncepcja centrum i peryferii dotyczy opisu wybranego fragmentu otaczającej rzeczywistości za pomocą modelu asymetrycznych stosunków przestrzennych zachodzących w różnych sferach życia: społecznej, gospodarczej, politycznej, militarnej, kulturowej i innych – charakteryzujących zależność obszarów peryferyjnych od dominującego centrum. Bukowina bez wątpienia spełnia kryteria centrum w kwestii koncentracji życia społeczno-kulturowego mniejszości polskiej w Rumunii. Kolejny atrybut „polskiej” Bukowiny jako przyszłego centrum to rozwój na terenie regionu zróżnicowanej, w tym wysoce specjalistycznej, infrastruktury usługowej, głównie o charakterze turystyczno-hotelarskim. Jest wreszcie Bukowina miejscem koncentracji części polskiego dziedzictwa kulturowego. Z drugiej strony Bukowina to peryferie, głównie w ujęciu geograficzno-politycznym i administracyjnym. Jednak kresowość tego regionu skutkuje szczególnymi cechami miejscowej mniejszości polskiej, charakterystycznymi dla tego typu społeczności.

Territorial and cultural autonomies in Transylvania. The pursuit and interpretations

The article presents the endeavours on the part of the multi-national and multicultural population living in Transylvania to create, within a span of several centuries, various types of autonomies, be it cultural or territorial.

Referendum Votes in Romania – Success or Failure of Direct Democracy?

In the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the institution of a referendum is the most popular tool of direct democracy used in the decision-making process. We can see the extension of the scope of issues that are put to the vote, in addition to traditional issues, the subject of a referendum are issues that strongly polarize public opinion and evoke significant emotions. The article presents the political practice of referendum votes in Romania. In the years 1991–2019, eight votes were held on the most important issues of public life, including the recall of the president twice Traiana Băsescu. The matters put to the vote to a large extent result from the existing conflicts in the ruling camp, between the president and the government and parliament, as well as from party rivalry and preferred issues consistent with the party’s programs and social expectations.

Polish diplomatic representatives in Romania in the years 1918–1940 Part II 1923–1940

Polish representatives in Bucharest in the interwar period were – what is obvious – executors of the Polish government’s foreign policy, formulated by the successive Ministers of Foreign Affairs. They had to act within that framework. In exceptional circumstances were Linde and Koźmiński, who happened to act in conditions of nonexistence of a single center shaping Polish foreign policy and they often had to demonstrate creativity, without any directives coming from the top. To a certain extent in a similar situation was Raczyński, who also had to act independently, in a state of necessity – as he claimed – ignoring the supremacy of the Minister of Foreign Affairs interned in Romania. Effective professionals efficiently performing the tasks allocated to them were Wielowieyski, Szembek and Arciszewski. Jurjewicz was perceived as much less energetic. His relatively low activity on the position of the envoy, however, was largely derived from minister Seyda’s passive policy towards Romania. Undoubtedly, the most prominent Polish diplomat in Bucharest was Alexander Skrzyński. He not only performed his duties of the representative of the Republic of Poland with the invention but he also showed his own initiative, when Poland was in extremely difficult war situation in 1919–1920.

Poland’s Diplomatic Representatives in Romania, 1918–1940. Part 1: 1918–1940

Polish politicians had appreciated the importance of relations with Romania since the beginning of the independent Poland, indicating the need for close political and economic cooperation with that country which would serve to resist the Soviet expansion in Central and Eastern Europe. The establishment of official diplomatic relations between Poland and Romania proved to be a rather complex process. It was essentially affected by the lack of agreement between the two centers competing for leadership in Poland, that is the authorities in Warsaw and the Polish National Committee (KNP) in Paris. It was manifested by keeping in Bucharest their own representatives, more or less tolerated by the Romanian, the so-called Legation headed by Marian Linde and the delegate of KNP Stanisław Koźmiński. In the end, Alexander Skrzyński was appointed the envoy of the Republic of Poland and officially recognized by the Romanian authorities. The establishment of official diplomatic relations did not mean, however, immediate rapprochement between the two countries. It was a process lasting almost two years which, thanks to the merits of Alexander Skrzyński, was crowned by signing the Polish-Romanian alliance in March 1921. The next stage consisted of the efforts to strengthen and extend this alliance made by Skrzyński as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Paweł Jurjewicz – his successor to the position of chargé d’affaires, and then an envoy in Bucharest. The process was slowed down by the inept policy of Marian Seyda, the next foreign minister of Poland.

Romania and the alliance with Poland 1918–1921. The article presents Romania’s stance on the alliance with Poland in 1918–1921. Bucharest’s interest in concluding such an agreement resulted mainly from the assessment of the Soviet threat to Romania.