Co-princes or co-principes? Some remarks on the status of the  President of France and the Bishop of Urgell as head of the state  in the context of the political system of Andorra

The constitutional system of Andorra is not a popular subject of study of science either in Poland or abroad. In Poland, after 1993 (the year the adoption of the current constitution) were published only a few articles or fragments of larger studies on this topic. As a result, the vast majority of these studies have mainly reporting character. Many interesting issues have been mentioned only in footnotes. Among them: the question of the status of specific, Andorran head of state and (resulting) the correct indication of the form of Andorran state. Co-principes are translated into Polish as „co-princes”. It consequently, automatically determined Andorra as a „principality”, ie the state of monarchical system, and even a constitutional monarchy . This should be considered , at least as controversial. The author formulates two hypotheses and subjected them to verify. Firstly – Andorra is a principate (not a principality) – a mixed form of political system combines elements of monarchy and republic, outweigh the latter, in addition to the relics of the former. Head of State in principate should be referred to as „princeps”, and in the case of Andorra, specifically: co-princeps. In this way we will avoid misleading comparisons with „a prince”, as monarchical, hereditary head of state. Secondly – despite the adoption of a modern constitution, there are remaining relics of feudal times in the political system of Andorra, resulting from the former status of „condominium”. This is particularly evident in the form of the Andorran heads of state institution. It also gives a partial capacity to influence decisions of the co-principes by their home country’s authorities.

Judicial Councils in Andorra, Monaco and San Marino

The purpose of the thesis is to show constitutional position of judicial councils in Andorra, Monaco and San Marino. The thesis presents an analysis of history and constitutional evolution of these bodies and presents their constitutional status form the point of view of the composition and organization and granted competences. The analysis leads to the conclusion that each of three microstates adopts a different concept of the constitutional role of the judicial council.