"The Vidovdan" Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, rendered on 28 June 1921, one hundred years after its adoption, remains an unavoidable topic and an occasion for discussions about the reasons for the failure of the Yugoslav state. The unitarian-centralist system unanimously criticized today as an inadequate constitutional form for the functioning of a complex community such as Yugoslavia was once legitimized by the concept of national unity of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. The national conception, the type of state system, and the related disagreements are part of both the political and constitutional history of the states that emerged from the disintegration of Yugoslavia. This paper analyses the content of textbooks of Constitutional Law that are in use at law schools in the successor states, which have existed continuously since the breakup of Yugoslavia until today and are used to educate the vast majority of lawyers in these states. The way in which the shared constitutional history from the first decade of Yugoslavia is presented after the collapse of the socialist paradigm (that mainly was unison) largely follows the national borders of the successor states in terms of its content and interpretation.

In this paper two hitherto unknown letters related to the activity of Dr Archibald Reiss in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (1919-1929) are presented and commented on. While Reiss's activities during WWI (1914-1918) are well documented and thoroughly researched, the knowledge about his engagement in the first post-war decade remains fairly scarce, due to the lack of sources. However, the available sources generally confirm that there was insurmountable tension in the relations between R. A. Reiss and the authorities of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, almost from the very beginning of his "second term" in the service of the Belgrade government. The two Reiss's letters addressed to the Regent and King Aleksandar, published in this paper (one of which was hitherto unknown), clearly reveal the peculiar relationship between them. Another letter, rather a short diplomatic report, sheds some new light on the conditions of Reiss's return to the service of the government in Belgrade in 1919. The research clearly shows that Reiss occupied the position of the head of the Technical Service at the Department for Public Safety and also points out at his official reporting missions to Macedonia, on the request of the Minister of the Interior, in 1921 and 1922.

No abstract

Тhe paper discusses the attitudes of political parties on land property regimes in the context of the agrarian issue, and dynamics of the debate on this matter in the Constitutional Committee and in the Constituent National Assembly of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The very notion of “agrarian question” concerns specifically small peasant landholdings in the process of development of capitalism. This question was raised in the context of the debate on socio-economic problems that were invited by, and eventually, introduced into the Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Vidovdan Constitution, 1921) under the pressure of progressive opposition parties and parts of the ruling political organizations.

Apstrakt: U prilogu je sugerisan jedan mogući odgovor na dilemu da li je u uslovima epidemije, sa stanovišta odredaba koje su sadržane u Ustavu Republike Srbije i relevantnom zakonodavstvu, dopušteno da nadležni organ ograničavajuće interveniše u domenu verske slobode-uključujući liturgijsko okupljanje i obavljanja obreda pričešćivanja. Predstavljen je, najpre, tok polemike koja je o tom pitanju vođena u javnosti. Zatim je dat kratak osvrt na stanovište doktrine i sudske jurisprudencije o problematici odnosa države i crkve i prava na slobodno veroispovedanje. Pošto je razmotren sadržaj ustavnih garancija prava na slobodno veroispovedanje u Srbiji, sistemskim tumačenjem ustavnih odredaba i na osnovu utvrđene hijerarhije zaštićenih dobara (život i zdravlje ljudi i sloboda veroispovesti) izveden je zaključak da je i u uslovima vanrednog stanja moguće ograničenje slobode veroispovedanja, ne samo u smislu legitimnog zahteva da se neki obred prilagodi epidemiološkim zahtevima već i da se, in ultima linea, privremeno zabrani.