The topic the thesis, "Direct Election of the Head of the State and Its Impact on Constitutional Relationships," has been selected owing to its current relevance, caused by the change of the manner of presidential election which had a historically long tradition in our country. The aim of the paper is to provide a most complex view of the legal modifications of the election of the republic's president, to summarize the theoretical basis, to analyse the legislative procedure and to attempt to comprehensibly present this change of a constitutional law to citizens who might thus receive sufficient information on the issue. Furthermore, the author wishes to make the readers acquainted with the establishment and implementation of direct presidential election together with the manner of the election according to the new legislation, especially in accordance with Act no. 71/2012 Col. and Act no. 275/2012 Col. The thesis consists of nine chapters. In six sub-chapters, the first chapter outlines the history of the presidential election from the establishment of Czechoslovakia throughout the totalitarian period and to the Czech Republic, including a brief summary of the former presidents. The second chapter includes argumentation for and against implementation of the direct election of the republic's president, the...

The theme "Direct election of head of state and its influence on the constitutional relations" has been chosen by its author due to the continuing public debate about this topic in the Czech Republic. The second reason is the fact that despite the approaching end of tenure of the current head of the state it is still unclear how the successor will be chosen. This thesis examines the suitability or unsuitability of possible introduction of direct election of head of state in the Czech Republic and its possible form. The aim is, however, not to answer the question "Direct election yes or no?" but rather to professionally contribute to the society-wide debate on this issue and to rectify it. The introduction of the direct election itself, without further changes of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, would, according to the author's opinion, not be an entirely appropriate step. Author's aim was to bring complex material containing, if possible, all the aspects of the issue. Without a broader understanding of theoretical concepts, foreign examples, historical development, but also of the valid legislation regarding the election of the head of state as well as of its powers and duties, it is not possible to conduct the relevant discussion on possible constitutional changes in this sense. The thesis...

The Dissertation covers the aspect of term limits of head of state and its links with the principles of national sovereignty, separation of powers and supremacy of the constitution in various forms of state government. The analysis of the concept of powers and term limits of head of state, put into the context of development of the global legal thought, uncovers progress in the scientific understanding of the concept and paves the way to the key arguments of the Paper (the right to establish term limits of authorities lies with the nation (John Locke); the term limit of authority is inversely proportional to the greatness of power (Charles Montesquieu). The study into the features and dynamics of constitutional regulation of term limits of head of state is based on the analysis of the relevant provisions in over 500 constitutions; as a result, the study establishes the development trends in the definition of term limits enshrined in the said constitutions. Another part of the study looks into the reasons behind the violations of constitutional provisions on term limits of head of state and analyses the dynamics of the said violations in monarchies and republics as forms of government, paying attention to the criterion of greatness of authority of head of state. On the basis of the present research, the author establishes the effectiveness of direct and inverse application of the rule formulated by Charles Montesquieu (the greatness of power must be compensated by the brevity... [to full text] / Disertacijoje atskleistas valstybės vadovo įgaliojimų trukmės aspektas ir jo sąsajos su Tautos suvereniteto, valdžių padalijimo, Konstitucijos viršenybės principais valstybės valdymo formose. Analizuojant valdžios ir valstybės vadovo įgaliojimų trukmės sampratą pasaulio teisinės minties raidoje, nustatytas jos mokslinio suvokimo progresas ir esminiai konstatuojamieji teiginiai (teisė nustatyti valdžios įgaliojimų trukmę priklauso tautai (J. Locke), valdžios įgaliojimų trukmė atvirkščiai proporcinga įgaliojimų dydžiui (Sh. Montesquieu). Tiriant valstybės vadovo įgaliojimų trukmės konstitucinio reguliavimo ypatumus ir dinamiką, išnagrinėtos ir apibendrintos daugiau nei 500 konstitucijų aktualios nuostatos, nustatytos jose užfiksuotų įgaliojimų trukmių apibrėžimų raidos tendencijos. Kitame tyrime nagrinėtos valstybės vadovo įgaliojimų trukmės konstitucinių nuostatų pažeidimų priežastys, dinamika monarchijos bei respublikos valdymo formose, atsižvelgiant į vadovų įgaliojimų apimties kriterijų. Remiantis tyrimų duomenimis, nustatytas Sh. Montesquieu teiginio (kuo valdžios įgaliojimai didesni, tuo trumpiau ji turi valdyti) tiesioginio ir atvirkštinio taikymo efektyvumas. Patvirtinta mokslinio tyrimo prielaida, jog valstybės vadovo įgaliojimų trukmės konstitucinių nuostatų pažeidžiamumas yra proporcingas jo įgaliojimų apimčiai. Šią konstitucinio reguliavimo problemą siūloma spręsti naudojant atvirkštinį Sh.Montesquieu teiginį (kuo valdžios įgaliojimai menkesni, tuo jų trukmė yra... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]

« Accident de l’histoire » selon les termes du rapport Warsmann, réalisé au moment de la réforme constitutionnelle de 2008, l’interdiction faite au chef de l’État de se présenter devant le Parlement, comme plus largement la question de la communication entre les deux organes, méritent d’être reconsidérées. La faculté du chef de l’État de s’adresser au Parlement s’insère dans une mécanique des pouvoirs que son étude contribue à éclairer notamment dans le cadre parlementaire où la Ve République réalise un agencement dont l’originalité doit être soulignée. Parce que la communication parlementaire de l’Exécutif apparaît tout à la fois comme un outil pour celui-ci de direction du travail du Parlement, et, pour ce dernier, comme un instrument de contrôle de l’action exécutive, cette question se situe déjà au cœur des préoccupations révolutionnaires relatives à l’organisation de la séparation des pouvoirs. La synchronisation qu’opère le régime parlementaire entre responsabilité politique et communication vient renouveler l’interrogation et singulariser celle relative à la communication du chef de l’État. L’irresponsabilité de ce dernier va impliquer qu’il ne s’adresse au Parlement que par des messages écrits et sous le contrôle des ministres responsables. La Ve République provoque une rupture dans la conception parlementaire de la faculté du chef de l’État de s’adresser au Parlement qui accompagne la redéfinition de la fonction présidentielle. Elle s’observe tant au niveau de l’émetteur que du récepteur de la communication. Au niveau de l’émetteur, une disjonction s’opère entre pouvoir et responsabilité à travers, dans un premier temps, la suppression de l’exigence de contreseing pour l’exercice du droit de message malgré le maintien de l’irresponsabilité présidentielle, puis, dans un second temps, par la reconnaissance à son profit d’un certain droit d’entrée et de parole dans l’hémicycle parlementaire. Au niveau du récepteur, la communication parlementaire du chef de l’État subit le contrecoup d’une évolution de la conception de la représentation qui paraît amener le Président à faire du peuple son interlocuteur privilégié. / « Accident of history » according to the Warsmann report, executed at the time of the 2008 constitutional reform, the ban of the Head of State to appear before the Parliament, as the broader matter of the communication between the two bodies, deserve to be reconsidered. The ability of the Head of State to address the Parliament fits into a mechanical of powers which study contributes to enlighten notably through the parliamentary framework where the Fifth Republic carries out an arrangement whose original feature must be emphasized. For the parliamentary communication of the Executive appears all at once as a tool, for this one, to conduct the Parliament’s work, and, for the latter, as a tool to control the executive action, this issue already is at heart of the revolutionaries’ concerns relating to the organisation of the separation of powers. The synchronization operated by the parliamentary system among political responsability and communication comes to renew the query and distinguish the one relative to the Head of State communication. The irresponsability of the latter will entail a prohibition to appear before the Parliament and an obligation to address them through written messages, under the control of the accountable ministers. The Fifth Republic causes a break in the parliementary design of the Head of State’s ability to address the Parliament which accompanies the redefinition of the presidential office. This break manifests itself both on the issuer and on the receiver’s levels. At the issuer’s level, a disjunction appears between power and responsability, first, through the abolition of the countersignature requirement for the exercise of the right to send messages despite the maintenance of the presidential irresponsability, then, secondly, through the acknowledgment of a certain right to enter and speak in the parliamentary hemicycle. At the receiver’s level, the parliamentary communication of the Head of State is affected by the repercussions of the evolution of the representation’s notion that seems to lead the President to make of people his favored interlocutor.

L’abondante littérature existante sur la vie politique haïtienne, œuvres de propagande ou de réprobation des gouvernements, fait de l’histoire politique un lieu de règlement de compte, ce qui donne une allure de polémique passionnée aux textes de nos aînés. Avec cette thèse, nous rejoignons et nous contribuons au travail de quelques rares spécialistes, universitaires de sciences humaines et sociales, qui cherchent à renouveler l’histoire politique haïtienne. Étudier les mécanismes de la prise du pouvoir exécutif en Haïti, ce n’est pas seulement le fait de dénoncer des élections truquées, des coups d’État, des insurrections qualifiées à tort de révolution ; mais c’est surtout une volonté de montrer de nombreux efforts qui ont été faits pour instaurer un régime démocratique et moderniser la vie politique haïtienne. L’objectif du travail, c’est de montrer comment Haïti passait de l’acclamation du chef d’État aux insurrections, des armes aux bulletins de vote et aboutir au suffrage universel. / The Abundant literature on the Haitian political life, as works of propaganda or disapproval of the governments, fact of the political history a place of settling of score, which gives a pace to impassioned polemic concerning the written documents of the elder generation of historians. This thesis, join and contribute to the work of some rare social scientists, which seek to renew Haitian political history. Studying the mechanisms of the executive seizure of power in Haiti does not mean denouncing faked elections, putsch, revolts, that are wrongly qualified of revolution. But it especially concerns a will to show the efforts which were made to establish a democratic regime and to modernize the Haitian political life. The objective of this work is to explain how Haiti has passed from the acclamation of the Head of State to insurrections, from weapons to polls, and from polls to the vote for all.

In terms of government structure, the constitutional system of the Czech Republic is based on the principles of the parliamentary form of government. That means executive powers are vested in the Government (Council of Ministers), which is accountable to the Parliament through the vote of confidence. The Head of State as a pouvoir neutre plays usually a representative and integrating role in this system. On the contrary the President lacks the political accountability and the Parliament (or another voting body) does not have any direct way of holding him accountable for his action. Except for high treason he also cannot be prosecuted for his actions during his term. The Government therefore usually influences the exercise of his powers by countersigning his acts or decisions. Nevertheless, the role of the Czech President within the constitutional system is not only ceremonial; through his powers he can also actively participate in the adoption of political decisions. He can even exercise some of his expressly granted powers not subject to approval of the Government or any other constitutional body. But is such extent of powers compatible with the fact of his non-accountability? The public debate about these issues has been arising repeatedly since the adoption of the Czech Constitution without...

O Brasil vem atravessando um dos momentos mais conturbados de sua história. Um país fragilizado, dividido e sem um consenso acerca da necessidade urgente de reformas estruturais de base, em especial, acerca do modo como vêm dispostos internamente os seus órgãos políticos de Estado. As instituições estão dispostas irracionalmente e sem coerência, permitindo a indevida cumulação (fusão) das funções de chefia de Estado, de chefia de governo e de gestão da Administração Pública em mãos de uma Presidência da República. Tratam-se de funções com finalidades, princípios e protocolos de trabalho complemente diversos, não podendo jamais serem cumuladas da forma como se encontram. A separação Estado, governo e Administração Pública é, portanto, medida que se impõe e a única saída possível para dotar o país da estabilidade e do consensus necessários para vencer as suas violentas crises. / Brazil has been going through one of the most troubled times in its history. A fragile and divided country without a consensus for basic structural reforms that are greatly needed, or rather, the way in which its political organs of state are internally disposed. Institutions are disposed irrationally and without coherence, allowing Presidency of the Republic office cumulates the functions of head of state, head of government and management of public administration. These are functions with completely different purposes, principles and protocols of work, which cannot be cumulated under one office. The separation of State, Government and Public Administration is therefore a necessary measure and the only possible way out to give the country the stability and consensus needed to overcome its violent crises.

Le 8 octobre 2014, M. Uhuru Kenyatta le président kényan comparaissait devant les juges de la Cour pénale internationale. Cette comparution était un évènement inédit ; car pour la première fois un chef d’État durant son mandat comparaissait devant cette juridiction ; inculpé depuis le 8 mars 2011, tout comme le vice-président, de crimes contre l’humanité pour son rôle présumé dans les violences qui ont émaillé l’élection présidentielle de 2007. S’il est le premier à se présenter devant les juges de la CPI, il n’est pourtant pas le premier chef d’État poursuivi par cette juridiction. Les présidents soudanais, Omar El-Béchir et le « Guide » libyen avaient reçu des notifications de mandats d’arrêt depuis 2009 pour le premier, et 2011 pour le second.Avant les poursuites de la CPI, seuls des anciens dirigeants avaient comparu devant les TMI de la seconde guerre et les TPI pour le Rwanda et pour l’ex-Yougoslavie qui l’ont précédé. Cette caractéristique commune aux premières poursuites qui n’ont pas épargné non plus les premières enquêtes du Procureur de la CPI ; posait une problématique majeure : celle de l’effectivité de la poursuite des dirigeants en exercice devant les juridictions pénales internationales ; de la Cour pénale internationale en particulier. Les actes de procédures de la CPI contre les dirigeants durant leur mandat viennent répondre en partie à ces préoccupations.Cependant, l’abandon des charges contre le président kenyan par le Procureur le 5 décembre 2014 et plus tard contre son vice-président et les motivations de ces décisions ; mais aussi l’impossibilité pour cette juridiction d’obtenir l’exécution des mandats d’arrêt émis depuis le 4 mars 2009 contre le président soudanais remettent en perspective la problématique de la justiciabilité des chefs d’État en exercice devant la CPI. / On October 8, 2014, Uhuru Kenyatta, the Kenyan President, appeared before the judges of the International Criminal Court. This appearance was an unprecedented event; for the first time a head of state in Office appeared before that jurisdiction; accused since March 8, 2011, like his vice-president, of crimes against humanity for his alleged role in the violence that swept the 2007 presidential election. While being the first to appear before the judges of the ICC, he is not the first head of state prosecuted by this court. Sudanese president Omar El-Bashir and the Libyan "Guide" had received arrest warrants since 2009 for the first, and 2011 for the second.Before these ICC prosecutions, only former leaders had appeared before the IMT of the Second World War and the TPIs for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. There is a characteristic common to these first prosecutions, which did not spare either the first investigations of the Prosecutor of the ICC; posed a major problem: that of the effectiveness of the prosecution of leaders in office before international Criminal jurisdictions; and particularly of the International Criminal Court. The ICC's proceedings against leaders during their term of office partially address these concerns.However, the dismissal of charges against the Kenyan President by the Prosecutor on 5 December 2014, and later against his Vice President and the motives for those decisions, but also the impossibility for this jurisdiction to obtain the execution of arrest warrants issued since March 4, 2009 against the Sudanese president put into perspective the issue of the justiciability of the heads of state in office before the ICC.

1 Abstract: The division of state authority ilustrated on the example of the Czech Republic and French Republic with the focus on the position of the head of the state Key words: separation of state authority, constitutional laws, the legislative, the executive, the judiciary, the head of state, presidential system, parliamentary system Abstrackt: This thesis addresses the historical separation of state authority which is illustrated on the example of the Czech Republic and French Republic, especially on the position of the head of the state. The goal is to identify the identical and differing characteristics of the presidential status of both republics. The thesis is divided into three chapters and into a sub-chapters. The first chapter explains the development of the decomposition of the state authority from the first theoretical thoughts to the practical incorporation into the political system. The Second chapter describes in separate sub-chapters, the division of the state authority in Czech Republic and France. Third chapter is dedicated to the position, mandate, election and the competencies of the head of the state in both countries. Subsequently the gathered information is summarized in a sub-chapter, where the identical and differing characteristics of both presidential functions is discussed.

Diploma thesis "The Head of State in the constitutional system of the Czech Republic: de iure and de facto" discourses both provisions, which integrate the institution of the president of the republic in constitution, and the virtual implementation of this uppermost authority in the state. At the beginning, the thesis deals with the historical dimension of the issue. It speaks of the general development and history of the office in Czech lands. Hereupon a depiction of the theoretical extent of this office follows. A large verge is devoted to the placement and the powers of the president in the constitution. The pragmatic part of the thesis consists of two case studies. The first one deals with the presidency of Václav Havel. The second one deals with the execution of the office by Václav Klaus. An extra attention is paid to the analysis of the accordance between the theoretical and pragmatic pursuance of the office of president of the Czech Republic.