[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.11, p.297), the directorate of the Legislative Assembly could propose to declare state of upheaval.This gave permission for measures such as the following: the relatives of emigrants and former aristocrats – the kin of ‘robbers and chief bandits’ (women as well as men) – were held responsible for all the occurrences of murder and looting, and they were held as hostages.At every murder of a patriot, four hostages were deported, others had penances imposed on them, and so on.Notorious bandit chiefs, for whom lists had to be compiled, were presented to special military courts (commissions militaires) and could be sentenced to death without further ado (Article 39).This law was suspended again on 22 Brumaire VIII (Duvergier, vol.12, p.5), immediately after Napoleon’s successful coup.The constitution of 22 Frumaire VII (13 December 1799) initiated instead a new development: the suspension of the constitution (la suspension de l’empire de la Constitution).According to Article 92, this could be declared for all regions and for as long as armed rebellion and riots threatened the security of the state (la sûreté de l’Etat).The suspension was regulated by law; in urgent cases, when the legislative body was not assembled, it was declared by the government, which had to convoke the Legislative Assembly there and then.The administrative senatus consultum of 16 Thermidor X (4 August 1802) mentions the suspension of the constitution and of the powers of the Senate (Article 55).The state of siege is not mentioned either in the constitution of year VIII or in this senatus consultum; hence the suspension of the constitution had not yet been connected to this concept.The authorisation to declare state of siege was transferred to the government, on the grounds that it also had the armed forces at its disposal and could declare war.27 There are only a few cases in which we know that the state of siege was imposed.28 On the other hand, the constitution was suspended in the Vendée region through the resolution of 7 Nivôse VIII (Duvergier, vol.5, p.56) and through the law of 23 Nivôse VIII.The army commander sent to these areas to suppress the riots was authorised to place the rioting communities outside the constitution (hors de la constitution), to pass orders on pain of death, to impose extraordinary collections by way of atonement, and so on.The government appointed exceptional courts [Ausnahmegerichte] (see Duvergier, vol.5, p.66).Napoleon had not used the state of siege as a weapon in political struggles.29Nevertheless, Napoleon had widened the content of the state of siege, and therefore justified its political expediency through the decree of 24 December 1811.From a political perspective, this was a preparatory measure for the campaign against Russia, and it had a military character.Still, when the decree was issued, it was reckoned that upheavals of the German population in the annexed areas were possible.In other words, one had already envisaged the internal enemy.The regulation dealt mainly with administration and services in fortified places, just as it had by the law of 1791 – which had also given the tripartition into state of peace, state of war and state of siege (Articles 50 ff.).The state of war was declared by imperial decree, when the situation required the military police to be more efficient and more active (Article 52).The state of siege, on the other hand, was decided upon (déterminé) through a decree of the emperor or on the basis of the occurrence of a siege, violent attack, raid, internal rebellion or, finally, forbidden assembly within the fortified area.The important fact about this regulation was that the formal declaration, which had a decree as its point of origin [Entstehungsgrund], stood side by side with real states of affairs [faktische Sachlage] like siege or attack.According to Article 92, the effect of declaring a state of war was that national and local militia groups were placed under the authority of an army chief (governor or commander); that civilian authorities could not issue any directives without having consulted the army chief; and finally, that they had to issue all the police regulations that he considered necessary for the safety of the place or for public peace of mind.But with this came far-reaching powers, which the army chief could exercise on the spot: compulsion to do fortifications work; explusion of foreigners, suspects and bouches inutiles [non-productive members]; and, in the last resort, a general authorisation to take any steps that might be required for defence and to eliminate anything that obstructed the movement of troops and the defence (Articles 93–5).Here the ruling idea was that the benefit of the military operation justified any infringement of civil liberties, even in the absence of a suspension of constitutional provisions [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]