Legal Counterrevolution: Property and Judicial Power in the Weimar Republic

IF 0.7 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
Clara Maier
{"title":"Legal Counterrevolution: Property and Judicial Power in the Weimar Republic","authors":"Clara Maier","doi":"10.1017/s1479244324000118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article offers a new account of the rise of judicial power in modern Germany. Strong judicial control of the government is often associated with the constitutional ethos that emerged in postwar West Germany as a reaction to Nazi rule. This article locates the origins of German judicialization in the political struggles of the Weimar era. It shows how the assumption of a power to judicial review by Germany's highest court, the Reichsgericht, was the product of the successful cooperation of the judiciary with conservative political parties on the issue of property rights in the young republic. These were at the centre of two controversies examined in the article: the expropriation of princes of former ruling houses and the consequences of the hyperinflation of 1923. In both cases the Reichsgericht used an understanding of property as an inalienable right to radically reinterpret Germany's first democratic constitution, which had in fact granted the legislature extensive power to modify property relations. This suited the judiciary's own objective of assuming stronger controls over legislative action and bolstered the political position of conservative forces in Weimar politics. What emerged was a supra-positive constitutionalism that sought to supersede the written constitution. These political realities were an essential context for theoretical debates on the extent and limits of judicial power between theorists such as Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen, Hermann Heller, Franz Neumann, and Ernst Fraenkel. An examination of the complex interaction of parliamentary, judicial, and popular politics concerning the issue of property reveals that German judicial empowerment amounted to an attempt to rewrite the Weimar Constitution and limit the scope of Germany's democratic revolution.</p>","PeriodicalId":44584,"journal":{"name":"Modern Intellectual History","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Intellectual History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1479244324000118","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article offers a new account of the rise of judicial power in modern Germany. Strong judicial control of the government is often associated with the constitutional ethos that emerged in postwar West Germany as a reaction to Nazi rule. This article locates the origins of German judicialization in the political struggles of the Weimar era. It shows how the assumption of a power to judicial review by Germany's highest court, the Reichsgericht, was the product of the successful cooperation of the judiciary with conservative political parties on the issue of property rights in the young republic. These were at the centre of two controversies examined in the article: the expropriation of princes of former ruling houses and the consequences of the hyperinflation of 1923. In both cases the Reichsgericht used an understanding of property as an inalienable right to radically reinterpret Germany's first democratic constitution, which had in fact granted the legislature extensive power to modify property relations. This suited the judiciary's own objective of assuming stronger controls over legislative action and bolstered the political position of conservative forces in Weimar politics. What emerged was a supra-positive constitutionalism that sought to supersede the written constitution. These political realities were an essential context for theoretical debates on the extent and limits of judicial power between theorists such as Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen, Hermann Heller, Franz Neumann, and Ernst Fraenkel. An examination of the complex interaction of parliamentary, judicial, and popular politics concerning the issue of property reveals that German judicial empowerment amounted to an attempt to rewrite the Weimar Constitution and limit the scope of Germany's democratic revolution.

法律反革命:魏玛共和国的财产与司法权
本文对现代德国司法权的崛起进行了新的阐述。司法对政府的强有力控制通常与战后西德出现的宪政精神有关,这种宪政精神是对纳粹统治的反动。本文将德国司法化的起源定位在魏玛时代的政治斗争中。文章展示了德国最高法院--帝国高等法院--行使司法审查权,是司法机构与保守政党在年轻共和国的财产权问题上成功合作的产物。文章中探讨的两个争议的核心就是财产权问题:征用前统治家族的王公财产和 1923 年恶性通货膨胀的后果。在这两个案例中,帝国高等法院将财产理解为不可剥夺的权利,从根本上重新解释了德国的第一部民主宪法,而这部宪法事实上赋予了立法机构修改财产关系的广泛权力。这符合司法机构自身加强对立法行为控制的目标,也巩固了魏玛政治中保守势力的政治地位。由此产生了一种试图取代成文宪法的超积极宪法主义。这些政治现实是卡尔-施米特、汉斯-凯尔森、赫尔曼-海勒、弗朗茨-诺伊曼和恩斯特-弗兰克尔等理论家就司法权的范围和限制进行理论辩论的重要背景。对议会、司法和民众政治在财产问题上的复杂互动进行研究后发现,德国的司法赋权等同于试图改写魏玛宪法并限制德国民主革命的范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
11.10%
发文量
55
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信