The Special Session of Congress

1920 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-92
Author(s):  
Lindsay Rogers

Problems left unsolved rather than measures which were passed are the noteworthy features of the special session of the Sixty-sixth Congress—from May 19 to November 19, 1919. The senate was almost exclusively occupied with the Peace Treaty, the session ending in a deadlock over the reservations to the League of Nations covenant; and the treaty, together with the Anglo-French-American alliance and the other agreements of the Paris Conference, went over to the regular session. The appropriation bills, a resolution submitting the woman suffrage amendment to the states, the repeal of daylight saving, and the prohibition enforcement law, constitute the most important legislation which was completed. The two latter measures were passed over the President's veto and evidenced a disposition on the part of Congress to reassert the authority which during the war had been limited by presidential control.

Author(s):  
A. A. Kovalevskiy ◽  

The article considers the issues of the nature and conditions of the formation of the geopolitical identity of the Bulgarian nation. The author analyzes the specifics of geopolitical thinking in Bulgaria as a small state in South-Eastern Europe associated, on the one hand, with the approval of the “central”, “core” position of Bulgaria on the Balkan Peninsula, and with belonging to “Intermediate Europe” (“Wide South-Eastern Europe”) along with all other Balkan countries on the other hand. It has been shown that the fundamental Bulgarian geopolitical notions are not part of any clearly articulated doctrine, as was the case in neighboring Greece or Serbia, but are the result of a number of political events, due to which the modern Bulgarian national identity begins to take shape. First of all, we are talking about the firman of the Ottoman Sultan, according to which the Bulgarian Autocephalous Church – Exarchate was founded on March 11, 1870, and after that the draft about autonomous Bulgaria worked out at the Istanbul Conference of Ambassadors of the Great Powers (December 1876), and finally – San - Stefan Peace Treaty of 1878, which completed the formation of the national geopolitical ideal of "Greater Bulgaria."


1937 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 414-430
Author(s):  
Ruth E. Bacon

A difference of opinion of more than usual interest has recently developed with regard to the composition of the International Commission of the Danube. The question at issue turns upon the interpretation of certain articles of the Treaty of Versailles in the light of the important constitutional changes which have occurred within Germany since 1919. Under the Treaty of Versailles, the International Commission was to include “two representatives of German riparian States,” in addition to representatives of the other riparian and certain non-riparian States. Since the signature of the Treaty, there has been a gradual redistribution of powers within Germany, culminating in 1934 when the sovereign powers of the German states were transferred to the Reich. When the German representatives at the session of the International Commission in December, 1934, presented full powers issued in the name of the Reich alone, their eligibility was challenged, and they were allowed to take their seats only under a modus vivendi pending settlement of the issue. At the request of the British and French Governments, in which other States represented on the International Commission subsequently joined, the dispute was referred to the League of Nations Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit.


1967 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt ◽  
Sarah Wimer

President Woodrow Wilson spent over one-half year in Paris to negotiate the Treaty of Versailles. Upon his return he submitted the Treaty to the Senate for confirmation. A deadlock between the Executive and the Legislature twice prevented passage of the Treaty. The issue extended to the presidential election of 1920 when many voters supported Warren G. Harding convinced that he was more likely to bring about the entry of the United States into the League than his Democratic opponent.


1927 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 472-480
Author(s):  
Arthur Burchard

The United States of America, having refused to ratify the peace treaty negotiated at Paris in 1919 between the Allied and Associated Powers, on the one hand, and Germany on the other hand, commonly called the Treaty of Versailles, has, nevertheless, reserved to itself all the rights arising from the said treaty in the separate treaty of peace which was concluded between the United States of America and Germany on August 25, 1921, and ratified at Berlin on November 11, 1921, the treaty having been promulgated by the President of the United States on November 14, 1921. The clause containing the said reservation of rights reads thatGermany undertakes to accord to the United States and the United States shall have and fully enjoy all the rights, privileges, indemnities, reparations or advantages specified in the Joint Resolution of Congress of the United States of July 2, 1921, including all the rights and advantages stipulated for the benefit of the United States in the Treaty of Versailles, notwithstanding the fact that such treaty has not been ratified by the United States, [and] the rights and advantages stipulated …are those defined in Part X…


2005 ◽  
pp. 45-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tibor Zivkovic

In this paper we try to give reliable answer upon two major questions: did Bodin, king of Dioclea, capture Dyrrachion in 1085, as it is related in the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, and when did he try to capture Dubrovnik (Ragusa). The capture of Dyrrachion is not mentioned at Ane Comnene's Alexias. Byzantine princess wrote that citizens of Dyrrachion surrender the town to her father, the Emperor Alexios, after the death of the Norman ruler Robert Guiscard in 1085. On the other hand, the Priest of Dioclea says that Bodin, after the death of Robert Guiscard captured Dyrrachion which he gave back to the Byzantines after he signed the peace treaty with the Emperor. Both statements are not clear enough, but detailed analysis of both writings shows that Bodin took northern part of the theme of Dyrrachion and most probably tried to negotiate surrender of town itself, but he failed. Bodin's military activities against the Byzantine possessions in the theme of Dyrrachion could be placed between 1085 and 1090 when he was captured, being forced to sign peace treaty. The charter of antipope Clement III issued in 1089 to the archbishop of Antibaris, contain list of bishops which served in Dioclea, and only one of them - the bishop of Dulcigno (Ulcinj), had been earlier under the archbishop of Dyrrachion. In other words, Bodin took a very small part of the theme of Dyrrachion and southern borders of Dioclea were approximately the same as in the time of his father Michael. The description of the siege of Dubrovnik is well preserved in Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea as well by several other authors from Dubrovnik. The authors from Dubrovnik, which composed their Chronicles much later (from XIV to XVII century), made mistake in the chronology, assuming that the siege took place in 1104. Having at their disposal an old note, that Bodin's tower, which stood on the shores just opposite the wooden bridge which lead from Dubrovnik to the land, was captured on the first day of April during the Pascha, they calculated wrong year since Pascha on the first day of April was in 1016. Relative chronology, which is preserved in their description of the siege, yielded 11 years from the time Bodin built tower to cut off the defenders from the inland. In this period the authors from Dubrovnik put also seven years of siege, what was, most probably, the number taken from Bible. That way, the later authors from Dubrovnik assumed that Bodin conducted the siege of Dubrovnik in 1004/1005. On the first day of April Pascha was also in 1100 and that year should be taken as the year when the tower of Bodin was captured and leveled to the ground. In that case since the author from Dubrovnik knew that the tower stood for four years, it means that the end of siege was in 1096. The Priest of Dioclea provides another clue for more accurate dating of the beginning of the siege. He says that Bodin beheaded his relatives in front of the walls of Dubrovnik during his 22nd year of rule, revealing from which year he calculates Bodin's rule, i.e. from September/October 1072, when Bodin was crowned as the Bulgarian emperor during the insurrection of the Bulgarians - and certainly not from 1085 when his father Michael died. Therefore, Bodin besieged Dubrovnik in 1092/1093. The exact year of the Bodin's siege of Dubrovnik provides another interesting solution - the exact year of his death. Since 1096 was 22nd year of Bodin's rule, and Priest of Dioclea says that he died in the fifth month of 26th year of his rule - it means that Bodin died in February/March 1099.


The article discusses regulatory efforts of states to protect the rights of national minorities. The focus is on the role of the League of Nations and the treaties on minorities concluded with Poland (1919), Czechoslovakia (1919), the Serbo-Croat-Slovenian state (1919), Romania (1919) and Greece (1920), as well as the peace treaties that formed the basis of the Versailles-Washington system of international relations in Europe in 1919– 1922 (the 1919 Peace Treaty between the Allied and United Powers and Germany, the 1919 Saint-Germain Peace Treaty, the 1919 Neisk Peace Treaty, the 1920 Trianon Peace Treaty, the 1920 Sevres Peace Treaty). The contribution of the Permanent Court of International Justice to the protection of minority rights is noted (the case of minority rights in Upper Silesia, the case of minority schools in Albania, the case of eviction of German minorities in Poland).


Author(s):  
Valerio Onida

The article traces the career of Vittorio Emanuele Orlando: early scholar, he soon became a master in public law, and a political protagonist before the advent of the fascist regime, to which he never gave his adhesion, focusing mainly on his role in the Constituent Assembly, of which he was the dean. His important interventions are recalled, including the one against the ratification of the Peace Treaty, and those, particularly deepened and passionate, on the draft of the Constitution. Orlando expressed his reservations about the choices made by the majority of the Assembly about the form of government, but he finally expressed his hope in the future of the country and his belief in the beginning of a new worldwide era, in which a new "type of State" would take place, in which Italy too, at par with the other States, would have to abandon "the proud affirmation of the absolute sovereignty”.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document