The legal status of the Romanian principalities during the Russian occupation (1828-1834).

Gherghe, Cosmin Lucian

The Russo-Turkish war of 1828-1829, the Russian military occupation of the Romanian Principalities--on April 14th, 1828, the Russian troops led by General Wittgenstein crossing the Prut on Sculeni-Falciu and Vadul lui Isac heading towards the Danube (1)-determined major changes in the social and political life of the Principalities.

After the occupation of the Romanian Principalities, General Wittgenstein gives a proclamation on behalf of Tsar Nicholas I, which stated: "The war declared by Russia on the Ottoman Porte serves no purpose other than fulfilling the straightest complaints and implementing the most solemn treaties. The laws, the ancestral customs, the properties, the rights of the holy faith, which we have in common, shall be respected and protected ... To reach this goal, first the King charged me to establish, without delay, a proper central administration in the Principalities, whose leader is appointed the private counsellor of Count Pahlen ... He will be, here before among you, the plenipotential president of Wallachia and Moldavia' National Assemblies" (2).

On September 2th/14th 1829, at the conclusion of the peace between Russia and Ottoman Empire there were signed three documents: The Peace Treaty; The Separate Document regarding Moldavia and Wallachia (an integrant part of the Peace Treaty); The Separate Document regarding the trade and war indemnities and the evacuation of Moldavia and Wallachia (3).

The Russo-Turkish war which started on April 1828 and ended in September 1829 put an end to the native regencies from the two principalities. The Romanian Principalities were to be administrated by a plenipotential Russian president, appointed by the imperial authority of Petersburg. The President residency was established to Bucharest (4).

Apart from the sufferings of the Romanian people during the Russian occupation, by the Peace Treaty of Adrianople, concluded on 2th/14th 1829, new elements were introduce which essentially changed the legal status of the Principalities. Russia get a new quality, that of protective power, Turkey remaining just a suzerain power." This right of suzerainty is reduced to two aspects: 1. the Supremacy of the Ottoman Porte; 2. the Tribute imposed to Romanian principalities. As for the rest the precision of the professor Royer Colard from the Paris Law Faculty, the state independency is not destroyed; the Romanian people kept their right to elect their prince and their magistrates, to make their laws and to decide in matters of war and peace" (5).

Russia, as a protective power had to defend the rights and interest of the Romanian people, but it essentially changed the meaning of this notion acting as a conqueror.

The Russo-Turkish war and the peace of Adrianople gave Russia a diplomatic and strategic gain in the South-eastern Europe."The peace of Adrianople--wrote the Russian Foreign Minister Nesselrode on February 12th, 1830--strenghtened Russia's supremacy in the Orient. It strengthened the Russian borders, provided freedom to its trade and secured its interests" (6).

For the further evolution of the Principalities a significant role was played by the article 5 of the Peace Treaty which provided: independent national administration, full freedom of trade, free exercise of religion etc. which led to a conclusion of a separate attached document entitled The document achieved for Moldavia and Wallachia Principalities making some remarks on the obligations of the suzerain power to Moldavia and Wallachia. "The principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia obeying, after surrending, the suzerainty of the Ottoman Porte and Russia granting their prosperity--it specified the document--, is self explanatory that they will retain all the privileges and immunities granted, either by their surrendings or by the treaties concluded by the two empires or the Hatti-Sheriffs given in various moments. Consequently, they will enjoy the free exercise of their religion, a perfect safety, an independent national administration and a full freedom of trade" (7).

The Ottoman Porte as suzerain was bound to respect the right of the Principalities stipulated in the treaties from 1812 and 1826 concluded with Russia, on autonomy (freedom of religion, independent administration and so on); to enforce the conformation of these rights by the Turkish commanders on the right bank of the Danube; finally, it was expressly forced not to tolerate any Turkish settlement on the left bank of the river, and the retrocession of the main ports of the Danube. Turkey was forced to admit the full freeform of trade, the right of free navigation on the Danube for the Romanian people, thus giving the possibility of developing the capitalism and limiting the external interference of the Ottoman Empire in the internal and external affairs of the Romanian principalities.

The war and the Treaty of Adrianople have produced new motivations between the great European powers, on the Principalities (8).

It should be emphasized the fact that the recognition by the two great powers of the Romanian Principalities right to administrative autonomy (art.7) and the creation of a new armed guard (art.8) insuring the borders safety and the compliance of the laws and regulations, had a great significance for the further development of the Romanian Principalities. Such provisions, which shall be entered on line broadening of political autonomy, have opened the way for the remodelling of the national army.

For the central leadership of the Principalities the provisions stipulated that the princes were to rule for the entire life (art.1) and they were chosen by the Ruling Council which were to freely rule the public affaires. This stipulation, the rule for the entire life, was new in addition with the provision compared to the international documents concluded between Turkey and Russia from--1802 until the Convention of Akkerman from 1826--providing a rule of 7 years. In addition to the mention on the rule duration, very important was also the emphasis on the election of the princes among natives by the Ruling Councils. The princes shall freely govern all the intern administration affaires, consulting the National Assemblies, without prejudice to the two assured powers, Turkey and Russia(art. 2) (9).

Also, the Ottoman Porte was forced to confirm administrative regulations developed during the Russian administration in the Principalities. The Russian Administration in the Principalities was to last until the payment of the debt of 11.500.000 ducats, compensation after war, by Turkey. Besides those mentioned, the new quality of Turkey in the relation with the Romanian Principalities was a diplomatic and strategic gain of Russia in the Southeastern Europe and the limit of rights which the Ottoman Porte reclaimed on the two Romanian Principalities. "The occupation of the Principalities and of the Silistra during a quite long period of time (until the payment of the compensation after war) and the total domination of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea--reported General Diebici on September 3rd 1829 to the Tsar Nicholas I--is necessary to our interests. This peace will demonstrate to Europe our power but also our kindness towards the enemy (10).

After the occupation of the Romanian Principalities, the Russian military authorities have taken the measure of reorganization as quickly as possible of the local administration. Thus, interim governments have been installed in both countries, made up of Russophille landowners, and the Royal National Assembly has been abolished and replaced with: the Executor National Assembly, Court National Assembly and the Public Assembly (the reunion of the two National Assemblies).

The Romanian Principalities have been given basic laws called Organic Regulations which came into force on July 1st/13th 1831 in Wallachia and on July 1st/13th 1832 in Moldavia. In the era, the Organic Regulation was perceived as a fundamental law (charter), as certain publications known both in Bucharest and Iasi specified, or a series of protagonists of political scene, such as Nicolae Sutu or Mihail Sturdza. (11)

The Regulation did not intend to overturn the social order, but only the reorganization and modernization of the country according to the interests of the noblity and protective Russia. Still, the Organic Regulation eliminated a series of institutions and previous practices, has created a modern state apparatus by the identical organizational bases, has lead to the legislative and intitutional modernization of the Romanian Principalities, has represented a step forward on the union line. Their provisions have stimulated the development of the capitalist elements in economy. Along with their entry into force, the Principalities have disposed of the instrument designated to provide a legal framework for the governance, due to which the state, in its modern sense, is invented with its specific mission and function.

The separation of powers introduces, unlike the Old Regime, a democracy which makes possible the coming out of the system of classic powers (12). Nevertheless, the legal framework created by the Organic Regulations was a less favourable to the setting up of a parliamentary system.

Even if the legislative power was given to the Ruling Councils, they did not participate in the accomplishment of the legislative activity by decisions producing legal effects by themselves, the lord being the one who had the initiative considering the enactment and he also sanctioned the laws. The existence along with a lord of a administrative council made up of ministers appointed by him, and in Great Wallachia of a great council of ministers, gives the impression of a two-headed executive, as in the parlamentary regimes (13).

The Organic Regulation introduces the term of ministers, they being responsible only to the prince, they participating in the sesions of the meetings as his representatives, the capacity of deputy and that of minister being incompatible. Also, the Regulations contain procedural norms for the judicial activity as well as fundamental legal norms regarding the political, constitutional organization of each Principality. The judicial power was exercised by the county courts as courts of first instance, independent of the Assembly and the Prince. The article 212 provided: "The separation of the ruling and judicial powers, being known that it is necessarily needed for the proper order in terms of causes of justice and for the protection of rights of individuals, these two branches will be very special from now on" (14).

At the same time, the Organic Regulations have introduced for the first time in the Romanian legislation, the principle of res judicata, own rules on the immovability of judges and the equality of all before law. The legal practice and law science start to play more important roles in elaborating the law norms than the customary law. We can not talk about a law science as a formal source, it still being mistaken for the law moral which remained the fundamental book. (15)

Even though the Organic Regulations include provisions on various areas of social life, the most important remain those regarding the state organization. To this regard, we mention the principle of separation of powers, the establishment of some assemblies which have common features with the parliamentary regime of the era, the separation of the state revenues from those of the Prince and their management according to a public accounting system, thus achieving a clear administration between the notion of state and the person of the Prince (16).

Starting from the idea that the Danube represents the natural boundary of the Czarist Empire, Russia has installed in the Principalities with dark thoughts, in fact aiming to unite the two countries (17). The brutality of Russian occupation, the violation of state autonomy, but especially the systematic exploitation to which the inhabitants have been subjected caused a deep dissatisfaction among them. "The Christian protectorate of Orthodox Russia--it was appreciated in a time document--destructed us in a few years, worse than the pagan pressure of the Turks, along two hundred years" (18). The Russian military occupation lasted from 1828 until 1834, this occupation ending by the Treaty of January 17th/29th , 1834, signed in Petersburg between Russia and Turkey (19).

Bibliography:

Dan Berindei, Modern Romanian diplomacy from the beginning to the proclamation of state independence (1821-1877), Albatros Publishing House, Bucharest, 1995;

Vasile Boeresco, La Roumanie apres le traite de paix du 30 mars 1856, Paris, 1856;

Radu Carp, Ioan Stanomir, Laurentiu Vlad, From the code of laws to Constitution, Nemira Publishing House, Bucharest, 2002;

Nicolae Ciachir, Gheorghe Bercan, European Diplomacy in Modern Age, Scientific and Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1984;

Dinica Ciobotea, Vladimir Osiac, Tsarist Empire Policy in the Lower Danube, Aius Publishing House, Craiova, 2008;

Emil Cernea, Emil Molcut, State history and Romanian law, Casa de Editura si Presa Sansa SRL, Bucharest, 1994;

Tudor Draganu, Constitutional law and political intitutions. Elementary treaty, vol. I, Lumina Lex Publishing House, Cluj Napoca, 1998;

I.C. Filitti, Romanian Principalities from 1828 to 1834; Russian occupation and Organic Regulation, Bucharest, 1934

Cosmin Lucian Gherghe, Emanoil Chinezu, politician, lawyer and historian, Sitech Publishing House, Craiova, 2009;

Liviu P. Marcu, History of Romanian Law, Bucharest, 1997;

Anca Parmena Olimid, Ortodoxie, stat si natiune in configurarea societatii romanesti de la jumatatea secolului al XIX-lea (Orthodoxy, state and nation in Roanian society at the middle of the XIXth century), Analele Universitatii din Craiova. Seria Istorie, Anul XIII, nr. 1(13)/2008;

Anca Parmena Olimid Le personalisme spirituel europeen de la revendication a l'integration dans la modernite politique roumaine, Revista de Stiinte Politice. Revue des Sciences Politiques, nr. 24/2009;

Ioan Stanomir, Liberty, justice and law. A history of Romanian constitutionalism, Polirom Publishing House, Iasi, 2005;

History of Romanian law, vol II, parta I, Academiei Publishing House, Bucharest, 1984.

Cosmin Lucian GHERGHE

University of Craiova, Faculty of Social Sciences, Political Sciences Specialization

E-mail: avcosmingherghe@gmail.com

Notes:

(1.) Nicolae Ciachir, Gheorghe Bercan, European Diplomacy in Modern Age, Scientific and Encyclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest, 1984, page 290; I.C. Filitti, Romanian Principalities from 1828 to 1834; Russian occupation and Organic Regulation, Bucharest, 1934, pages 9-10;

(2.) I.C. Filitti, op.cit, p.10;

(3.) Nicolae Ciachir, Gheorghe Bercan, op.cit, p.294;

(4.) Dan Berindei, Modern Romanian diplomacy from the beginning to the proclamation of state independence (1821-1877), Albatros Publishing House, Bucharest, 1995, pages 50-53;

(5.) Ibidem, p.37;

(6.) Vasile Boeresco, La Roumanie apres le traite de paix du 30 mars 1856, Paris, 1856, pp.2-3;

(7.) Dinica Ciobotea, Vladimir Osiac, Tsarist Empire Policy in the Lower Danube, Aius Publishing House, Craiova, 2008, p.64;

(8.) Liviu P. Marcu, History of Romanian Law, Bucharest, 1997, page 165;

(9.) Nicolae Ciachir, Gheorghe Bercan, op.cit, p.295;

(10.) Ibidem, p.293;

(11.) Radu Carp, Ioan Stanomir, Laurentiu Vlad, From the code of laws to Constitution, Nemira Publishing House, Bucharest, 2002, page 24;

(12.) Ioan Stanomir, Liberty, justice and law. A history of Romanian constitutionalism, Polirom Publishing House, Iasi, 2005, pages 18-19;

(13.) Tudor Draganu, Constitutional law and political intitutions. Elementary treaty, vol. I, Lumina Lex Publishing House, Cluj Napoca, 1998, page 60;

(14.) Ioan Stanomir, op.cit, page 9;

(15.) History of Romanian law, vol II, parta I, Academiei Publishing House, Bucharest, 1984, page 70;

(16.) Emil Cernea, Emil Molcut, State history and Romanian law, Casa de Editura si Presa Sansa SRL, Bucharest, 1994, page 172;

(17.) See also Anca Parmena Olimid, Le personalisme spirituel europeen de la revendication a l'integration dans la modernite politique roumaine, Revista de Stiinte Politice. Revue des Sciences Politiques, nr. 24/2009, pp. 98-103

(18.) Cosmin Lucian Gherghe, Emanoil Chinezu, politician, lawyer and historian, Sitech Publishing House, Craiova, 2009, page 51.

(19.) In this context, see Anca Parmena Olimid, Ortodoxie, stat si natiune in configurarea societatii romanesti de la jumatatea secolului al XIX-lea (Orthodoxy, state and nation in Roanian society at the middle of the XIXth century), Analele Universitatii din Craiova. Seria Istorie, Anul XIII, nr. 1(13)/2008, pp. 127-145.