ANALYSIS OF THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN AND THE CROATIAN-HUNGARIAN COMPROMISE (ON THE OCCASION OF THE 150 ANNIVERSARY OF THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN COMPROMISE)

Ove godine navršava se 150. obljetnica donošenja Austro-ugarske nagodbe, kompromisa između Austrije i Ugarske koji je u mnogim segmentima poslužio kao predložak za godinu dana kasnije sklopljenu Hrvatsko-ugarsku nagodbu. Ovima dvjema nagodbama Mađari su uredili svoje odnose s dvorom i s Trojednom Kraljevinom Hrvatskom, Slavonijom i Dalmacijom, s kojom se Ugarska od 1102. nalazila u državnoj zajednici. Tako je okončan dugotrajni sukob s Austrijom, a i hrvatsko pitanje je u Budimpešti i Beču skinuto s dnevnog reda. Nagodbe su usvojene na sličan način, pregovorima kraljevinskih odbora, prihvaćanjem zakonskih članaka u zemaljskim saborima, njihovim sankcioniranjem od strane kralja, a potom proglašavanjem u saborima. Broj članaka (69 odnosno 70), kao i mnoge formulacije u njima, čine temelj za njihovu poredbenu analizu. Objema je zajedničko i to da su ih ugovorne stranke (Austrija i Ugarska s jedne strane te Hrvatska i Ugarska s druge) različito tumačile, pa su nagodbe služile i kao stalno sredstvo javnopravnoga prijepora i političke borbe unutar pojedinih dijelova monarhije, kao i između dviju polovina dvojne monarhije.Year 2017 marks the 150th anniversary of the adoption of the Austro-Hungarian Compromise, compromise between Austria and Hungary, which in many segments served as a template for the Croatian-Hungarian deal assembled one year later. These settlements helped Hungary to establish its relations with the court and with the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, and it also served Hungary since 1102 to establish itself into the State Union. Thus ended the longstanding conflict with Austria and resolved the Croatian question in Budapest and Vienna as it was finally taken off the agenda. The Settlements were adopted in a similar way; by negotiations of the Royal Committee, by adopting legal articles in the Provincial Assembly, by sanctions imposed by the King, and then by declaring it in the Parliament. The number of articles (69 or 70), and many of its formulations, are the basis for their comparative analysis. They both have in common that they are contracting parties interpreted in various ways (Austria and Hungary on the one hand and Croatia and Hungary on the other hand), but the settlement served as a permanent tool of political struggle within the individual parts of the monarchy, as well as between the two halves of the Dual Monarchy