Some Notes for a History of Reversed law-making. Decree-laws in Interwar Romania

Abstract

Let’s imagine that, 50-100 years from now, political and legal historians of Romania would ignore – or simply mention in passing – the practice of legislating through simple and emergency ordinances! It would obviously be and incomplete and misleading image. This is the case with what we today call the modern and contemporary history of Romania. The practice of legislating by the executive is almost completely ignored. The decree-laws are only mentioned, as the case may be, as symptoms of an exceptional situation or of an authoritarian drift. At the time, they were the subject of long discussions among politicians, journalists, and lawyers. Although the Romanian Constitutions of 1866 and 1923 provided that the legislative power was exercised collectively by the King and the two Chambers, the King intervening at last, a good part of the Romanian legislation was adopted conversely, without any constitutional reason. The King practically made the law, and the Parliament only approved it. It is true, the King could not change what the Parliament had voted, while the Parliament could change what the King had decreed. However, if the decisions of the Parliament could not produce any effects without the Royal sanction, his decrees came into force prior to their ratification by the Parliament. In this essay we will focus on two periods: (1) in 1918-1920, the Romanian government issued a large number of decree-laws, subject to subsequent ratification. At the beginning, until December 1918, the practice was somewhat justified by a supposed right of necessity; after this moment it seemed arbitrary and authoritarian; (2) in 1934-1937, based on several statutes and according to them, the government issued again a number of decrees, subject to ratification by the Parliament. They were also called decree-laws, but they represented something quite different than those from the previous period.