Záměry a proces přijetí zákona č. 131/1936 Sb. o obraně státu
Intentions and Process of the Adoption of Law no. 131/1936 of the Coll. on State Defence

Summary/Abstract: In response to the political development in neighbouring Germany and related security threats, the National Assembly adopted a new law in May 1936. The aim of this legal regulation would, as an obligatory guideline, unite the state’s effort to ensure the republic’s defence and create legal pre-requisites for the implementation of the fundamental measures for the country’s defence, and to eliminate everything that would thwart the state’s efforts in this direction. The article discusses the intentions’ analyses as well as the legislative process of enacting the law including the viewpoints of the individual political parties of the National Assembly.Law no. 131/1936 of the Coll. on state defence was rather voluminous, yet its implementation required a number of governmental ordinances and other implementation rules. The law generated severe criticism, for example, by German lawyers as a measure against minorities. In the situation of real danger to the republic, many radical measures were needed, even imperative; however, certain disputable aspects of the law cannot be overlooked – the identification of ‘state unreliable persons’ is relatively often mentioned in the analyses of this law, yet the extraordinary authorisations of the government are also very important as well as the possibility to implement measurements for the period of the state’s defence emergency. In theory, some regulations could thus be easily abused. There was a rather substantial number of extraordinary measures deviating from the general law limits, and even Czech lawyers showed certain discomfort. Yet, it should be stated that the law on state defence and the subsequent laws and governmental regulations from the second half of the 1930s represented extensive legislative work that formed essential preconditions for becoming an effective tool of the organisation and complex provision of the state’s defensive function. Despite some problematic passages, the viability of this law was further evidenced because it remained in force until 1961.

• Details
• Contents