REGULAMENTELE ORGANICE ȘI ISTORIA CONSTITUȚIONALĂ**: PRINCIPATELE ROMÂNE DE LA „ȚĂRI ÎNCHINATE, NESUPUSE CU SABIA” LA AUTONOMIA POLITICĂ (1822–1828)
THE ORGANIC REGULATIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY: ROMANIAN PRINCIPALITIES FROM “PROTECTED COUNTRIES, UNCONQUERED BY THE SWORD” TO POLITICAL AUTONOMY (1822–1828)

Summary/Abstract: The first essential aspect of a constitutional approach is the definition of the modern state, operating a necessary distinction between “the state as an administrative and bureaucratic apparatus and the state as a political form”, after the inspired expression of Pierre Rasanvallon. Before analyzing the features of the Organic Regulations, in a second study of our research, the question is whether in the years of their drafting the Romanian Principalities had a state character or were privileged Christian provinces of the Ottoman Empire? According to the Akkerman Convention, from the Ottoman perspective, the Romanian Principalities remained tributary provinces, and from the Russian point of view, imposed by the Russian-Turkish treaties and confirmed by the Convention, provinces with privileges and immunities. Instead, the separate Act of the Convention really defined the autonomy of the Principality of Serbia and the non-sovereign state character. The demands of the “deputies of the Serbian nation”, still in Constantinople, were to be recognized by the Ottoman Empire on the basis of Article VIII of the Treaty of Bucharest and as proof of Ottoman good intentions towards Russia. In addition, through a project drawn up in January 1824, Russia proposed the establishment of three Greek Principalities with a status similar to that planned for Serbia. Some explanations of the difference in content between the separate act concerning the Principality and that relating to Serbia emerge from the complicated diplomatic negotiations between 1822 and 1826 on the resumption of official Russian-Ottoman relations. Analyzed from the angle of the tradition of Russian-Ottoman diplomatic negotiations started in Kuciuk-Kainardji, more difficult to penetrate by the representatives of other Powers, the endless negotiationsbetween 1822 and 1825 revolve around an essential stake – the control of the political regime in the Romanian Principalities. These ambiguities associated with the status of the Romanian Principalities were clearly reflected in a series of memoirs and reform projects prepared by the Romanian elite, before and after the Convention, marking the entry into a new, modern stage of the theory of “our historical rights in relation to the Ottoman Empire”, later one of the favorite themes in the writings of the forty-eighters regarding the Romanian state emancipation. Until 1829, despite pressure from Russia, the Ottomans did not agree to make any referenceto capitulations in previous treaties or the Akkerman Convention. They claimed their non-existence. After the defeat in the war and forced to concessions on many levels, the Ottoman delegation signatory to the Treaty of Adrianople would agree that “the Principalities of Moldova and Wallachia, based on a capitulation, are under Ottoman suzerainty”. Debates among diplomats over the legal significance of the terms of the Treaty continued, resumed by jurists and historians in the second half of the 19th century, but historical reality shows that these sterile discussions did not prevent Russia from prolonging its occupation for five years in the Romanian Principalities and to impose its will, as an act of power, through the Treaty of Petersburg (January 1834)

• Details
• Contents