Norgesparagraf

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a Norgesparagraf the § 3 of the electoral surrender of the Danish King Christian III. designated. It is one of the key texts of the Reformation period in Denmark and Norway and was intended to bring about the end of Norway's statehood.

In the election surrender, which Christian III. signed at the end of the meeting of the estates on October 30, 1536, it says in § 3:

"Och efftherthij att Norgis riige nw saa forringget er bode aff magtt och formwæ, och Norgis riigis jndbiggere jcke aldene formwæ att vnderholde thennom ænn herre och konnyng, och samme rimarige he fleste dog parth parth attigenn tone hoes tones bliffue Norgis riigis raadt, besønnerligenn erchebiscop Oluff, som nw he thet største hoffuett ther vdj riiget, nw vdj ænn kortte tiidtt er twendne gange mett meste partenn aff Norgis riigis raadt, then therdue franne vodmarcks hesoffige t thesoffiget riigis raadt och aadell, att thersom gudt aldmegtiste thet saa forsiett haffuer, att vij samme Norgis riige eller nogre the ledmode, slotte, lande eller sysszell, som ther tiill hearer, customer confirms eller we get this, orsher before thørs hear bliffwe vnder Danmarcks krone, liige som eth aff the other lande, Jutland, Fyenn, Sielandt eller Skonæ eere, och her effther jcke weere eller hede jngtet koninge riige for seg, menn eth ledemodt aff Danmarcks riige och vnder Danmarcks krone till etiige tiidt; dog hues feigde ther aff kand come, school dan. riigis raadt och jndbiggere would be plictuge mett oss troligenn att hielppe vddraghe. "

“After the kingdom of Norway has been reduced so much in power and wealth and the inhabitants of the kingdom of Norway alone are not able to maintain a lord and king and since this kingdom is now connected with Denmark's crown for ever and since most of the Norwegian council , especially the Archbishop Olav , who is now the most powerful man out there in the realm and within a short period of time twice fallen away from the Danish realm with most of the Norwegian Imperial Council contrary to their obligations, we have promised the Danish Imperial Council and nobility and promised that, if It is God's will that we submit the entire Norwegian Empire, its parts of the country, fortresses and administrative districts that belong to it to our government so that it should be and remain under Denmark's crown in the future, just like the other parts of Jutland, Funen or Zealand, and in future no longer should be and be called a kingdom in itself, but a member of the Danish R eiches under Denmark's crown for all time. "

- Christian III. : Norgesartikkelen

This provision replaced Christian I's election surrender and the so-called Bergentraktat of 1450. There it was determined that Norway should be an independent kingdom and be governed in cooperation between the king and the Norwegian Imperial Council. But the king had not adhered to it. He did not keep his promise in the election surrender to visit Norway regularly. After his coronation in 1450 he came to visit twice in 1453 and 1455 and only twice in 1468 and 1478 for imperial meetings in Bergen. He ruled Norway without the participation of the Norwegian Imperial Council. Norway was left to its own devices and partly to the joint law firm in Copenhagen. Since there was no effective central administration in Norway at that time, the Norwegian written language gradually fell into decline.

The wording of the Norgesparagrafen meant the complete incorporation of Norway into the Danish Kingdom.

Nevertheless, this rule has been the subject of a detailed discussion in recent historical research. The reason for this was not only that the reasoning was considered incorrect, but also that it was doubted that the provision had actually been implemented. In any case, it is certain that it was security considerations against the policies of Emperor Charles V and the deposed King Christian II and Gustav Wasa's possible claims on Norway that prompted the Danish Imperial Council to declare Norway part of Denmark. The Reichsrat saw the imperial unity threatened by the fact that Norway was granted its own choice of a king, which should be excluded for the future. While there is agreement about the motives, the effects in the future are controversial.

The following text is essentially based on the article by Erling Ladewig Petersen mentioned in the literature list.

Halvdan Koht said that the royal promise to the Imperial Council had been fulfilled, but that Norway formally remained a kingdom for itself. Johan Schreiner , however, was of the opinion that Christian III. had fulfilled its promise to the Imperial Council in every respect, in that Norway ceased to be its own empire and was a Danish province until 1814. Even Arnold Ræstad came to this conclusion, as had the abolition of the Norwegian kingdom Council Norway not own rights more and was extinguished law and in fact as a subject of international law, but the Norge clause had not been carried out, moreover, so that Norway now but as a separate kingdom continued to exist under the Danish crown.

The reason for this ambiguity also lies in the long period in which the discussion has developed. It ranges from the interpretation in the 16th century to the discussion of the royal family's right of inheritance vis-à-vis Norway at the time of absolutism. From 1600 Norway gained increasing economic importance and in the later years of Christian IV also increased importance for the national budget.

Despite its immediately understandable formulation, the Norgesparagraf contains some problems of interpretation. Its outward character is already unusual. Ordinarily, articles in an election surrender are precise formulations about the king's obligations in clear legal language. In contrast, the Norgesparagraf is kept in a more contractual style with detailed justification. In addition, it has no immediate effect; the king only undertakes to restore the desired state.

The reason given is Norway's poverty, which is not enough to support its own king, and the two-time defection from the Danish Empire. But there was no lower limit for the king's upkeep or for maintaining internal and external integrity. So this was not a valid argument to eliminate the independence of a previously independent Union partner. The argument lacked any legal basis. Therefore, further justification was needed. She was referring to Norway's duty to remain in the Union. The phrase “he ... forbundet” in the first sentence of the election surrender meant, in the language used at the time, a contractual obligation. According to the text, it was received by Denmark's crown. However, according to the text of Denmark's empire, it had fallen away. The term “crown” meant the general governmental power exercised by the king and the Danish Imperial Council. But the constitutional element in the personal union had already been in the foreground in previous generations. In the Kalmar Union of 1483, the states involved remained independent, with their own state budget, legislation and administration.

Therefore, the reasoning that Norway fell twice from the kingdom of Denmark, once during Christian II's winter campaign and once during the count's feud , is regarded as untenable under constitutional law. Norway could not fall away from the Danish Empire because it never belonged to it.

In a diplomatic letter to the Scottish government it is said that the king wants to travel to Norway to negotiate with the Norwegian Imperial Council, which still existed until the unification of the empires. It goes on to say that the state of the empire “compels us to go to Norway after we have acquired the (Danish) crown in order to end the uprising that is in the process of spreading in this empire as a continuation of the earlier war and around to transfer the crown of this empire to us with the consent of the Norwegian Imperial Council in the same way as we happily forced on a previous expedition for the same empire. ”The reference to the acquisition of the crown probably relates to a previous expedition the forced election of a king by the council members of Sønnenfjelske Norge in 1535. It is important, however, that the Norwegian Imperial Council is regarded as functional and that there is talk of two kronor. In other letters, too, the king speaks of the separate Norwegian crown. His policy thus deviated significantly from his promise in the election surrender. This is reinforced by the fact that he had coins minted with the inscription "Rex Norvegiæ". The sources also show that the dissolution of the Norwegian Imperial Council was not a step towards the incorporation of Norway into the Danish Empire, but was directed against the institution, which was regarded as politically unreliable.

In later international law negotiations Norway was always treated as an independent empire. In the election surrenders, the kings committed themselves to endeavor to get back the orcades and other islands in the North Sea and the Atlantic that were formerly part of Norway. In 1560, the government reminded the king that he had to restore control of Orkney to the Norwegian Empire. In 1585 the Danish embassy was supposed to inform King Jacob about it, “When we ... in 1559 we entered our royal government and brought the Orcades back to our Cron Norway, and we were obliged to bid against our general empire states like our most praiseworthy, blessed lords of far farn So soon A ° 60 will be written to Mr. Gubernatorn Regni Scotiæ again. "

In 1651 the first mercantilist customs regulations were issued. In this, Norway was put on an equal footing with all other provinces. In 1672 the tariff was lifted, but a special regulation with very low tariffs applied to Norway.

The addition to the border treaty between Norway and Sweden from September 21st jul. / October 2, 1751 greg. (in Sweden the Julian calendar was still in force) is entitled: "Første Codicill og Tilleg Til Grendse-Traktaten imellem Konge-Rigerne Norge og Sverrig Lapperne concerned" (First Kodicill and addition to the border treaty between the kingdoms of Norway and Sweden concerning the Sami).

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Sverre Steen and Povl Bagge give a good overview of the state of the discussion up to 1940: "Den dansknorske forbindelse 1536-1814". In: H. Bruun (ed.) Omstridte Spørgsmaal i North History I . Copenhagen. 1940. p. 117 ff. And A. Thowsen: “Historikernes syn på Norges statsrettslige stilling, 1536-1814, Norgesartikkelen 1536”. In: Norske historikere i utvalg , Volume VII. Universitetsforlaget Oslo. 1981. pp. 56-70.
  2. ↑ Halvdan Koht: "Artikelen om Noreg i den Danske handfestninga frå 1536." in (Norsk) Historisk tidsskrift 30. (1934-1936). Pp. 1–18, 11 f., 17. And: Olav Engelbriktsson og sjølvstendetapet 1537 . Oslo 1951. p. 179 f.
  3. ^ Johan Schreiner: "Norges-artikkelen i Christian IIIs håndfestning". In: (Norsk) Historisk tidsskrift Vol. 30. (1934-1936) pp. 185-205, 194, 199, 204 f.
  4. ^ Arnold Ræstad: Danmark, Norge og folkeretten . Oslo 1933, p. 34 ff.
  5. ^ "Cogit nos rei publicæ status, ut post acceptam hic coronam etiam in Noruegiam proficiscamur ad motus componendos, qui ex priori bello etiam in eo regno obtinere coeperunt, et ut coronam eius regni consiliariorum Noruagicorum consensu ad nosmodumedition prior subcogimus. "(CF Wegener: Aarsberetninger fra det kongelige secret archive, indeholdene bidrag til dansk historie af utrykte kilder. Vol. 4 p. 58.)
  6. ↑ There is an eight-skilling coin with the inscription on the reverse: DA: GOTO: REX NORVEGI.VAN - .VIII. - DANSKE SKILLING. See even the coin of Frederick V from 1762.
  7. ↑ Knut Mykland: Norges historie Bd. 9, Kampen om Norge 1784 - 1814. Oslo 1978. P. 29.
  8. ↑ Lars Ivar Hansen: Samenes historie fram til 1750. Oslo 2004. P. 273.

literature

  • Erling Ladewig Petersen: "Norgesparagrafen i Christian III's håndfestning 1536". In: Historisk Tidsskrift (Denmark), Volume 12. Row 6 (1973). Pp. 393-464.
  • Øystein Rian: Den nye begynnelsen 1520-1660. Aschehougs Norges history. Vol. 5. Oslo 1995.