Authors

Discussion

The Rule of Law or the Ruler’s Law? Rechtsstaat and Military Authority in Austria-Hungary

The Achilles heel of the Habsburg Rechtsstaat was always the ambiguous place of a military that existed both outside of and inside the constitutional, judicial, and administrative structures of the two states that made up the dual monarchy after 1867. On the one hand, the emperor-king maintained ultimate control over the military. Military leaders were responsible solely to the ruler. The two parliaments and the delegations that regulated Austrian and Hungarian internal relations had no rights of oversight regarding the internal cultures, regulations, and disciplinary practices of the military, many of which, as historians have pointed out, contradicted the dictates of civil law. On the other hand, the legislative bodies did create the institution of a conscription-based military, and they had the power to regulate the military budget. They used this budgetary power to influence military policy where they could, much to the annoyance of military planners.

When Austria-Hungary was not at war, the contradictions between an authoritarian military and a Rechtstaat that generally pursued liberalizing politics after 1867 remained hidden for the most part. They became profoundly influential, however, during the military invasion of Bosnia Herzegovina, and especially during the First World War. In the latter case, the independence of the military became a critical reason for the state’s loss of legitimacy.

     This paper will explore specific instances where civil and military demands clashed, to understand both the limits of the Habsburg Rechtsstaat, but also to understand how the role of the military in public life was transformed in the second half of the 19^th century. The changing balance between the power of a ruler and that of legislative and civil society institutions in 19^th-century Europe often hinged on the institutional relationship between potential civilian oversight of the military and the degree that the military exercised independence from civilian institutions. Moreover, there was a diversity of views on this relationship both within the military and within civil society.