Head of state in romania. Designation. Duration of mandate

• Author: Oana Saramet
• Position: Faculty of Law, Transilvania University of Brasov
• Pages: 277-284

Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov

Series VII: Social Sciences • Law • Vol. 7 (56) No. 2 - 2014

HEAD OF STATE IN ROMANIA.

DESIGNATION.

DURATION OF MANDATE

Oana ŞARAMET1

Abstract: While the existence of some political-judicial institutions, such as

the Parliament, has been contested overtime, in di fferent social-political and

historical times, and the people or the nation have always reclaimed the

existence of a leader and the state’s power organization did not cause it to

dissapear but to transform that leader into a true head of state.

Key words: head of state, president, mandate, duration.

1 Faculty of Law, Transilvania University of Braşov.

1. Introduction

Considering the complexity of its role

and current functions, the influence of the

separation of powers within the state, as

well as the evolution toward a more

consolidated or a more fragile equilibrium,

we feel that, presently, it is more likely to

identify this institution by its own

constitutional name, that of president, in

case of a republic or the ones assimilated

to the monarch - king, prince, duke, in case

of a monarchy.

2. Appointment of the head of state in

Romania

Appointing the head of state has been

achieved in different ways ever since the

Paris Convention of 1858. Thus, if Cuza’s

Developing Status maintained the principle

of elective or “lifelong” monarchy as P.

Negulescu called it, a principle introduced

by the Paris Convention, that of choosing

the Leader by the Elective Assembly, the

1866 Constitution, according to article 82,

the 1923 Constitution, according to article

77 and also the 1938 Constitution by

article 35, abandon this principle in favour

of the one of hereditary monarchy.

This principle was first stated in the

Organic Regulations, as the Ruler was

about to be chosen by the extraordinary

Community Assembly for life, thus, giving

up the principle of appointing the ruler by

the two great empires - the Tsarist Empire

- The Protective Court and the Ottoman

Empire - The Sovereign Court; this

principle was regulated in the 1826

Akerman Convention and the 1848 Balta-

Liman Convention.

Unlike the Organic Regulation, the Paris

Convention placed the Romanian state

under the power of the guaranteeing

powers, causing the Tsarist Empire to lose

its important influence in choosing the

Ruler. The choice of the Ruler or Leader

was to be from a noble family, by the

Ruler [7].

We must also state that passing through

in office within the monarchy would be

achieved “in a descending, direct and