English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Our study deals with the ways in which the Romanian and Bulgarian authorities have coped, after 1878, in Northern and Southern Dobrudja, with the Ottoman legacy in regards to land owning, particularly, the distinction between full property (mulk) and long lease (miri) property. These policies could be connected with the efforts of these two modern national states towards internal consolidation. The main sources we have used are, on one hand, a series of controversial Romanian and Bulgarian thematic brochures and articles from the Interwar period and, on the other hand, several papers and general works published by prestigious scholars, from the Western world, specialized in Balkan and Oriental studies. We have also included a few judicial sources in our research. In the absence of totally new elements, this endeavour’s originality lies in the attempt to present a general, systematic, and critical view of the objective information, and, starting from these, of the biased, unavoidably controversial interpretations related to the topic. The Romanian state chose a direct and effective way of combining the ethnic homogenization from Dobrudja with the necesity of modernizing state institutions, namely, that of unconditionally transforming the miri properties in full private properties in maximum 20 years. The Bulgarian state permited the seizure and partition of former Turkish properties and deliberately avoided to explicitly abolish the miri land regime. This term was sporadically mentioned in post-Ottoman Bulgarian laws and judicial studies, especially until 1892, but even after 1904. The resulting ambiguity, which was useful for Bulgarians after 1878, when they seized Turkish properties, would turn against them after 1913, when Southern Dobrudja was annexed by Romania. DOI: 10.5901/ajis.2013.v2n3p11

The Avatars of the Miri 1 Land Regime in Post-Ottoman Dobrudja: Judicial Formulas and Ethno-Political Interests