We would like to introduce you to the members of our School and show the diversity of the themes that are studied within it. This mini-interview gives you a glimpse into one research project. PhD candidate Petr Vilem Koluch introduces himself.

When I began my double PhD in Political History at the Faculty of Humanities at Leiden University and Legal History at the Faculty of Law at the University of Vienna in the autumn of 2021, I had already completed studies in History, Art History, and Philosophy in Prague, Vienna, and Berlin, as well as Diplomacy at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna. I was also finishing my first PhD in Austrian Studies. My supervisor, Professor Monika Baar from the Austrian Studies program at Leiden University, recommended that I join the RSPH. I arrived in the Netherlands with a specialisation in Central European history and a distinct perspective shaped by the Austro-German tradition. My motivation for pursuing a PhD in the Netherlands was to understand Western European thought and perspectives on history.

In my first year with the RSPH, I was struck by the collaborative spirit among political history students from all Dutch universities who came together for workshops. I found this approach highly commendable, particularly as in Austria, doctoral students typically only engage within their institutions, with little to no national interaction. This unique platform allowed me to connect with colleagues from various Dutch universities and, importantly, to explore topics that were previously unfamiliar to me. Themes such as colonial history, gender history, and environmental history were largely outside my prior academic experience, primarily focused on Austrian and German constitutional history during my Master’s studies at the University of Vienna. Through the OPG, I was allowed to attend two significant international conferences. I first presented my research poster at the “Political History Today” conference in Amsterdam in 2022, and later, I had the privilege of presenting my lecture, “Conflict of Legal Ideologies: Rule of Law or Rechtsstaat,” at the “Political Histories of Conflict” conference in Stockholm in June 2024. The conference at Södertörn University was particularly enriching, as it featured contributions from historians across the Baltics, Eastern Europe, Azerbaijan, and India. I am also deeply grateful to Professor Sarah Cramsey and the Austrian Studies Fund at Leiden University, whose support enabled my research stay at the University of Oxford during the academic year 2023/24.

What is your research project about?

My doctoral thesis delves into the establishment of the rule of law within the Habsburg Monarchy in the aftermath of the 1848 Revolution. Traditionally, historians have posited that France and Britain, with their democratic ideals of liberty and the rule of law, served not only as templates for the development of constitutionalism in Austria but that the political doctrine of liberalism was wholly adopted from England and transplanted into the Central European context. However, the Austrian legal scholar Josef Redlich was the first to discern, around 1900, that a genuine rule of law had not materialised in either Austria-Hungary or the German Empire. Redlich contended that the administrative state (Verwaltungsstaat) which emerged after the 1848 Revolution in Austria and Germany was, in essence, an extension of the authoritarian state (Obrigkeitsstaat) that characterised the absolutist monarchies before 1848. He attributed this to the abandonment of revolutionary ideals by German and Austrian liberals, who capitulated to the established power structures, thus allowing the creation of a highly bureaucratic Rechtsstaat that prioritised state authority over individual rights. Having studied law at Oxford under the tutelage of Albert Venn Dicey and maintained intellectual exchanges with English legal scholars such as Frederic William Maitland and Francis Wrigley Hirst, Redlich found himself in ideological opposition to Hegelian idealism, particularly as championed by Rudolf von Gneist, a Prussian legal scholar and advocate of the Bismarckian regime. According to Redlich, the absence of a true rule of law in Central Europe was a critical factor in the crisis of liberalism in Austria, which ultimately facilitated the rise of bureaucracy, militarism, and the intensification of national and social tensions.

Would you describe your project as political history? Why?
Undoubtedly! My doctoral research intricately weaves political and administrative history with legal history and legal philosophy, focusing on Austria and Germany between 1848 and 1918. While some may categorise my work under intellectual history, given its focus on the legal-political thought of prominent scholars such as Josef Redlich from Austria, Rudolf von Gneist from Germany, and Albert Venn Dicey from Britain, it is firmly rooted in the study of political history.

What do you like most about your project?
I appreciate how relevant this topic remains in Europe today. Before my research stay at Oxford, I worked as a policy advisor to Othmar Karas, the First Vice-President of the European Parliament. I strive to present the commonly used term “rule of law” as an essentially contested concept — that is, the “rule of law” and “Rechtsstaat” are not identical and do not have the same meaning. In cooperation with the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO), I aim to clarify the term “rule of law” and propose an alternative term that better describes the legal model in East Central and Eastern European countries, which does not align with the general characteristics of the rule of law. Without this clarification, I consider any meaningful dialogue on the rule of law within the European Union to be impossible.