The author analyses the history of the past few decades of Hungary and the consequences of the change of system from the point of view of constitutional law. He discusses the relationship between the civil society and the legal system and the theoretical background of the category of "law-based state", and then analyses the gaps of the law-based state in the legal system of state socialism (in contrast to summary judgements) and by widening them how did the old system gradually and necessarily grow into the political-legal democracy after the turn. Discussing the constitutional legal system after the turn, he states that it strengthens the state against society. He provides a short criticism of the contradiction of the government's law making activities.

Starting out from the fact that privatisation is a world trend, the study discusses the theoretical basic elements and functions of privatisation. The author compares the different privatisation practices of the various West European countries and stresses that the East European privatisation starting out from a completely different basis, should be considered to be different. He underlines the sources of conflicts involved and reviews the privatisation practice of each East European country. He concludes that privatisation in East Europe is not guided by economic rationality rather it serves the redistribution of power.

The study warns that the Gulf war can be the overture to a "new barbarism". The main danger of that war lies in the fact that it loosens the almost existing concensus concerning the rejection of war solutions. We live under unprecedented conditions from the point of view that today the crisis of capitalism coincides with the theoretical-practical crisis of anti-capitalism. The Gulf war can also exemplify that fear itself can promote drifting to war. A factor increasing the dangers is that once again it has been proved that by nature, capitalism is unable to exclude war solutions.

Frank interprets the Gulf war mainly as a reaction to the recession in America. He loo, stresses the role of oil Going through the history of American interventions, he proves that starting the war in the Gulf was based on a pretext and that the American superpower has not intervened in defence of "democracy" but it has done so at different spots of the world only there and then when ft served its own interests. He quotes as another cause the need to create a new enemy image after the downfall of communism.