The modern European concept of collective labour relations is based on the social dialogue, which represents an opportunity for ensuring permanent social peace. The social dialogue is regulated by the provisions of the primary European law, conducted at the supranational level by the social partners functioning in the European social area. It is also an important model for conducting dialogue by the social partners in the EU Member States and for establishment by the authorities of particular EU Member States of the principles and procedures for the social dialogue in the labour law systems. The freedom of association, collective bargaining, social dialogue and quality of collective labour relations are the fundamental elements of the European social model. The collective bargaining as being a part of this model should promote workplace democracy, redistribution of resources, and efficiency of employment relations. However, collective agreements that may be concluded at the European level are still a novelty in the legislative system of European labour law and they do not play a role as the alternative sources of European labour law.
The modern European concept of collective labour relations is based on the social dialogue, which represents an opportunity for ensuring permanent social peace. The social dialogue is regulated by the provisions of the primary European law, conducted at the supranational level by the social partners functioning in the European social area. It is also an important model for conducting dialogue by the social partners in the EU Member States and for establishment by the authorities of particular EU Member States of the principles and procedures for the social dialogue in the labour law systems. The freedom of association, collective bargaining, social dialogue and quality of collective labour relations are the fundamental elements of the European social model. The collective bargaining as being a part of this model should promote workplace democracy, redistribution of resources, and efficiency of employment relations. However, collective agreements that may be concluded at the European level are still a novelty in the legislative system of European labour law and they do not play a role as the alternative sources of European labour law.
The modern European concept of collective labour relations is based on the social dialogue, which represents an opportunity for ensuring permanent social peace. The social dialogue is regulated by the provisions of the primary European law, conducted at the supranational level by the social partners functioning in the European social area. It is also an important model for conducting dialogue by the social partners in the EU Member States and for establishment by the authorities of particular EU Member States of the principles and procedures for the social dialogue in the labour law systems. The freedom of association, collective bargaining, social dialogue and quality of collective labour relations are the fundamental elements of the European social model. The collective bargaining as being a part of this model should promote workplace democracy, redistribution of resources, and efficiency of employment relations. However, collective agreements that may be concluded at the European level are still a novelty in the legislative system of European labour law and they do not play a role as the alternative sources of European labour law.
The modern European concept of collective labour relations is based on the social dialogue, which represents an opportunity for ensuring permanent social peace. The social dialogue is regulated by the provisions of the primary European law, conducted at the supranational level by the social partners functioning in the European social area. It is also an important model for conducting dialogue by the social partners in the EU Member States and for establishment by the authorities of particular EU Member States of the principles and procedures for the social dialogue in the labour law systems. The freedom of association, collective bargaining, social dialogue and quality of collective labour relations are the fundamental elements of the European social model. The collective bargaining as being a part of this model should promote workplace democracy, redistribution of resources, and efficiency of employment relations. However, collective agreements that may be concluded at the European level are still a novelty in the legislative system of European labour law and they do not play a role as the alternative sources of European labour law.
The theme of this work is the tripartite partnership as an instrument enabling representatives of social partners to participate on the basis of parity with representatives of public authority in discussions relevant to labour law problems, and especially tripartite agreements as an instrument to reach acceptable to all parties decisions. The purpose of this work is to analyse the legal regulation, trends, practice of making and fulfilling such agreements, to clarify the gaps of the legislation of Lithuania, problems and find the way out of existing situation. The national laws of Lithuania, which regulate the tripartite social dialogue and tripartite agreements, in general correspond to the stipulation of the international legislation. Despite that, in Lithuania tripartite partnership acts only on the national level, because there are only few territorial level tripartite institutions and there are no one agreement or institution at a branch level. Tripartite agreements in fact do not execute its purpose to warrant a social peace, resolve collective bargaining of employees whereby their right to strike is limited or prohibited, take part in legislation procedure. It shall be indicated the problem of legal status of tripartite agreements – they are not binding even upon the parties. There are more problems – insufficient activity of social partners, there are no good will to seek compromise, negotiators have no proper qualifications to obtain effective dialogue. In order to solve these problems it would be useful to arrange special training programmes, reorganize the existing structure of tripartite institutions, to fix up that tripartite agreements are binding upon the parties and institutions whom this tripartite agreements are directed to have to entertain a proposal. It can be noted that Lithuania has chosen the way of social dialogue and in the future the effective tripartite social partnership will be successfully developed.
The theme of this work is the tripartite partnership as an instrument enabling representatives of social partners to participate on the basis of parity with representatives of public authority in discussions relevant to labour law problems, and especially tripartite agreements as an instrument to reach acceptable to all parties decisions. The purpose of this work is to analyse the legal regulation, trends, practice of making and fulfilling such agreements, to clarify the gaps of the legislation of Lithuania, problems and find the way out of existing situation. The national laws of Lithuania, which regulate the tripartite social dialogue and tripartite agreements, in general correspond to the stipulation of the international legislation. Despite that, in Lithuania tripartite partnership acts only on the national level, because there are only few territorial level tripartite institutions and there are no one agreement or institution at a branch level. Tripartite agreements in fact do not execute its purpose to warrant a social peace, resolve collective bargaining of employees whereby their right to strike is limited or prohibited, take part in legislation procedure. It shall be indicated the problem of legal status of tripartite agreements – they are not binding even upon the parties. There are more problems – insufficient activity of social partners, there are no good will to seek compromise, negotiators have no proper qualifications to obtain effective dialogue. In order to solve these problems it would be useful to arrange special training programmes, reorganize the existing structure of tripartite institutions, to fix up that tripartite agreements are binding upon the parties and institutions whom this tripartite agreements are directed to have to entertain a proposal. It can be noted that Lithuania has chosen the way of social dialogue and in the future the effective tripartite social partnership will be successfully developed.
The theme of this work is the tripartite partnership as an instrument enabling representatives of social partners to participate on the basis of parity with representatives of public authority in discussions relevant to labour law problems, and especially tripartite agreements as an instrument to reach acceptable to all parties decisions. The purpose of this work is to analyse the legal regulation, trends, practice of making and fulfilling such agreements, to clarify the gaps of the legislation of Lithuania, problems and find the way out of existing situation. The national laws of Lithuania, which regulate the tripartite social dialogue and tripartite agreements, in general correspond to the stipulation of the international legislation. Despite that, in Lithuania tripartite partnership acts only on the national level, because there are only few territorial level tripartite institutions and there are no one agreement or institution at a branch level. Tripartite agreements in fact do not execute its purpose to warrant a social peace, resolve collective bargaining of employees whereby their right to strike is limited or prohibited, take part in legislation procedure. It shall be indicated the problem of legal status of tripartite agreements – they are not binding even upon the parties. There are more problems – insufficient activity of social partners, there are no good will to seek compromise, negotiators have no proper qualifications to obtain effective dialogue. In order to solve these problems it would be useful to arrange special training programmes, reorganize the existing structure of tripartite institutions, to fix up that tripartite agreements are binding upon the parties and institutions whom this tripartite agreements are directed to have to entertain a proposal. It can be noted that Lithuania has chosen the way of social dialogue and in the future the effective tripartite social partnership will be successfully developed.
The theme of this work is the tripartite partnership as an instrument enabling representatives of social partners to participate on the basis of parity with representatives of public authority in discussions relevant to labour law problems, and especially tripartite agreements as an instrument to reach acceptable to all parties decisions. The purpose of this work is to analyse the legal regulation, trends, practice of making and fulfilling such agreements, to clarify the gaps of the legislation of Lithuania, problems and find the way out of existing situation. The national laws of Lithuania, which regulate the tripartite social dialogue and tripartite agreements, in general correspond to the stipulation of the international legislation. Despite that, in Lithuania tripartite partnership acts only on the national level, because there are only few territorial level tripartite institutions and there are no one agreement or institution at a branch level. Tripartite agreements in fact do not execute its purpose to warrant a social peace, resolve collective bargaining of employees whereby their right to strike is limited or prohibited, take part in legislation procedure. It shall be indicated the problem of legal status of tripartite agreements – they are not binding even upon the parties. There are more problems – insufficient activity of social partners, there are no good will to seek compromise, negotiators have no proper qualifications to obtain effective dialogue. In order to solve these problems it would be useful to arrange special training programmes, reorganize the existing structure of tripartite institutions, to fix up that tripartite agreements are binding upon the parties and institutions whom this tripartite agreements are directed to have to entertain a proposal. It can be noted that Lithuania has chosen the way of social dialogue and in the future the effective tripartite social partnership will be successfully developed.
The article analyzes the attitide of Lithuanian lawyers (advocates) towards the peaceful settlement of disputes and mediation, which are embedded in Lithuanian law, are started to be applied in practice in Lithuanian courts (judicial mediation) since year 2005, but hardly find proper place in practice of Lithuanian lawyers. The publication contains brief theoretical analysis on role of a lawyer in mediation (lawyer-mediator, lawyer-neutral adviser and lawyer-party representative), their different functions. Also the necessity of additional education for lawyers in the field of alternative dispute resolution is highlighted. Afterwards the article presents a survey on attitide of Lithuanian advocates towards peaceful settlement of disputes and mediation. This survey was performed in 2015 at the General meeting of Lithuanian advocates. 354 advocates participated in the survey. The conducted survey examines issues of lawyers' knowledge about mediation, their use of mediation in practice and reasons for non-use. Based on the survey findings proposals for measures that could encourage the advocates to have more favorable attitude to the peaceful settlement of disputes and mediation, making these advanced processes natural and priority-order way of dispute resolution, were formulated.
The article analyzes the attitide of Lithuanian lawyers (advocates) towards the peaceful settlement of disputes and mediation, which are embedded in Lithuanian law, are started to be applied in practice in Lithuanian courts (judicial mediation) since year 2005, but hardly find proper place in practice of Lithuanian lawyers. The publication contains brief theoretical analysis on role of a lawyer in mediation (lawyer-mediator, lawyer-neutral adviser and lawyer-party representative), their different functions. Also the necessity of additional education for lawyers in the field of alternative dispute resolution is highlighted. Afterwards the article presents a survey on attitide of Lithuanian advocates towards peaceful settlement of disputes and mediation. This survey was performed in 2015 at the General meeting of Lithuanian advocates. 354 advocates participated in the survey. The conducted survey examines issues of lawyers' knowledge about mediation, their use of mediation in practice and reasons for non-use. Based on the survey findings proposals for measures that could encourage the advocates to have more favorable attitude to the peaceful settlement of disputes and mediation, making these advanced processes natural and priority-order way of dispute resolution, were formulated. ; Straipsnyje analizuojamas Lietuvos advokatų požiūris į taikų ginčų sprendimą ir mediaciją, vis plačiau įtvirtinamus mūsų valstybės teisės aktuose, teismų veikloje (teisminė mediacija), tačiau sunkiai atrandančius vietą advokatų praktikoje. Publikacijoje pateikiama advokato vaidmens mediacijoje teorinė analizė, nagrinėjamas advokato-mediatoriaus, advokato-neutralaus patarėjo bei advokato-šalies atstovo statusas mediacijos procese. Straipsnyje yra pristatomi 2015 m. atliktos Lietuvos advokatų apklausos apie advokatų taika užbaigiamus ginčus, jų žinias apie mediaciją, mediacijos naudojimą praktikoje bei nesinaudojimo mediacijos procedūra priežastis rezultatai. Tyrimo rezultatų pagrindu daromos išvados ir teikiami siūlymai dėl priemonių, kurios galėtų paskatinti advokatų palankesnio požiūrio į taikų ginčų sprendimą bei mediaciją formavimą, padaryti šiuos pažangius procesus natūralia bei prioritetine tvarka advokato klientui siūloma alternatyva ginčo sprendimui teisme.
The transition processes in post-soviet area show the lack of knowledge and experiences in conflict resolution, when the authorities, the organisations and individuals have to solve the controversial problems as well as conflicts of interests and values. The first part of the article represents the scope of ideas and practices of conflict resolution and conciliation in international relations. The actions of the Security Council of the UNO and some agreements of the European Conference for Security and Co-operation have been surveyed as having sense of peace-keeping, peace-making and peace-building. In the process of European integration some political and legal mechanisms were approved with the mean to conciliate controversities between the members and candidates of the EU. Using them the European Community functions as a whole, and the process of joining new members is sequent and progressive. The philosophy and experience of conflict resolution and conciliation is applicable in many cases of the states internal affairs. In the next part of the article the author examines applications and development of conciliation procedures in social life of Lithuania. One of such examples is three parts roundtable between representatives of governmental bodies, employers and trade unions on issues of social politics, unemployment, payment etc. developing the rules and incentives for strengthening the culture of conflict resolution in social life serves the new democracy. The next direction in which conciliation and conflict resolution has been used is third party participation in community and family conflicts. Several projects on mediation have been accomplished in Lithuania. They were aimed to train mediators and to educate individuals in what circumstances they may be served by mediators. The author examines in which way peace-making procedures can be used in public administration. The Lithuanian laws regulate some principles of administrating to avoid or prevent disputes between the governmental bodies and the citizen and interest groups as well as (for example one-window rule in servicing the applicator). Lithuania as other post-communist countries has to develop the culture of conflict resolution and conciliation to ensure social and communal stability. ; Transformaciniuose procesuose, kuriuos mes išgyvename, išryškėjo žmonių ir organizacijų, verslo įmonių, valdžios institucijų bendravimo ir bendradarbiavimo, gebėjimo spręsti sudėtingus ir prieštaringus klausimus problemiškumas, vertybių ir interesų konfliktų prevencijos ir valdymo aktualumas. Straipsnyje pristatoma konfliktų sprendimo ir taikinamosios veiklos idėjų ir praktinio patyrimo raida pasaulyje. Apžvelgiamos tos mūsų gyvenimo sritys, kur pradeda rastis kryptinga taikinamoji veikla, svarstomos tolesnės plėtotės galimybės, ypač kreipiant dėmesį į žmogaus santykius su kitais ir į viešąjį administravimą.
The paper attempts to prove that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) due to the absence of mutual agreement between its permanent members and frequent usage of veto right, sanctions the usage of preventive self-defence notably rarely. The problem then occurs: because of the ineffectiveness of the UNSC in sanctioning the usage of preventive self-defence, the states implement the preventive self-defence by themselves, in this way violating one of the main international law principles – refraining from threatening or using force principle. This situation encouraged some big states (permanent members of the UNSC) to foresee the possibility to use unilateral preventive self-defence in their military doctrines in this way ignoring international law. The current situation requires dealing with this issue either legalizing the usage of preventive self-defence or searching for the ways how to force the UNSC to implement its primary task – to maintain international peace and security. The goal of the paper – to reveal the issues of the states' usage of preventive self-defence emphasizing the Middle East region. The following objectives have been formulated for achieving the goal: 1. To discuss the concept of refraining from threatening or using force principle, the consolidation of this principle in contemporary law as well as analysis of exceptions. 2. To analyze the types of states' self-defence and find Lithuanian equivalents to English terms of states' self-defence types: preemptive and preventive self-defence. 3. To analyze the demand and opportunities to legalize the unilateral usage of states' preventive self-defence. 4. To analyze the potential usage of preventive self-defence towards Iran. The object of this paper – the usage of the states' preventive self-defence. While determining the research boundaries, the object of the research has been stated - the possible usage of Israel's preventive self-defence towards Iran. The following issues have been addressed in the paper – should the right to use preventive self-defence be stated in the international law even in the case if UNSC would not sanction the usage of preventive military measures? The answer to the question is negative. It is feared that the legalizing of preventive self-defence could have irrecoverable consequences because each state would use preventive self-defence at own discretion and all this would not contribute to the UN efforts to ensure peace and security in the world. It is recommended to deal with the current situation not by legalizing preventive self-defence but by increasing the UNSC efficiency in analyzing and sanctioning the usage of preventive force. Three institutional models that enable to increase the efficiency of the UNSC directly and indirectly while dealing with the usage of preventive force issues and sanctioning it are analyzed in the paper. The possible usage of Israel's preventive self-defence towards Iran was analyzed during the survey. It was assessed whether there were assumptions for Israel to attack Iran and if Israel will eventually attack Iran despite the fact that this kind of attack would be unlawful according to the international law. The historical comparative method was used while answering the question. The bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor by the Israeli Air Force in 1981 was analyzed and Iraq's nuclear programme assessed. The author claims that all assumptions for Israel to attack Iran do exist – Israel suspects that Iran is making nuclear weapon and that it will be used against Israel. At present Israel is deterred from attacking only because of the USA position and the absence of the precise data regarding Iran nuclear objects. In the course of the time the USA position can change and the data (reasoned or not) regarding Iran nuclear objects' location can occur. If it happens, in this case it is possible that Israel will decide to attack Iran.
The paper attempts to prove that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) due to the absence of mutual agreement between its permanent members and frequent usage of veto right, sanctions the usage of preventive self-defence notably rarely. The problem then occurs: because of the ineffectiveness of the UNSC in sanctioning the usage of preventive self-defence, the states implement the preventive self-defence by themselves, in this way violating one of the main international law principles – refraining from threatening or using force principle. This situation encouraged some big states (permanent members of the UNSC) to foresee the possibility to use unilateral preventive self-defence in their military doctrines in this way ignoring international law. The current situation requires dealing with this issue either legalizing the usage of preventive self-defence or searching for the ways how to force the UNSC to implement its primary task – to maintain international peace and security. The goal of the paper – to reveal the issues of the states' usage of preventive self-defence emphasizing the Middle East region. The following objectives have been formulated for achieving the goal: 1. To discuss the concept of refraining from threatening or using force principle, the consolidation of this principle in contemporary law as well as analysis of exceptions. 2. To analyze the types of states' self-defence and find Lithuanian equivalents to English terms of states' self-defence types: preemptive and preventive self-defence. 3. To analyze the demand and opportunities to legalize the unilateral usage of states' preventive self-defence. 4. To analyze the potential usage of preventive self-defence towards Iran. The object of this paper – the usage of the states' preventive self-defence. While determining the research boundaries, the object of the research has been stated - the possible usage of Israel's preventive self-defence towards Iran. The following issues have been addressed in the paper – should the right to use preventive self-defence be stated in the international law even in the case if UNSC would not sanction the usage of preventive military measures? The answer to the question is negative. It is feared that the legalizing of preventive self-defence could have irrecoverable consequences because each state would use preventive self-defence at own discretion and all this would not contribute to the UN efforts to ensure peace and security in the world. It is recommended to deal with the current situation not by legalizing preventive self-defence but by increasing the UNSC efficiency in analyzing and sanctioning the usage of preventive force. Three institutional models that enable to increase the efficiency of the UNSC directly and indirectly while dealing with the usage of preventive force issues and sanctioning it are analyzed in the paper. The possible usage of Israel's preventive self-defence towards Iran was analyzed during the survey. It was assessed whether there were assumptions for Israel to attack Iran and if Israel will eventually attack Iran despite the fact that this kind of attack would be unlawful according to the international law. The historical comparative method was used while answering the question. The bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor by the Israeli Air Force in 1981 was analyzed and Iraq's nuclear programme assessed. The author claims that all assumptions for Israel to attack Iran do exist – Israel suspects that Iran is making nuclear weapon and that it will be used against Israel. At present Israel is deterred from attacking only because of the USA position and the absence of the precise data regarding Iran nuclear objects. In the course of the time the USA position can change and the data (reasoned or not) regarding Iran nuclear objects' location can occur. If it happens, in this case it is possible that Israel will decide to attack Iran.
The paper attempts to prove that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) due to the absence of mutual agreement between its permanent members and frequent usage of veto right, sanctions the usage of preventive self-defence notably rarely. The problem then occurs: because of the ineffectiveness of the UNSC in sanctioning the usage of preventive self-defence, the states implement the preventive self-defence by themselves, in this way violating one of the main international law principles – refraining from threatening or using force principle. This situation encouraged some big states (permanent members of the UNSC) to foresee the possibility to use unilateral preventive self-defence in their military doctrines in this way ignoring international law. The current situation requires dealing with this issue either legalizing the usage of preventive self-defence or searching for the ways how to force the UNSC to implement its primary task – to maintain international peace and security. The goal of the paper – to reveal the issues of the states' usage of preventive self-defence emphasizing the Middle East region. The following objectives have been formulated for achieving the goal: 1. To discuss the concept of refraining from threatening or using force principle, the consolidation of this principle in contemporary law as well as analysis of exceptions. 2. To analyze the types of states' self-defence and find Lithuanian equivalents to English terms of states' self-defence types: preemptive and preventive self-defence. 3. To analyze the demand and opportunities to legalize the unilateral usage of states' preventive self-defence. 4. To analyze the potential usage of preventive self-defence towards Iran. The object of this paper – the usage of the states' preventive self-defence. While determining the research boundaries, the object of the research has been stated - the possible usage of Israel's preventive self-defence towards Iran. The following issues have been addressed in the paper – should the right to use preventive self-defence be stated in the international law even in the case if UNSC would not sanction the usage of preventive military measures? The answer to the question is negative. It is feared that the legalizing of preventive self-defence could have irrecoverable consequences because each state would use preventive self-defence at own discretion and all this would not contribute to the UN efforts to ensure peace and security in the world. It is recommended to deal with the current situation not by legalizing preventive self-defence but by increasing the UNSC efficiency in analyzing and sanctioning the usage of preventive force. Three institutional models that enable to increase the efficiency of the UNSC directly and indirectly while dealing with the usage of preventive force issues and sanctioning it are analyzed in the paper. The possible usage of Israel's preventive self-defence towards Iran was analyzed during the survey. It was assessed whether there were assumptions for Israel to attack Iran and if Israel will eventually attack Iran despite the fact that this kind of attack would be unlawful according to the international law. The historical comparative method was used while answering the question. The bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor by the Israeli Air Force in 1981 was analyzed and Iraq's nuclear programme assessed. The author claims that all assumptions for Israel to attack Iran do exist – Israel suspects that Iran is making nuclear weapon and that it will be used against Israel. At present Israel is deterred from attacking only because of the USA position and the absence of the precise data regarding Iran nuclear objects. In the course of the time the USA position can change and the data (reasoned or not) regarding Iran nuclear objects' location can occur. If it happens, in this case it is possible that Israel will decide to attack Iran.
The paper attempts to prove that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) due to the absence of mutual agreement between its permanent members and frequent usage of veto right, sanctions the usage of preventive self-defence notably rarely. The problem then occurs: because of the ineffectiveness of the UNSC in sanctioning the usage of preventive self-defence, the states implement the preventive self-defence by themselves, in this way violating one of the main international law principles – refraining from threatening or using force principle. This situation encouraged some big states (permanent members of the UNSC) to foresee the possibility to use unilateral preventive self-defence in their military doctrines in this way ignoring international law. The current situation requires dealing with this issue either legalizing the usage of preventive self-defence or searching for the ways how to force the UNSC to implement its primary task – to maintain international peace and security. The goal of the paper – to reveal the issues of the states' usage of preventive self-defence emphasizing the Middle East region. The following objectives have been formulated for achieving the goal: 1. To discuss the concept of refraining from threatening or using force principle, the consolidation of this principle in contemporary law as well as analysis of exceptions. 2. To analyze the types of states' self-defence and find Lithuanian equivalents to English terms of states' self-defence types: preemptive and preventive self-defence. 3. To analyze the demand and opportunities to legalize the unilateral usage of states' preventive self-defence. 4. To analyze the potential usage of preventive self-defence towards Iran. The object of this paper – the usage of the states' preventive self-defence. While determining the research boundaries, the object of the research has been stated - the possible usage of Israel's preventive self-defence towards Iran. The following issues have been addressed in the paper – should the right to use preventive self-defence be stated in the international law even in the case if UNSC would not sanction the usage of preventive military measures? The answer to the question is negative. It is feared that the legalizing of preventive self-defence could have irrecoverable consequences because each state would use preventive self-defence at own discretion and all this would not contribute to the UN efforts to ensure peace and security in the world. It is recommended to deal with the current situation not by legalizing preventive self-defence but by increasing the UNSC efficiency in analyzing and sanctioning the usage of preventive force. Three institutional models that enable to increase the efficiency of the UNSC directly and indirectly while dealing with the usage of preventive force issues and sanctioning it are analyzed in the paper. The possible usage of Israel's preventive self-defence towards Iran was analyzed during the survey. It was assessed whether there were assumptions for Israel to attack Iran and if Israel will eventually attack Iran despite the fact that this kind of attack would be unlawful according to the international law. The historical comparative method was used while answering the question. The bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor by the Israeli Air Force in 1981 was analyzed and Iraq's nuclear programme assessed. The author claims that all assumptions for Israel to attack Iran do exist – Israel suspects that Iran is making nuclear weapon and that it will be used against Israel. At present Israel is deterred from attacking only because of the USA position and the absence of the precise data regarding Iran nuclear objects. In the course of the time the USA position can change and the data (reasoned or not) regarding Iran nuclear objects' location can occur. If it happens, in this case it is possible that Israel will decide to attack Iran.