Search results

This article examines the provisions of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Compensation of Damage Resulting from the USSR Occupation (hereinafter -- the Law), which was adopted on 13 June 2000, in the light of customary rules of international law on state responsibility, as codified in the 2001 the UN International Law Commission's Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (hereinafter -- the ILC Draft Articles). The main aim of the article is to deal with the international legal grounds of the responsibility of the Russian Federation for the Soviet occupation of the Republic of Lithuania and, against this background, to identify the role of the Law. The ground of Russia's responsibility is an internationally wrongful act committed as the aggression against the Republic of Lithuania, which was started by the 15 June 1940 incursion by the Soviet armed forces & subsequently continued in the form of the illegal occupation of Lithuania until the restoration of Lithuania's independence on 11 March 1990, however, the illegal presence of the foreign forces on Lithuania's soil ended only in 1993. The fact of the 1940 Soviet aggression & illegal occupation of the Baltic States has been widely recognized by the international community, it was even acknowledged by the USSR & Russia in 1989-1991. Therefore there is no doubt that under international law from 1940-1990 the Republic of Lithuania had been an occupied State. That is why the illegal occupation with its consequences, as the breach of an international obligation not to resort to aggression having a continuing character, constitutes an objective element of an internationally wrongful act being the ground for Russia's responsibility. That also explains why the title of the Law refers to the occupation. Meanwhile the specific feature of subjective element is addressed in the preamble of the Law. That is the continuity of the Russian State & the corresponding identity of its international legal personality with the Soviet Union, which was claimed by Russia & generally recognized by the international community. Therefore under international law the Russian Federation is the State continuing the rights & obligations of the former USSR (ie., it is the same international legal person). Consequently, internationally wrongful acts of the latter, including the Soviet occupation of Lithuania & the other two Baltic States, should be attributable to the Russian Federation. Apart from the ground for Russia's responsibility, the issue of reparation is addressed in the article. In accordance with international law (the ILC Draft Article), the principle of full reparation should be applied to realize responsibility for an internationally wrongful act. The full reparation for the injury can be provided in the form of restitution, compensation & satisfaction, while any financially assessable damage should be covered by compensation when restitution is not practically possible. Responsibility for the Soviet occupation is the latter case. Therefore in this sense the Law concretizes the claim of Lithuania as it lays down the obligations of the Government of Lithuania to calculate the damage & seek its compensation from Russia. In conformity with the principle of full reparation, the provisions of the Law require to calculate the damage for all period of the Soviet occupation as well as to cover all types of financially assessable damage. The third main issue addressed in this article is admissibility of a claim for reparation, ie., the procedural requirements to be observed by the injured State invoking an international responsibility of other State. The main requirement, as follows from Art. 43 of the ILC Draft Articles, is that the injured State should give a timely & proper notice of its claim to the State responsible for an internationally wrongful act; the claim is admissible when it is waived by the injured State or it can be inadmissible when it is not maintained. However, a mere lapse of time without a claim is being resolved, including delay in its prosecution due to refusal of the respondent State, cannot result in loss of the right of the injured State to invoke responsibility. In this regard the Law is a unilateral act of the State of Lithuania which formulates & concretizes the claim for Russia's responsibility. The form of this act was determined by Lithuanian national rather than international law as the former requires that any compulsory rules or instructions for the Government can be laid down by the Seimas (the Parliament) only in the form of (statutory) law. As it is clear from the preamble of the Law, in continuing & consolidating the previous Lithuanian acts invoking Russia's responsibility the Law demonstrates that the claim for responsibility has been raised without any unreasonable delay a long time ago (the first time Lithuania declared about its claim for reparation in 1991) & Russia is aware of that claim from the very beginning. In such a manner the Law also proves a consistent & unchanging position of Lithuania with regard to Russia's responsibility. Therefore, the Law evidences that the claim of Lithuania remains admissible although still being unresolved & notwithstanding that Russia is rejecting it. Under international law the injured State has the right to waive its claim for responsibility of another State. National law may, however, restrict that right in setting up appropriate duties for the authorities of the injured State. In this regard it follows from the preamble of the Law that under Lithuanian constitutional law no State organ or official can declare a waiver of the claim for Russia's responsibility because the Law is based on & aims at implementation of the corresponding decision by the 14 June 1992 national referendum that demanded to seek reparation for the Soviet occupation. Therefore, the waiver can be declared only by other referendum as well as without a referendum the Seimas cannot abolish the provisions of the Law requiring to seek a compensation (such kind of action could amount to the waiver in the sense of Art. 45(a) of the ILC Draft Articles). To keep the claim for responsibility of another State admissible & valid, when it is being unresolved a long time, the injured State should do everything it can reasonably do to maintain the claim. Otherwise it can be questioned, whether the right to invoke responsibility is lost due to conduct of the injured State in the sense of Art. 45(b) of the ILC Draft Articles. Therefore, to avoid similar doubts the Law obliged the Government to seek constantly the compensation for the damage caused by the Soviet occupation. Since Russia used to reject Lithuania's initiatives to conduct negotiations on the matter & any other way of settlement is not available without Russia's consent, it can be stated that as yet, in particular due to the Law, the conduct of Lithuania has not raised any serious doubts with regard to validity of its claim for compensation. Obviously such doubts would be serious if any kind of moratorium on the claim had been announced. To sum it up, it can be concluded that the Law is based on & is consistent with the rules of international law. It also implements the international legal requirements for the proper declaration & maintenance of the claim for reparation. Therefore both under international law & under Lithuanian constitutional law the Law has been necessary to consolidate & consistently maintain the claim to Russia for the compensation of the damages caused by the Soviet occupation. Lastly, it should be noted that a proper settlement of the problem of Russia's responsibility for the Soviet occupation of Lithuania is not a question of self-interest for Lithuania & it should pursue the claim for compensation not only due to the decision by the 14 June 1992 referendum. Not accidentally Art. 1 of the ILC Draft Articles refers that "every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State." It is also not accidentally that the preamble of the 1991 Treaty between Lithuania & Russia states that mutual confidence between the people of both Parties is hard to achieve without elimination of the consequences of the Soviet annexation of Lithuania. Like for national law, rule of law & justice cannot be established without realization & inevitability of responsibility for grave breaches of international law. Therefore the realization of responsibility for the 1940 aggression against the Baltic States & its consequences would undoubtedly contribute to general prevention of such grave breaches as well as would assure that similar tragic events never happen again in the history of Lithuania. Such kind of prevention should be at the focus of attention of the whole international community rather than only Lithuania & the other two Baltic States, since a prohibition of aggression is a long-standing rule of jus cogens character & obligation erga omnes towards international community. Adapted from the source document.

Straipsnyje siekiama isanalizuoti Lenkijos parlamentiniu politiniu partiju programas, kuriose isskiriamas uzsienio politikos vektorius regioninio bendradarbiavimo kontekste. Pagrindinis demesys analizeje skiriamas politinems partijoms ir jas vienijanciai ideologijai analizuoti, apibreziant siu subjektu vaidmeni bendrame Lenkijos uzsienio politikos formavimo procese. Tekste pateikiamos prioritetines uzsienio politikos sritys, kurias isskiria parlamentines Lenkijos partijos. Analize atliekama nagrinejant 2011 metais suformuluotas parlamentiniu politiniu partiju - Pilieciu platformos, Teises ir teisingumo, Demokratines kaires aljanso, Lenkijos valstieciu sajungos - programas. Straipsnyje nera analizuojamas Palikotos judejimo (lenk. Ruch Palikota, RP) atvejis, nes sios partijos programoje nera isskiriamas uzsienio politikos vektorius. Tekste siekiama isanalizuoti pagrindinius Lenkijos uzsienio politikos prioritetus, ju vieta formuojant ir vykdant politika, ir daugiausia demesio skiriama siu prioritetu apraiskoms parlamentiniu politiniu partiju programose. Analizuojant Lenkijos regioninio ir strateginio bendradarbiavimo sritis, pateikiamas partiju programose isskiriamas bendradarbiavimas Europos Sajungos regione, transatlantiniai rysiai su JAV ir NATO bei santykiai su gretimomis valstybemis. Straipsnyje siekiama ivertinti, ar politiniu partiju programose iskelti uzsienio politikos vektoriai atspindi oficialia valstybes uzsienio politikos koncepcija This article analyses programs of Poland Parliamentary political parties, which exclude vectors of foreign politics in the context of regional collaboration. The most important concept in this article is the analysis of political parties and their ideologies which show their importance in forming foreign politics in Poland. Priority areas of foreign politics in Poland are presented in the text. Analysis was conducted using analysing programs (2011) of Parliamentary parties such as Civic Platform, Law and Justice, Democratic Left Alliance and Polish People Party. The case of Palikot's movement is absent in the article due to the fact that the vector of foreign politics is not excluded in its program. The main priorities of Poland's foreign politics, its position in forming and performing the politics are analysed in the text. The focus of it is on how these priorities are presented in the programs of Parliamentary parties. Adapted from the source document.

This article presents macro-level study of voting in Lithuania's local elections, with emphasis on changing electoral support for the incumbent parties. Presented statistical analysis of vote change in two periods between municipal elections (year 1997-2000 and 2002-2007) aims to explain the success (and failure) of dominant parties in national government and municipal councils (two separate cases). Article is mainly oriented into the search of economic voting, but hypotheses related to other, political-institutional factors are also tested. It is discovered that dynamics of unemployment change helps to explain vote change for the party that is dominant in the municipal council, but it is not important when state of economy is worsening. The dominant party in the national government is unanimously punished when unemployment is rising, but when the state of economy is improving, average vote change for such party is not outstanding. The dispersion of vote change in both cases (when dependent variable is vote change for the dominant party in the national government) is better explained by the political-institutional variables (firstly, turnout change). Adapted from the source document.

This article analyses main public management doctrines (traditional administration, NPM and post-NPM), assesses the doctrinal basis of public management reforms in the 2004-2010 period, provides suggestions concerning principles, directions and process of future public management reforms in Lithuania. Despite different political views and terms of various Governments, important decisions of public management reforms were based on the party logic, whose purpose is to strengthen political authority of the government in office. The implementation of the 'bureaucratic' public administration strategy, whose content was informed by the ideas of post-NPM, was initially unsuccessful because of limited political ownership and the legalistic approach. The XV Lithuanian Government undertook wide public management reforms based on the managerial doctrine with prevailing NPM characteristics. A mix of the party logic and the NPM doctrine could be contradictory and risky in Central and Eastern European countries. Also, the NPM has not yielded good results in continental Europe, its solutions do not match Lithuania's problems and there is no solid empirical evidence about its effectiveness in Lithuania. Therefore, its application should be limited and selective during Lithuania's public management reforms. Post-NPM is the best doctrine for future public management reforms, whose implementation in Lithuania should be supported by broader political consensus, better inter-institutional cooperation and a more managerial implementation approach. Adapted from the source document.

The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The author suggests to replace the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society". It is demonstrated that A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. The author also criticise H. Bull's concept of international society because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. Paper includes a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII-XV centuries. It focuses on the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. Adapted from the source document.

The aim of the article is to disclose a possible view held by Kant towards the solution of the KOnigsberg problem after World War II. Philosophers of today usually show little interest in discussing the so-called "Kaliningrad puzzle." This is a certain misunderstanding. As one of the most outstanding representatives of the idealistic paradigm of international relations, Kant can be treated as a full-fledged participant of the discussions on the future of the Kaliningrad region. His political philosophy contributes towards a better understanding of certain important aspects related to the Kaliningrad problem. Kant would strongly criticize the decisions made at the Potsdam conference. The above decisions contradict his understanding of international relations. However, Kant would not demand an urgent solution to the Kaliningrad problem. His flexibility is worthy of the respect shown by the realpolitik supporters. On the other hand, Kant did not have the slightest doubt as to the necessity of amending the injustice of improper political decisions. The European future of the Kaliningrad region is first & foremost related to the ability of the population to enforce the political principles formulated by Kant -- the freedom of the citizens, the rule of law & the equality of every single citizen under the law. This seems to be the most topical message made by Kant to the present day population of his native town. The Kaliningrad region of today has failed to justify the requirements of civil society. It reminds one more of a hostage to the central power. From the perspective of Kant's political philosophy, one could state that the Kaliningrad region has not yet used the opportunity to become an association of free citizens. This is the only trustworthy way for this hostage of international politics of the 20th century to become part of cultural & political life within the unifying Europe. Adapted from the source document.