Suchergebnisse

During the interwar years the situation between Lithuania and Poland was tense. Lithuania never stopped claiming Vilnius as its capital city and did not recognize it as a part of Poland – therefore these countries did not have diplomatic relations. Travelling possibilities between these alienated states were greatly restricted and (as Lithuania did not recognize the demarcation line dividing both countries as an official state border) their borderland was an area of frequent violence, provocations, and ever present tension. The border situation created a problem for local people – the demarcation line (conclusively established in 1923 after the dissolution of the demilitarized neutral zone that separated both states) divided the farms of many local farmers leaving thousands of hectares of farmland belonging to residents of Poland in Lithuania and vice versa. Both countries agreed to allow the farmers of these divided farms to cross the demarcation line to continue to use and work their land. However, these people were directly caught up in the feud between their antagonistic states and suffered from it. This paper explores the struggles experienced by Lithuania's farmers (frequently and deliberately obstructed by Poland's border guards) and the efforts of Lithuanian state institutions to defend their interests. The analysis showcases an unorthodox situation and uncovers unique ways of communicating and solving problems established between states that had no diplomatic relations in the interest of their local citizens. The methods used gradually evolved from the use of the basic "An eye for an eye" type of retaliation (reacting to obstruction by causing equivalent difficulties to farmers of the opposing country) to frequent meetings between local officials of both nations in a borderland marked by tension and conflict. Various methods that were used to better the situation of local farmers are analysed. The paper uncovers the core principles that determined and guided the policy of Lithuanian state institutions. Most significantly, it was a recognition of importance of reacting to every obstructive action made against Lithuanian citizens. There was also a great avoidance to act (or react) in a way that could be interpreted as recognizing the demarcation line as the state border. The situation regarding the issue of the divided farms after the Polish ultimatum and the establishment of diplomatic relations between Lithuania and Poland in 1938 is examined

During the interwar years the situation between Lithuania and Poland was tense. Lithuania never stopped claiming Vilnius as its capital city and did not recognize it as a part of Poland – therefore these countries did not have diplomatic relations. Travelling possibilities between these alienated states were greatly restricted and (as Lithuania did not recognize the demarcation line dividing both countries as an official state border) their borderland was an area of frequent violence, provocations, and ever present tension. The border situation created a problem for local people – the demarcation line (conclusively established in 1923 after the dissolution of the demilitarized neutral zone that separated both states) divided the farms of many local farmers leaving thousands of hectares of farmland belonging to residents of Poland in Lithuania and vice versa. Both countries agreed to allow the farmers of these divided farms to cross the demarcation line to continue to use and work their land. However, these people were directly caught up in the feud between their antagonistic states and suffered from it. This paper explores the struggles experienced by Lithuania's farmers (frequently and deliberately obstructed by Poland's border guards) and the efforts of Lithuanian state institutions to defend their interests. The analysis showcases an unorthodox situation and uncovers unique ways of communicating and solving problems established between states that had no diplomatic relations in the interest of their local citizens. The methods used gradually evolved from the use of the basic "An eye for an eye" type of retaliation (reacting to obstruction by causing equivalent difficulties to farmers of the opposing country) to frequent meetings between local officials of both nations in a borderland marked by tension and conflict. Various methods that were used to better the situation of local farmers are analysed. The paper uncovers the core principles that determined and guided the policy of Lithuanian state institutions. Most significantly, it was a recognition of importance of reacting to every obstructive action made against Lithuanian citizens. There was also a great avoidance to act (or react) in a way that could be interpreted as recognizing the demarcation line as the state border. The situation regarding the issue of the divided farms after the Polish ultimatum and the establishment of diplomatic relations between Lithuania and Poland in 1938 is examined

During the interwar years the situation between Lithuania and Poland was tense. Lithuania never stopped claiming Vilnius as its capital city and did not recognize it as a part of Poland – therefore these countries did not have diplomatic relations. Travelling possibilities between these alienated states were greatly restricted and (as Lithuania did not recognize the demarcation line dividing both countries as an official state border) their borderland was an area of frequent violence, provocations, and ever present tension. The border situation created a problem for local people – the demarcation line (conclusively established in 1923 after the dissolution of the demilitarized neutral zone that separated both states) divided the farms of many local farmers leaving thousands of hectares of farmland belonging to residents of Poland in Lithuania and vice versa. Both countries agreed to allow the farmers of these divided farms to cross the demarcation line to continue to use and work their land. However, these people were directly caught up in the feud between their antagonistic states and suffered from it. This paper explores the struggles experienced by Lithuania's farmers (frequently and deliberately obstructed by Poland's border guards) and the efforts of Lithuanian state institutions to defend their interests. The analysis showcases an unorthodox situation and uncovers unique ways of communicating and solving problems established between states that had no diplomatic relations in the interest of their local citizens. The methods used gradually evolved from the use of the basic "An eye for an eye" type of retaliation (reacting to obstruction by causing equivalent difficulties to farmers of the opposing country) to frequent meetings between local officials of both nations in a borderland marked by tension and conflict. Various methods that were used to better the situation of local farmers are analysed. The paper uncovers the core principles that determined and guided the policy of Lithuanian state institutions. Most significantly, it was a recognition of importance of reacting to every obstructive action made against Lithuanian citizens. There was also a great avoidance to act (or react) in a way that could be interpreted as recognizing the demarcation line as the state border. The situation regarding the issue of the divided farms after the Polish ultimatum and the establishment of diplomatic relations between Lithuania and Poland in 1938 is examined

Today, both Lithuania and Latvia are part of the Schengen Area, which means their citizens can freely travel between these states. The situation was different during the interwar years: the border between these Baltic Republics was strictly guarded, and traveling abroad was more complex. However, the order crossing for local residents of the border area was simplified by the local border traffic regime agreed upon by both countries. This paper aims to explore the evolution of Lithuanian-Latvian local border traffic policy in the interwar period and its impact on locals (primarily on Lithuania's side). In the first few years after the establishment of the new states, border crossings for residents of Lithuania's border area were regulated by internal state legislation. Initially, people were devastated by the requirement to cross the border only at sparsely placed border crossing points, the restrictions on trade, and the radical reduction of the border area. After the peaceful settlement of the Lithuanian-Latvian border in 1921, newly signed bilateral treaties began to solve the crucial problems of the locals. However, there were instances of bilateral friction and various incidents; authoritarian state structures also had reservations based on the issue of potentially unfavorable foreign influences. The breakthrough in the diplomatic relations between Lithuania and Latvia in the 1930s saw a new level of liberalization of the local border traffic policy. A positive impact was widely felt among the locals. However, certain economic concerns made this new policy short-lived. In the interwar years, grievances and discontent toward the new border relations were gradually replaced by acceptance and adaptation. Bilateral cooperation made it possible to react to and suit the needs of the people. The overall Lithuanian-Latvian local border traffic regime showed a tendency of liberalization over time, a process which was curtailed by certain political and economic realities and considerations

Today, both Lithuania and Latvia are part of the Schengen Area, which means their citizens can freely travel between these states. The situation was different during the interwar years: the border between these Baltic Republics was strictly guarded, and traveling abroad was more complex. However, the order crossing for local residents of the border area was simplified by the local border traffic regime agreed upon by both countries. This paper aims to explore the evolution of Lithuanian-Latvian local border traffic policy in the interwar period and its impact on locals (primarily on Lithuania's side). In the first few years after the establishment of the new states, border crossings for residents of Lithuania's border area were regulated by internal state legislation. Initially, people were devastated by the requirement to cross the border only at sparsely placed border crossing points, the restrictions on trade, and the radical reduction of the border area. After the peaceful settlement of the Lithuanian-Latvian border in 1921, newly signed bilateral treaties began to solve the crucial problems of the locals. However, there were instances of bilateral friction and various incidents; authoritarian state structures also had reservations based on the issue of potentially unfavorable foreign influences. The breakthrough in the diplomatic relations between Lithuania and Latvia in the 1930s saw a new level of liberalization of the local border traffic policy. A positive impact was widely felt among the locals. However, certain economic concerns made this new policy short-lived. In the interwar years, grievances and discontent toward the new border relations were gradually replaced by acceptance and adaptation. Bilateral cooperation made it possible to react to and suit the needs of the people. The overall Lithuanian-Latvian local border traffic regime showed a tendency of liberalization over time, a process which was curtailed by certain political and economic realities and considerations

Today, both Lithuania and Latvia are part of the Schengen Area, which means their citizens can freely travel between these states. The situation was different during the interwar years: the border between these Baltic Republics was strictly guarded, and traveling abroad was more complex. However, the order crossing for local residents of the border area was simplified by the local border traffic regime agreed upon by both countries. This paper aims to explore the evolution of Lithuanian-Latvian local border traffic policy in the interwar period and its impact on locals (primarily on Lithuania's side). In the first few years after the establishment of the new states, border crossings for residents of Lithuania's border area were regulated by internal state legislation. Initially, people were devastated by the requirement to cross the border only at sparsely placed border crossing points, the restrictions on trade, and the radical reduction of the border area. After the peaceful settlement of the Lithuanian-Latvian border in 1921, newly signed bilateral treaties began to solve the crucial problems of the locals. However, there were instances of bilateral friction and various incidents; authoritarian state structures also had reservations based on the issue of potentially unfavorable foreign influences. The breakthrough in the diplomatic relations between Lithuania and Latvia in the 1930s saw a new level of liberalization of the local border traffic policy. A positive impact was widely felt among the locals. However, certain economic concerns made this new policy short-lived. In the interwar years, grievances and discontent toward the new border relations were gradually replaced by acceptance and adaptation. Bilateral cooperation made it possible to react to and suit the needs of the people. The overall Lithuanian-Latvian local border traffic regime showed a tendency of liberalization over time, a process which was curtailed by certain political and economic realities and considerations

Today, both Lithuania and Latvia are part of the Schengen Area, which means their citizens can freely travel between these states. The situation was different during the interwar years: the border between these Baltic Republics was strictly guarded, and traveling abroad was more complex. However, the order crossing for local residents of the border area was simplified by the local border traffic regime agreed upon by both countries. This paper aims to explore the evolution of Lithuanian-Latvian local border traffic policy in the interwar period and its impact on locals (primarily on Lithuania's side). In the first few years after the establishment of the new states, border crossings for residents of Lithuania's border area were regulated by internal state legislation. Initially, people were devastated by the requirement to cross the border only at sparsely placed border crossing points, the restrictions on trade, and the radical reduction of the border area. After the peaceful settlement of the Lithuanian-Latvian border in 1921, newly signed bilateral treaties began to solve the crucial problems of the locals. However, there were instances of bilateral friction and various incidents; authoritarian state structures also had reservations based on the issue of potentially unfavorable foreign influences. The breakthrough in the diplomatic relations between Lithuania and Latvia in the 1930s saw a new level of liberalization of the local border traffic policy. A positive impact was widely felt among the locals. However, certain economic concerns made this new policy short-lived. In the interwar years, grievances and discontent toward the new border relations were gradually replaced by acceptance and adaptation. Bilateral cooperation made it possible to react to and suit the needs of the people. The overall Lithuanian-Latvian local border traffic regime showed a tendency of liberalization over time, a process which was curtailed by certain political and economic realities and considerations

Summary. The object of this research is to understand the territorialization process in the 14 - 16 centuries Grand Duches of Lithuania (GDL) and to find out the connect of the state territory and ruling class. First of all, bared on historiography we will try to find out the common formation process of the territorial state in Middle age. This will help to choose other criterions. In the second chapter GDL territorialization process is analized widely. The first stage in this process was determined by neighbour countries, such as Mazovia and the Teutonic Order. The Order, being aktiv territorial state, stimulated the interest of borders delimitation with GDL. The biggerst act of delimitation take part at the time of Great duke Vytautas. At the time of the latter rule the first Border between GDL and Order appears. In the third decade of the 15th century was passed to borde renovation process. The end of the process wan in 16 century. But, the border renovation process at the 16th century very intensive. It depend on inside colonization control. The collision of both borderland dvellers modificated state border. In 1545 the border between GDL and Prussiae was estabilished and the colomn with state coat of arm and inscription was made. It shows the concepsio of the state territory border. In the 16th century state line border appears. It's traits: populated borderland; detailed border marking; borders have to correspond to all social classes land limits; borders should have state and political mening. 1536, 1548 the borders between GDL and Polland was formed. Limitation was inspired by the inside colonization control. East GDL territorialization process coincided with Moscow state's rise and aim to get bock Ruthenianland. Although, the first agreement in this part were known from the Vytautas time. Territorialization process in the Est part is much in common as in the West. But in this part, marking the border, importand place played "the old" territorial division. Marking state border (between Moscow state and GDL) they usually conformed with the old land part. In the 16th century in the east part of GDL the delimitation process take part with the Turkey nad Tartar states. As the result of all these rprocesses GDL at the middle of the 16th century became a territorial state with clearely marked state boundaries.

Summary. The object of this research is to understand the territorialization process in the 14 - 16 centuries Grand Duches of Lithuania (GDL) and to find out the connect of the state territory and ruling class. First of all, bared on historiography we will try to find out the common formation process of the territorial state in Middle age. This will help to choose other criterions. In the second chapter GDL territorialization process is analized widely. The first stage in this process was determined by neighbour countries, such as Mazovia and the Teutonic Order. The Order, being aktiv territorial state, stimulated the interest of borders delimitation with GDL. The biggerst act of delimitation take part at the time of Great duke Vytautas. At the time of the latter rule the first Border between GDL and Order appears. In the third decade of the 15th century was passed to borde renovation process. The end of the process wan in 16 century. But, the border renovation process at the 16th century very intensive. It depend on inside colonization control. The collision of both borderland dvellers modificated state border. In 1545 the border between GDL and Prussiae was estabilished and the colomn with state coat of arm and inscription was made. It shows the concepsio of the state territory border. In the 16th century state line border appears. It's traits: populated borderland; detailed border marking; borders have to correspond to all social classes land limits; borders should have state and political mening. 1536, 1548 the borders between GDL and Polland was formed. Limitation was inspired by the inside colonization control. East GDL territorialization process coincided with Moscow state's rise and aim to get bock Ruthenianland. Although, the first agreement in this part were known from the Vytautas time. Territorialization process in the Est part is much in common as in the West. But in this part, marking the border, importand place played "the old" territorial division. Marking state border (between Moscow state and GDL) they usually conformed with the old land part. In the 16th century in the east part of GDL the delimitation process take part with the Turkey nad Tartar states. As the result of all these rprocesses GDL at the middle of the 16th century became a territorial state with clearely marked state boundaries.

The spatial polarisation of society is open to various research perspectives. It takes several forms and involves various epiphenomena. Consequently, it is the subject of research interest to scholars in various fi elds, especially sociologists, economists, regionalists, and regional geographers. The article focuses on selected aspects of peripherality and peripheral regions. The first part is devoted to the theoretical aspects of the polarisation of society, developmental interactions between the centre and the periphery, the relationship between peripherality and levels of hierarchy, peripherality and time, and the primary criteria of peripherality in inland and borderland regions. The second part applies theoretical-methodological findings to regions of Slovakia using selected quantitative methods. The author attempts to describe peripherality in multidimensional terms, and to identify the interconnections between various types of peripherality. Based on detailed statistical data on municipalities, he uses a broad range of indicators divided into four groups: human resources, economic potential, personal amenities, and access to centres. In conclusion the author identifies and categorises the peripheral regions of Slovakia and notes the existence of peripherality at regional and local levels.