Suchergebnisse

The selection of criteria is based on their suitability to reflect social policy results of different socially-economically developed EU countries. Lithuania can be attributed to the welfare states only if the absolute majority of the criteria reach or exceed the estimates of the average values of the EU countries. The research based on the criteria above is carried out in two stages. The first stage deals with the criteria that indicate if the socio-economic development of the country is moving towards a socially-oriented state. Such a development guarantees the most rational distribution of socio-economic resources in the development of a socially oriented country. At this stage, the analysis involves such indicators as income inequality, poverty, middle-class size. In the second stage such indicators as monthly average wages, social protection benefits and monthly old-age pension per capita as well as such indicators as GDP per capita, government spending on social protection as a percentage of GDP and unemployment rate are investigated. All these indicators in Lithuania are compared with average indicators in the EU. Findings of the research show that most indicators analyzed are far below the EU average. The country, therefore, can be attributed neither to socially-oriented countries (that is, countries that use their socio-economic resources in the most rational way in the process of welfare state formation), nor to the countries that have already developed one of the types of a welfare state. Lithuania is still in transition to a welfare state. Therefore, welfare state is irrational concept in Lithuania, which satisfies the object of analysis only by its form and not by content.

The selection of criteria is based on their suitability to reflect social policy results of different socially-economically developed EU countries. Lithuania can be attributed to the welfare states only if the absolute majority of the criteria reach or exceed the estimates of the average values of the EU countries. The research based on the criteria above is carried out in two stages. The first stage deals with the criteria that indicate if the socio-economic development of the country is moving towards a socially-oriented state. Such a development guarantees the most rational distribution of socio-economic resources in the development of a socially oriented country. At this stage, the analysis involves such indicators as income inequality, poverty, middle-class size. In the second stage such indicators as monthly average wages, social protection benefits and monthly old-age pension per capita as well as such indicators as GDP per capita, government spending on social protection as a percentage of GDP and unemployment rate are investigated. All these indicators in Lithuania are compared with average indicators in the EU. Findings of the research show that most indicators analyzed are far below the EU average. The country, therefore, can be attributed neither to socially-oriented countries (that is, countries that use their socio-economic resources in the most rational way in the process of welfare state formation), nor to the countries that have already developed one of the types of a welfare state. Lithuania is still in transition to a welfare state. Therefore, welfare state is irrational concept in Lithuania, which satisfies the object of analysis only by its form and not by content.

The selection of criteria is based on their suitability to reflect social policy results of different socially-economically developed EU countries. Lithuania can be attributed to the welfare states only if the absolute majority of the criteria reach or exceed the estimates of the average values of the EU countries. The research based on the criteria above is carried out in two stages. The first stage deals with the criteria that indicate if the socio-economic development of the country is moving towards a socially-oriented state. Such a development guarantees the most rational distribution of socio-economic resources in the development of a socially oriented country. At this stage, the analysis involves such indicators as income inequality, poverty, middle-class size. In the second stage such indicators as monthly average wages, social protection benefits and monthly old-age pension per capita as well as such indicators as GDP per capita, government spending on social protection as a percentage of GDP and unemployment rate are investigated. All these indicators in Lithuania are compared with average indicators in the EU. Findings of the research show that most indicators analyzed are far below the EU average. The country, therefore, can be attributed neither to socially-oriented countries (that is, countries that use their socio-economic resources in the most rational way in the process of welfare state formation), nor to the countries that have already developed one of the types of a welfare state. Lithuania is still in transition to a welfare state. Therefore, welfare state is irrational concept in Lithuania, which satisfies the object of analysis only by its form and not by content.

The selection of criteria is based on their suitability to reflect social policy results of different socially-economically developed EU countries. Lithuania can be attributed to the welfare states only if the absolute majority of the criteria reach or exceed the estimates of the average values of the EU countries. The research based on the criteria above is carried out in two stages. The first stage deals with the criteria that indicate if the socio-economic development of the country is moving towards a socially-oriented state. Such a development guarantees the most rational distribution of socio-economic resources in the development of a socially oriented country. At this stage, the analysis involves such indicators as income inequality, poverty, middle-class size. In the second stage such indicators as monthly average wages, social protection benefits and monthly old-age pension per capita as well as such indicators as GDP per capita, government spending on social protection as a percentage of GDP and unemployment rate are investigated. All these indicators in Lithuania are compared with average indicators in the EU. Findings of the research show that most indicators analyzed are far below the EU average. The country, therefore, can be attributed neither to socially-oriented countries (that is, countries that use their socio-economic resources in the most rational way in the process of welfare state formation), nor to the countries that have already developed one of the types of a welfare state. Lithuania is still in transition to a welfare state. Therefore, welfare state is irrational concept in Lithuania, which satisfies the object of analysis only by its form and not by content.

Employment agreement is one of the main legal forms of actualizing a person's right to employment. The content of the agreement consists of the provisions negotiated by the parties, which define the rights and obligations of the parties. The prevailing legal norms and acts regulate most of the obligatory conditions of an employment agreement and define the minimal requirements. There is room left for free discussion of unregulated conditions, yet, the free room is also limited by legal norms, which cover almost every aspect of an employment agreement. Legal norms and acts ensure compliance to the minimal employment standards, define insurance rates, and settle the limitations and obligations in order to prevent any of the parties from being legally abused by the other party and in order to provide the employer and the employee with a possibility to negotiate such employment conditions which would protect the social rights of the employees. When the minimal restricted employment standards are violated, the provisions of the associated legal acts are violated alongside, and the conditions of such employment agreements come to be in contradiction to the prevailing law. The contract which is in contradiction to law should be immediately amended or terminated. The Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania defines the order of elimination of the employment agreement provisions which are in contradiction with the law. Elimination of such provisions means changing the employment agreement. The contradictions which are defined but are not eliminated have consequences of two kinds: either the employee is assigned another work place upon his/her own request, or the employment agreement is terminated. When any of the provisions of an employment agreement are in contradiction to the law, in case of a particular legal composition (fact), such an event is by itself a sufficient reason to terminate the employment agreement. However, the legislator, when promulgating the obligation and the order of elimination, is not directly responsible for the majority of the questions which subsequently arise in practice. The elimination of the employment agreement provisions which are in contradiction to the law is analyzed by providing the definition of contradiction, its types, the reasons of it occurrence, the possible ways and the order of its elimination, the legal consequences resulting from the said contradictory provisions if not eliminated, and the order of termination compensation in case of employment termination as well as the liability for contradictions.

Employment agreement is one of the main legal forms of actualizing a person's right to employment. The content of the agreement consists of the provisions negotiated by the parties, which define the rights and obligations of the parties. The prevailing legal norms and acts regulate most of the obligatory conditions of an employment agreement and define the minimal requirements. There is room left for free discussion of unregulated conditions, yet, the free room is also limited by legal norms, which cover almost every aspect of an employment agreement. Legal norms and acts ensure compliance to the minimal employment standards, define insurance rates, and settle the limitations and obligations in order to prevent any of the parties from being legally abused by the other party and in order to provide the employer and the employee with a possibility to negotiate such employment conditions which would protect the social rights of the employees. When the minimal restricted employment standards are violated, the provisions of the associated legal acts are violated alongside, and the conditions of such employment agreements come to be in contradiction to the prevailing law. The contract which is in contradiction to law should be immediately amended or terminated. The Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania defines the order of elimination of the employment agreement provisions which are in contradiction with the law. Elimination of such provisions means changing the employment agreement. The contradictions which are defined but are not eliminated have consequences of two kinds: either the employee is assigned another work place upon his/her own request, or the employment agreement is terminated. When any of the provisions of an employment agreement are in contradiction to the law, in case of a particular legal composition (fact), such an event is by itself a sufficient reason to terminate the employment agreement. However, the legislator, when promulgating the obligation and the order of elimination, is not directly responsible for the majority of the questions which subsequently arise in practice. The elimination of the employment agreement provisions which are in contradiction to the law is analyzed by providing the definition of contradiction, its types, the reasons of it occurrence, the possible ways and the order of its elimination, the legal consequences resulting from the said contradictory provisions if not eliminated, and the order of termination compensation in case of employment termination as well as the liability for contradictions.

The agonistic model of democracy says that the dimension of antagonism is inherent in human relations. The ineradicability of antagonism, it is argued, is constitutive of the political. The main task of this model is to establish us/them discrimination in a way that is compatible with pluralist democracy. On the one hand, agonistic democracy criticizes neutral and procedural aspects of liberal democracy, on the other hand, both agonistic and liberal models accepts the priority of pluralism and individual rights. In summary, the processes of liberalization and democratization are conceptually contradictory. The ethos of liberalism, especially the ideal of negative liberty, reduces the substantial concept of equality to indifferent equal liberty. The principle of moral equality is gradually transformed to the principle of moral individualism. The deontological liberalism ignores the main democratic question – how to establish the democratic community with both the autonomy of persons and the shared understanding of the good? In this way political liberalism negates the ideal of democracy – the identity between governing and governed.

The agonistic model of democracy says that the dimension of antagonism is inherent in human relations. The ineradicability of antagonism, it is argued, is constitutive of the political. The main task of this model is to establish us/them discrimination in a way that is compatible with pluralist democracy. On the one hand, agonistic democracy criticizes neutral and procedural aspects of liberal democracy, on the other hand, both agonistic and liberal models accepts the priority of pluralism and individual rights. In summary, the processes of liberalization and democratization are conceptually contradictory. The ethos of liberalism, especially the ideal of negative liberty, reduces the substantial concept of equality to indifferent equal liberty. The principle of moral equality is gradually transformed to the principle of moral individualism. The deontological liberalism ignores the main democratic question – how to establish the democratic community with both the autonomy of persons and the shared understanding of the good? In this way political liberalism negates the ideal of democracy – the identity between governing and governed.

The agonistic model of democracy says that the dimension of antagonism is inherent in human relations. The ineradicability of antagonism, it is argued, is constitutive of the political. The main task of this model is to establish us/them discrimination in a way that is compatible with pluralist democracy. On the one hand, agonistic democracy criticizes neutral and procedural aspects of liberal democracy, on the other hand, both agonistic and liberal models accepts the priority of pluralism and individual rights. In summary, the processes of liberalization and democratization are conceptually contradictory. The ethos of liberalism, especially the ideal of negative liberty, reduces the substantial concept of equality to indifferent equal liberty. The principle of moral equality is gradually transformed to the principle of moral individualism. The deontological liberalism ignores the main democratic question – how to establish the democratic community with both the autonomy of persons and the shared understanding of the good? In this way political liberalism negates the ideal of democracy – the identity between governing and governed.

The agonistic model of democracy says that the dimension of antagonism is inherent in human relations. The ineradicability of antagonism, it is argued, is constitutive of the political. The main task of this model is to establish us/them discrimination in a way that is compatible with pluralist democracy. On the one hand, agonistic democracy criticizes neutral and procedural aspects of liberal democracy, on the other hand, both agonistic and liberal models accepts the priority of pluralism and individual rights. In summary, the processes of liberalization and democratization are conceptually contradictory. The ethos of liberalism, especially the ideal of negative liberty, reduces the substantial concept of equality to indifferent equal liberty. The principle of moral equality is gradually transformed to the principle of moral individualism. The deontological liberalism ignores the main democratic question – how to establish the democratic community with both the autonomy of persons and the shared understanding of the good? In this way political liberalism negates the ideal of democracy – the identity between governing and governed.

In article, the state of Lithuania's politics in 2003-2004 has been looked into through the prism of the analytical dimension of a political crisis. The causes of the political crisis have been analyzed by methods of political sociology. Attention has been focused on the contradictions of post-communist pro-capitalism. Emphasis has been placed on the fact that crisis is actually the expression of the lack of adequate reaction of the political process to the procapitalism contradictions. In the presence of crisis, a question in put forward whether the establishment of political democracy in Lithuania can be considered to be truly irreversible.

In article, the state of Lithuania's politics in 2003-2004 has been looked into through the prism of the analytical dimension of a political crisis. The causes of the political crisis have been analyzed by methods of political sociology. Attention has been focused on the contradictions of post-communist pro-capitalism. Emphasis has been placed on the fact that crisis is actually the expression of the lack of adequate reaction of the political process to the procapitalism contradictions. In the presence of crisis, a question in put forward whether the establishment of political democracy in Lithuania can be considered to be truly irreversible.

In article, the state of Lithuania's politics in 2003-2004 has been looked into through the prism of the analytical dimension of a political crisis. The causes of the political crisis have been analyzed by methods of political sociology. Attention has been focused on the contradictions of post-communist pro-capitalism. Emphasis has been placed on the fact that crisis is actually the expression of the lack of adequate reaction of the political process to the procapitalism contradictions. In the presence of crisis, a question in put forward whether the establishment of political democracy in Lithuania can be considered to be truly irreversible.

In article, the state of Lithuania's politics in 2003-2004 has been looked into through the prism of the analytical dimension of a political crisis. The causes of the political crisis have been analyzed by methods of political sociology. Attention has been focused on the contradictions of post-communist pro-capitalism. Emphasis has been placed on the fact that crisis is actually the expression of the lack of adequate reaction of the political process to the procapitalism contradictions. In the presence of crisis, a question in put forward whether the establishment of political democracy in Lithuania can be considered to be truly irreversible.

The article discloses in the Treaty of Function of European Union article 346 fixed exception and examines specific conditions, applicable for the implementation of this clause. The exclusion provides ability for the EU member states to depart from the mandatory application of European law for the procurement in defense area. Point of views to the application of this exclusion for defense area procurement are analyzed and disclosed – the view of the European Commission, European Court of Justice and procurement in defense area doctrine. Primary and secondary EU law contradictions, that concerns analyzed clause, are revealed and interpretations reasonableness problems, discovered in primary and secondary EU law, are disclosed. The main object of this article is to investigate European Commission point of view to the application of the exclusion fixed in TFEU clause 346 and conclude if this position is based on excess requirements, that burdens implementation of this exclusion and are not reasoned in primary European Union law and procurement in defense area doctrine. With reference to the purpose of this article, analysis based to up-to-date European Court of Justice Cases, European Union Commission softlaw and defense area procurement doctrine contradictions are provided and analyzed. Lastly, clauses, concerned to TFEU 346 article implementation and confirmed in European Court of Justice Cases are disclosed.