Suchergebnisse

The article reveals development and essential changes of higher education in Great Britain in XX–XXI centuries. During last century Great Britain higher education system has changed dramatically – from elite higher education in the beginning of XX century, which was available for very small part of society, to mass higher education with variety of institutions and education programs. Nowadays there is almost half of Great Britain population (of certain age group) obtaining higher education certificate or diploma. The junction of XX and XXI centuries was signed with significant shift in the gender structure of higher education students: more women obtained fist university degree than men. Ten years later the same was recorded in higher degrees. The intense change of Great Britain higher education from elite to mass inevitably influenced the higher education finance sector. Great Britain used to cover all expenses of higher education from the budget. However, the financial crises occurred in the last decade of XX century, and the government was forced to seek for new financing models of higher education. First time in Great Britain higher education history the tuition fee was introduced. Striving to ensure the higher education accessibility for all social groups in Great Britain, the tuition fees were complemented with the grants and loans with special repayment (or without) conditions. Nevertheless, the financial reform, started in 1998, already was changed several times and has raised lots of critics. Along with the financial reform Great Britain deals with the higher education quality issues. There was no essential discussions about higher education quality in the beginning of the XX century as it was elite higher education. Moving to the mass higher education with variety of institutions and dramatically growing student number, the quality question becomes relevant. Despite the owning the largest number of worldwide level elite universities in Europe, Great Britain seeks to ensure the quality in all higher education institutions in the country. Therefore the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education was established. The Agency puts students and the public interest at the center of everything they do. Great Britain higher education quality policy is implemented basing on the Quality Code for Higher Education. ; Straipsnyje apžvelgiama Didžiosios Britanijos aukštojo mokslo raida ir esminiai pokyčiai XX–XXI a. Šalyje nuo XX a. 6-ojo dešimtmečio vyksta aukštojo mokslo masiškėjimo procesas – didėja aukštojo mokslo institucijų įvairovė, gyventojų dalis, įgyjanti aukštąjį išsilavinimą, taip pat didėja moterų dalis joje. Šie pokyčiai neišvengiamai paveikė aukštojo mokslo finansavimo sistemą – ilgą laiką Didžiojoje Britanijoje aukštasis mokslas buvo finansuojamas valstybės, tačiau XX a. 10-ajame dešimtmetyje įvykusi finansinė krizė privertė ieškoti kitų aukštojo mokslo finansavimo modelių, pirmą kartą įvedant studijų mokestį. Tapo itin svarbus aukštojo mokslo kokybės klausimas. Tai paskatino Didžiąją Britaniją sukurti aukštojo mokslo kokybės užtikrinimo politiką.

On 29th March 2017, the United Kingdom expressed its intention to leave the Union. In this way, Article 50 of the EU Treaty has been activated and the fate of millions of people and their families who have enjoyed the rights granted by the Union was in an uncertain situation. Therefore, Brexit negotiations sought a compromise on measures to ensure the rights of Union citizens residing in the United Kingdom and citizens of United Kingdom residing in the member states as well as their family members and on 29th to 30th of January 2020 a Withdrawal Agreement was ratified, which redefined the rights and status of international families. This master thesis aims to identify how and to what extend United Kingdoms withdrawal affects the rights and the status of members of international families. A study on the regulation of the withdrawal and the reasons behind Brexit has shown that Article 50 of the EU Treaty does not define on what specific rights must be agreed, but the United Kingdoms desire to end the free movement of persons determined that the content of the rights granted to international families had to be discussed separately. The work, therefore, examines the Union acquis on the movement of international families and distinguishes fundamental rights to be divided to two parts: substantive rights enabling international families to leave and enter, reside and remain, and procedural rights aimed to eliminate the effects resulting from the exercise of the movement rights. To determine what measures have been implemented a comparative analysis of Union acquis and Brexit regulations has been carried out. It has shown that the Withdrawal Agreement covers all excluded rights granted to international families, but their content varies at each stage of Brexit. The work also provides an analysis of the status of members of international families and stipulates that the legal status of international family members may change, depending on the model of the relationship to be applied at a particular stage of Brexit and the nationality of the family member as well as the place where rights are exercised. However, at any event, the Union and the United Kingdom are obliged to properly fulfil commitments arising from the withdrawal and ensure a consistent interpretation and implementation of adopted regulations.

On 29th March 2017, the United Kingdom expressed its intention to leave the Union. In this way, Article 50 of the EU Treaty has been activated and the fate of millions of people and their families who have enjoyed the rights granted by the Union was in an uncertain situation. Therefore, Brexit negotiations sought a compromise on measures to ensure the rights of Union citizens residing in the United Kingdom and citizens of United Kingdom residing in the member states as well as their family members and on 29th to 30th of January 2020 a Withdrawal Agreement was ratified, which redefined the rights and status of international families. This master thesis aims to identify how and to what extend United Kingdoms withdrawal affects the rights and the status of members of international families. A study on the regulation of the withdrawal and the reasons behind Brexit has shown that Article 50 of the EU Treaty does not define on what specific rights must be agreed, but the United Kingdoms desire to end the free movement of persons determined that the content of the rights granted to international families had to be discussed separately. The work, therefore, examines the Union acquis on the movement of international families and distinguishes fundamental rights to be divided to two parts: substantive rights enabling international families to leave and enter, reside and remain, and procedural rights aimed to eliminate the effects resulting from the exercise of the movement rights. To determine what measures have been implemented a comparative analysis of Union acquis and Brexit regulations has been carried out. It has shown that the Withdrawal Agreement covers all excluded rights granted to international families, but their content varies at each stage of Brexit. The work also provides an analysis of the status of members of international families and stipulates that the legal status of international family members may change, depending on the model of the relationship to be applied at a particular stage of Brexit and the nationality of the family member as well as the place where rights are exercised. However, at any event, the Union and the United Kingdom are obliged to properly fulfil commitments arising from the withdrawal and ensure a consistent interpretation and implementation of adopted regulations.

On 29th March 2017, the United Kingdom expressed its intention to leave the Union. In this way, Article 50 of the EU Treaty has been activated and the fate of millions of people and their families who have enjoyed the rights granted by the Union was in an uncertain situation. Therefore, Brexit negotiations sought a compromise on measures to ensure the rights of Union citizens residing in the United Kingdom and citizens of United Kingdom residing in the member states as well as their family members and on 29th to 30th of January 2020 a Withdrawal Agreement was ratified, which redefined the rights and status of international families. This master thesis aims to identify how and to what extend United Kingdoms withdrawal affects the rights and the status of members of international families. A study on the regulation of the withdrawal and the reasons behind Brexit has shown that Article 50 of the EU Treaty does not define on what specific rights must be agreed, but the United Kingdoms desire to end the free movement of persons determined that the content of the rights granted to international families had to be discussed separately. The work, therefore, examines the Union acquis on the movement of international families and distinguishes fundamental rights to be divided to two parts: substantive rights enabling international families to leave and enter, reside and remain, and procedural rights aimed to eliminate the effects resulting from the exercise of the movement rights. To determine what measures have been implemented a comparative analysis of Union acquis and Brexit regulations has been carried out. It has shown that the Withdrawal Agreement covers all excluded rights granted to international families, but their content varies at each stage of Brexit. The work also provides an analysis of the status of members of international families and stipulates that the legal status of international family members may change, depending on the model of the relationship to be applied at a particular stage of Brexit and the nationality of the family member as well as the place where rights are exercised. However, at any event, the Union and the United Kingdom are obliged to properly fulfil commitments arising from the withdrawal and ensure a consistent interpretation and implementation of adopted regulations.

On 29th March 2017, the United Kingdom expressed its intention to leave the Union. In this way, Article 50 of the EU Treaty has been activated and the fate of millions of people and their families who have enjoyed the rights granted by the Union was in an uncertain situation. Therefore, Brexit negotiations sought a compromise on measures to ensure the rights of Union citizens residing in the United Kingdom and citizens of United Kingdom residing in the member states as well as their family members and on 29th to 30th of January 2020 a Withdrawal Agreement was ratified, which redefined the rights and status of international families. This master thesis aims to identify how and to what extend United Kingdoms withdrawal affects the rights and the status of members of international families. A study on the regulation of the withdrawal and the reasons behind Brexit has shown that Article 50 of the EU Treaty does not define on what specific rights must be agreed, but the United Kingdoms desire to end the free movement of persons determined that the content of the rights granted to international families had to be discussed separately. The work, therefore, examines the Union acquis on the movement of international families and distinguishes fundamental rights to be divided to two parts: substantive rights enabling international families to leave and enter, reside and remain, and procedural rights aimed to eliminate the effects resulting from the exercise of the movement rights. To determine what measures have been implemented a comparative analysis of Union acquis and Brexit regulations has been carried out. It has shown that the Withdrawal Agreement covers all excluded rights granted to international families, but their content varies at each stage of Brexit. The work also provides an analysis of the status of members of international families and stipulates that the legal status of international family members may change, depending on the model of the relationship to be applied at a particular stage of Brexit and the nationality of the family member as well as the place where rights are exercised. However, at any event, the Union and the United Kingdom are obliged to properly fulfil commitments arising from the withdrawal and ensure a consistent interpretation and implementation of adopted regulations.

The object of this research is the linguistic means of political conflict communication that are characteristic of the political discourse of the political leaders of Great Britain and Lithuania (1998–¬2008). This dissertation discloses the fact that linguistic means are closely related to the ideology of the speaker and linguistic practices are conditioned by culture. Such cognitive linguistic concepts as conceptual metaphors, domain, meaning field and such linguistic means as nominations are analysed in this dissertation. Looking from the narrow perspective of linguistic methodology, comparative analysis and descriptive-analytical methods are applied in the conflict communication discourse research of the political leaders of Lithuania and Great Britain. The conflict which is expressed in the political discourse of these countries has both similarities and differences. Resemblance is determined by the general essence of conflict communication, i.e., the discrepancy between positions taken by political forces and interests. Differences are based on the peculiarities of the two political cultures. Political competition in both Lithuania and Great Britain is based on the domains change and benefit. The same POLITICS IS WAR, POLITICS IS A JOURNEY and THE STATE IS A BUILDING conceptual metaphors are characteristic of political communication of both countries. However, conflict communication has an ideological nature in the political life of Great Britain while in the discourse of the Lithuanian political leaders, political conflict is not expressed as an ideological conflict.

The object of this research is the linguistic means of political conflict communication that are characteristic of the political discourse of the political leaders of Great Britain and Lithuania (1998–¬2008). This dissertation discloses the fact that linguistic means are closely related to the ideology of the speaker and linguistic practices are conditioned by culture. Such cognitive linguistic concepts as conceptual metaphors, domain, meaning field and such linguistic means as nominations are analysed in this dissertation. Looking from the narrow perspective of linguistic methodology, comparative analysis and descriptive-analytical methods are applied in the conflict communication discourse research of the political leaders of Lithuania and Great Britain. The conflict which is expressed in the political discourse of these countries has both similarities and differences. Resemblance is determined by the general essence of conflict communication, i.e., the discrepancy between positions taken by political forces and interests. Differences are based on the peculiarities of the two political cultures. Political competition in both Lithuania and Great Britain is based on the domains change and benefit. The same POLITICS IS WAR, POLITICS IS A JOURNEY and THE STATE IS A BUILDING conceptual metaphors are characteristic of political communication of both countries. However, conflict communication has an ideological nature in the political life of Great Britain while in the discourse of the Lithuanian political leaders, political conflict is not expressed as an ideological conflict.

The object of this research is the linguistic means of political conflict communication that are characteristic of the political discourse of the political leaders of Great Britain and Lithuania (1998–¬2008). This dissertation discloses the fact that linguistic means are closely related to the ideology of the speaker and linguistic practices are conditioned by culture. Such cognitive linguistic concepts as conceptual metaphors, domain, meaning field and such linguistic means as nominations are analysed in this dissertation. Looking from the narrow perspective of linguistic methodology, comparative analysis and descriptive-analytical methods are applied in the conflict communication discourse research of the political leaders of Lithuania and Great Britain. The conflict which is expressed in the political discourse of these countries has both similarities and differences. Resemblance is determined by the general essence of conflict communication, i.e., the discrepancy between positions taken by political forces and interests. Differences are based on the peculiarities of the two political cultures. Political competition in both Lithuania and Great Britain is based on the domains change and benefit. The same POLITICS IS WAR, POLITICS IS A JOURNEY and THE STATE IS A BUILDING conceptual metaphors are characteristic of political communication of both countries. However, conflict communication has an ideological nature in the political life of Great Britain while in the discourse of the Lithuanian political leaders, political conflict is not expressed as an ideological conflict.

The object of this research is the linguistic means of political conflict communication that are characteristic of the political discourse of the political leaders of Great Britain and Lithuania (1998–¬2008). This dissertation discloses the fact that linguistic means are closely related to the ideology of the speaker and linguistic practices are conditioned by culture. Such cognitive linguistic concepts as conceptual metaphors, domain, meaning field and such linguistic means as nominations are analysed in this dissertation. Looking from the narrow perspective of linguistic methodology, comparative analysis and descriptive-analytical methods are applied in the conflict communication discourse research of the political leaders of Lithuania and Great Britain. The conflict which is expressed in the political discourse of these countries has both similarities and differences. Resemblance is determined by the general essence of conflict communication, i.e., the discrepancy between positions taken by political forces and interests. Differences are based on the peculiarities of the two political cultures. Political competition in both Lithuania and Great Britain is based on the domains change and benefit. The same POLITICS IS WAR, POLITICS IS A JOURNEY and THE STATE IS A BUILDING conceptual metaphors are characteristic of political communication of both countries. However, conflict communication has an ideological nature in the political life of Great Britain while in the discourse of the Lithuanian political leaders, political conflict is not expressed as an ideological conflict.

SUMMARY The objective of this Master's Thesis is to analyze and compare Lithuania, Norway, Netherlands and The Great Britain Constitutional human rights and legal provisions wich ensure the rights and freedoms of sexual minorities. With regard to the comparative analysis of the present findings, disclosed the sexual minority rights in Lithuania. The Thesis consists of an introduction followed by two chapters and conclusions. The first chapter deals with the conceptions of sexual minorities and homosexual orientation. Also analyzed the Lithuanian Constitutional human rights and legal provisions wich provide the right to protection, equality, freedom of expression and privacy of sexual minorities. The second section consist legal acts analysis wich regulate sexual minorities rights in Norway, Netherlands and Great Britain. Specifying Constitutional rights and statutory provisions which are providing legal rights to protection, equality, freedom of expression and privacy of sexual minorities. Analyze and compare Lithuania, Norway, Netherlands and Great Britain Constitutional human rights and legal provisions wich ensure the rights and freedoms of sexual minorities. Sexual minorities are groups of people whose sexual orientation, gender identity or sexual characteristics are different from the presumed majority of the population, which are male or female heterosexuals. The term referred primarily to lesbians and gays, bisexuals and transgender people. These four categories are often grouped together and called as LGBT persons. Regarding of society formed stereotypes, these individuals are often faced with the legal and social exclusion. Opposition receives both authorization and prohibition to marry, adopt or publicly promote their way of life. Therefore, sexual minority rights and freedoms is one of the most debated topics in Lithuania and in the world. Article 21 of Lithuania Constitution provides that, the human person is inviolable. Human dignity shall be protected by law. It shall be prohibited to torture, injure, degrade, or maltreat, and to impose such penalties. Article 169 of the Criminal Code prohibit direct discrimination on grounds of sex, sexual orientation, race, nationality, beliefs or other attitudes. Prohibition of sale, produce, acquire to send, carry, keep the things that incite or promote hatred violence and discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, and other cases are provided in the Criminal Code article 170. Article 29 of Lithuania Constitution lay down non-discrimination principle of all persons, other existing legislations guarantees equal rights to all people regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or ethnic origin, disability, age, religion or belief. Article 2 paragraph 4 of Labour Code provides equality of employment law subjects, regardless of gender, sexual orientation and other circumstances. Article 2 of this act requires the employer to implement equal opportunities at work and in public service. Labour Safety and Health Act guarantees employed safe and healthy working conditions, regardless of the employee's sexual orientation. This act prohibit direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of age, sexual orientation, disability, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief. Article 25 of Lithuania Constitution provides that everyone has the right to hold opinions and to express them freely. Article 36 of Constitution lay, that unarmed citizens have the right in peaceful assembly. These two Constitutional provisions guaranties human right to expression. Country's Criminal Code, the Labour Code, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Equal Opportunity Act establishes the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, but comparing to the rest of the world Lithuania valid legal regulation does not ensure sexual minority rights and freedoms. In Norway, the Netherlands and Great Britain gender identity is stored value of the law and same-sex marriage are legal by the law. These countries have established legal regulation laying down the conditions and gender reassignment procedures. In Netherlands and Great Britain the same sex can form a partnership. There is no statutory regulations, which set the conditions for gender reassignment procedures in Lithuania. Article 2.27 of Lithuanian Civil Code provides that \"an unmarried adult has the right to medically change their sex, if it is medically possible. Sex changing conditions laid down by law". To implement these provisions was prepared draft law regulating the treatment of transsexualism, but due to conflicting public assessment, this law has not been adopted. For this reason in country does not exist discriminatory crimes of sexual identity basis. The country does not allow same-sex marriage or partnership formation. Article 38 of Lithuania Constitution establishes that "marriage are formed in agreement between a man and a woman ''. According to this provision, the same-sex marriage are not available in the Country. Lithuania legal acts unlike in Norway, Netherlands and Great Britain does not include gender identity concept. In Lithuania transsexual person (a person who has a gender identity confusion) rights and freedoms are not guaranteed, because none of the above provisions of the law does not include gender identity grounds. For this reason, information about hate crimes, sexual identity simply does not exist.

Public administration system has been restructured by agencification in many countries. The new or reorganized agencies have been established. These agencies rely more on business management methods pursuing to improve public services quality, increase people's confidence in government, public administration, reduce costs, etc. Using principal – agent theory papergives theoretical justification and by investigation of the reasons, means and results of agencification paper reviews practical experience of agencification in countries: Great Britain, Ireland, Portugal, Germany, the United States of America, and Sweden. Despite the divergence in agencification (agencies types and structures, legal framework), general trends and key success factors – political consensus and strategic reform management – can be determined.

Public administration system has been restructured by agencification in many countries. The new or reorganized agencies have been established. These agencies rely more on business management methods pursuing to improve public services quality, increase people's confidence in government, public administration, reduce costs, etc. Using principal – agent theory papergives theoretical justification and by investigation of the reasons, means and results of agencification paper reviews practical experience of agencification in countries: Great Britain, Ireland, Portugal, Germany, the United States of America, and Sweden. Despite the divergence in agencification (agencies types and structures, legal framework), general trends and key success factors – political consensus and strategic reform management – can be determined.

Public administration system has been restructured by agencification in many countries. The new or reorganized agencies have been established. These agencies rely more on business management methods pursuing to improve public services quality, increase people's confidence in government, public administration, reduce costs, etc. Using principal – agent theory papergives theoretical justification and by investigation of the reasons, means and results of agencification paper reviews practical experience of agencification in countries: Great Britain, Ireland, Portugal, Germany, the United States of America, and Sweden. Despite the divergence in agencification (agencies types and structures, legal framework), general trends and key success factors – political consensus and strategic reform management – can be determined.