Suchergebnisse

The beginning of XXI century was marked by few events that had influence on international relations in the whole world. Terror attacks in the United States of America in September 11, 2001, were the first such high a big range attacks against the USA. It had shown that the USA – the most powerful state of the world – is vulnerable to more danger, than nuclear weapons alone. After September 11 the USA started war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and many states supported it. However, in spring 2003 the USA unilaterally, without international support, decided to use military power in Iraq, arguing that Iraq possessed potential threat – weapons of mass destruction. Unilateralism, and military and technological differences between the USA and its allies have brought to light a presumption that in the international system there is a single pole, a superpower (hyperpower), the United States of America. The existence of one pole only can have different consequences on international system and international security. The aim of this article was to determine specific features of the unipolar world, influence of polarity of international system upon international security, and specific threats to security that emerge only in unipolar international systems. Another aim was to try to predict the end of the unipolar system: what could be the next poles and when could it come to the end. After analysing a number of articles concerning this topic, few conclusions were drawn. Contemporary international system is unipolar and the single pole is the USA; the USA is superior in military, economic, geopolitical, and political spheres at the same time. Increasing military power and unilateralism of the USA may be treated as a threat to international security. Great powers are trying to balance unipolar power, however, the creation of balance to unipolar power is complicated for several reasons.[.].

The beginning of XXI century was marked by few events that had influence on international relations in the whole world. Terror attacks in the United States of America in September 11, 2001, were the first such high a big range attacks against the USA. It had shown that the USA – the most powerful state of the world – is vulnerable to more danger, than nuclear weapons alone. After September 11 the USA started war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and many states supported it. However, in spring 2003 the USA unilaterally, without international support, decided to use military power in Iraq, arguing that Iraq possessed potential threat – weapons of mass destruction. Unilateralism, and military and technological differences between the USA and its allies have brought to light a presumption that in the international system there is a single pole, a superpower (hyperpower), the United States of America. The existence of one pole only can have different consequences on international system and international security. The aim of this article was to determine specific features of the unipolar world, influence of polarity of international system upon international security, and specific threats to security that emerge only in unipolar international systems. Another aim was to try to predict the end of the unipolar system: what could be the next poles and when could it come to the end. After analysing a number of articles concerning this topic, few conclusions were drawn. Contemporary international system is unipolar and the single pole is the USA; the USA is superior in military, economic, geopolitical, and political spheres at the same time. Increasing military power and unilateralism of the USA may be treated as a threat to international security. Great powers are trying to balance unipolar power, however, the creation of balance to unipolar power is complicated for several reasons.[.].

The article reviews the transformations and changes of the EU's international trade policy (Common Commercial Policy) since 2021 when the European Commission adopted the new strategic document, which outlines the future guidelines for the trade policy - communication called "Trade Policy Review - An Open, Sustainable and Assertive Trade Policy" (2021). The author examines its provisions by using systemic, historical, linguistical, comparative methods, as well as methods of analysis and synthesis, and concludes that the Trade Policy Review (2021) doesn't intend to completely change the existing trade regulatory framework in the EU or proposes to introduce major innovations regarding trade policies towards specific third countries. However, based on this document we should expect that the EU will continue to actively conclude bilateral free (preferential) trade agreements with the third countries and will implement a protectionist trade regime with the People's Republic of China. Besides, the research, presented in the article shows that the Trade Policy Review (2021) does not, in principle, offer any new fundamental ideas on how the EU's international trade with its other major trading partners (BRICS) should and will be developed - - this can be considered a critical feature of this document

The phenomenon of litigation funding is not new – it can be seen since the ancient times, however, has not been applicable for a long time in both civil and continental law countries. As society matures, attitudes to judicial and alternative dispute resolution have also changed. There is a tremendous breakthrough in the third-party funding in the international arbitration, therefore, the most problematic issues of this institute are analyzed. The purpose of this master thesis is to reveal the influence of the third-party funding in the arbitration on the management of conflicts of interest and the obligation to disclose the fact of funding, the reimbursement of arbitration costs and their security and to submit proposals to the Lithuanian legislator on the possible regulation of the third-party funding in arbitration in order to ensure an effective arbitration process. Taking into account the fact that the funder of arbitration proceedings is neither a party to the arbitration agreement, nor a party to the arbitration proceedings, there is a lack of legal certainty on whether the participation of such subject may cause conflict of interest, and whether the legal costs, success fee, and expenses related to the funding may be reimbursed by the losing party. Moreover, the natural question arises whether the arbitrators have the right to oblige the third-party funder to directly reimburse the costs of the losing party or to order a security for costs. After analysis of foreign law, arbitration rules of permanent arbitration bodies, doctrine, case law and arbitration practice, it was concluded that in the context of institute of third-party funding in the arbitration, the conflicts of interest between the third-party funders and the arbitrators may arise, and in order to avoid this, it is necessary to disclose the fact of the third-party funding to the parties and arbitrators. Likewise, the arbitrators, who have a discretionary power over the allocation of arbitration costs shall award legal costs to the losing party if the funded party is obliged by the funding agreement to reimburse the legal costs to the third-party funder. Financing costs incurred by the third-party funder may be awarded if they meet the necessity and reasonableness requirements. The success fee from the losing party shall not be awarded, whereas such costs do not meet the above-mentioned requirements. Furthermore, the mere fact of third-party funding is not and cannot be a sufficient ground to award the security for costs of opposing party, since the arbitrators must also take into consideration other circumstances such as: the terms of the funding agreement, merits of the claim, prospects of success of the dispute, the financial capacity of the funded party and its alteration since the moment of entering into the arbitration agreement.

The phenomenon of litigation funding is not new – it can be seen since the ancient times, however, has not been applicable for a long time in both civil and continental law countries. As society matures, attitudes to judicial and alternative dispute resolution have also changed. There is a tremendous breakthrough in the third-party funding in the international arbitration, therefore, the most problematic issues of this institute are analyzed. The purpose of this master thesis is to reveal the influence of the third-party funding in the arbitration on the management of conflicts of interest and the obligation to disclose the fact of funding, the reimbursement of arbitration costs and their security and to submit proposals to the Lithuanian legislator on the possible regulation of the third-party funding in arbitration in order to ensure an effective arbitration process. Taking into account the fact that the funder of arbitration proceedings is neither a party to the arbitration agreement, nor a party to the arbitration proceedings, there is a lack of legal certainty on whether the participation of such subject may cause conflict of interest, and whether the legal costs, success fee, and expenses related to the funding may be reimbursed by the losing party. Moreover, the natural question arises whether the arbitrators have the right to oblige the third-party funder to directly reimburse the costs of the losing party or to order a security for costs. After analysis of foreign law, arbitration rules of permanent arbitration bodies, doctrine, case law and arbitration practice, it was concluded that in the context of institute of third-party funding in the arbitration, the conflicts of interest between the third-party funders and the arbitrators may arise, and in order to avoid this, it is necessary to disclose the fact of the third-party funding to the parties and arbitrators. Likewise, the arbitrators, who have a discretionary power over the allocation of arbitration costs shall award legal costs to the losing party if the funded party is obliged by the funding agreement to reimburse the legal costs to the third-party funder. Financing costs incurred by the third-party funder may be awarded if they meet the necessity and reasonableness requirements. The success fee from the losing party shall not be awarded, whereas such costs do not meet the above-mentioned requirements. Furthermore, the mere fact of third-party funding is not and cannot be a sufficient ground to award the security for costs of opposing party, since the arbitrators must also take into consideration other circumstances such as: the terms of the funding agreement, merits of the claim, prospects of success of the dispute, the financial capacity of the funded party and its alteration since the moment of entering into the arbitration agreement.

The phenomenon of litigation funding is not new – it can be seen since the ancient times, however, has not been applicable for a long time in both civil and continental law countries. As society matures, attitudes to judicial and alternative dispute resolution have also changed. There is a tremendous breakthrough in the third-party funding in the international arbitration, therefore, the most problematic issues of this institute are analyzed. The purpose of this master thesis is to reveal the influence of the third-party funding in the arbitration on the management of conflicts of interest and the obligation to disclose the fact of funding, the reimbursement of arbitration costs and their security and to submit proposals to the Lithuanian legislator on the possible regulation of the third-party funding in arbitration in order to ensure an effective arbitration process. Taking into account the fact that the funder of arbitration proceedings is neither a party to the arbitration agreement, nor a party to the arbitration proceedings, there is a lack of legal certainty on whether the participation of such subject may cause conflict of interest, and whether the legal costs, success fee, and expenses related to the funding may be reimbursed by the losing party. Moreover, the natural question arises whether the arbitrators have the right to oblige the third-party funder to directly reimburse the costs of the losing party or to order a security for costs. After analysis of foreign law, arbitration rules of permanent arbitration bodies, doctrine, case law and arbitration practice, it was concluded that in the context of institute of third-party funding in the arbitration, the conflicts of interest between the third-party funders and the arbitrators may arise, and in order to avoid this, it is necessary to disclose the fact of the third-party funding to the parties and arbitrators. Likewise, the arbitrators, who have a discretionary power over the allocation of arbitration costs shall award legal costs to the losing party if the funded party is obliged by the funding agreement to reimburse the legal costs to the third-party funder. Financing costs incurred by the third-party funder may be awarded if they meet the necessity and reasonableness requirements. The success fee from the losing party shall not be awarded, whereas such costs do not meet the above-mentioned requirements. Furthermore, the mere fact of third-party funding is not and cannot be a sufficient ground to award the security for costs of opposing party, since the arbitrators must also take into consideration other circumstances such as: the terms of the funding agreement, merits of the claim, prospects of success of the dispute, the financial capacity of the funded party and its alteration since the moment of entering into the arbitration agreement.

The phenomenon of litigation funding is not new – it can be seen since the ancient times, however, has not been applicable for a long time in both civil and continental law countries. As society matures, attitudes to judicial and alternative dispute resolution have also changed. There is a tremendous breakthrough in the third-party funding in the international arbitration, therefore, the most problematic issues of this institute are analyzed. The purpose of this master thesis is to reveal the influence of the third-party funding in the arbitration on the management of conflicts of interest and the obligation to disclose the fact of funding, the reimbursement of arbitration costs and their security and to submit proposals to the Lithuanian legislator on the possible regulation of the third-party funding in arbitration in order to ensure an effective arbitration process. Taking into account the fact that the funder of arbitration proceedings is neither a party to the arbitration agreement, nor a party to the arbitration proceedings, there is a lack of legal certainty on whether the participation of such subject may cause conflict of interest, and whether the legal costs, success fee, and expenses related to the funding may be reimbursed by the losing party. Moreover, the natural question arises whether the arbitrators have the right to oblige the third-party funder to directly reimburse the costs of the losing party or to order a security for costs. After analysis of foreign law, arbitration rules of permanent arbitration bodies, doctrine, case law and arbitration practice, it was concluded that in the context of institute of third-party funding in the arbitration, the conflicts of interest between the third-party funders and the arbitrators may arise, and in order to avoid this, it is necessary to disclose the fact of the third-party funding to the parties and arbitrators. Likewise, the arbitrators, who have a discretionary power over the allocation of arbitration costs shall award legal costs to the losing party if the funded party is obliged by the funding agreement to reimburse the legal costs to the third-party funder. Financing costs incurred by the third-party funder may be awarded if they meet the necessity and reasonableness requirements. The success fee from the losing party shall not be awarded, whereas such costs do not meet the above-mentioned requirements. Furthermore, the mere fact of third-party funding is not and cannot be a sufficient ground to award the security for costs of opposing party, since the arbitrators must also take into consideration other circumstances such as: the terms of the funding agreement, merits of the claim, prospects of success of the dispute, the financial capacity of the funded party and its alteration since the moment of entering into the arbitration agreement.

The master thesis gives the analysis of the ways, benefits and causes of internationalization of higher education and related problems. Global market of higher education surveys is given. Analysis of experience of studies' internationalization in different countries and European Higher Education Area are made. International academic mobility management programme is made with reference to analysis of theories and methodologies of marketing, strategic management and educational science. European Union policy for higher education establishes favourable conditions for internationalization of studies in Lithuanian universities. Quantitative and qualitative methods are used for evaluation of internationality of higher education in Lithuania in the context of European Union members, global competitiveness, and priorities of mobile students. The trends of student mobility are analysed, the relation between economic, social factors and attractiveness of higher education is identified and evaluated in the master thesis. According to identified tendencies, the aimed level of internationality of higher education in Lithuania is measured in the number of foreign students. Directions and opportunities for studies' internationalization and development in Lithuanian universities are identified. After the analysis of the theoretical and practical academic mobility development aspects, the conclusions of the master thesis are presented and suggestions for Lithuanian universities are offered. Structure: introduction, problem part, theoretical part, analytical part, project part, conclusions and suggestions, references.

The master thesis gives the analysis of the ways, benefits and causes of internationalization of higher education and related problems. Global market of higher education surveys is given. Analysis of experience of studies' internationalization in different countries and European Higher Education Area are made. International academic mobility management programme is made with reference to analysis of theories and methodologies of marketing, strategic management and educational science. European Union policy for higher education establishes favourable conditions for internationalization of studies in Lithuanian universities. Quantitative and qualitative methods are used for evaluation of internationality of higher education in Lithuania in the context of European Union members, global competitiveness, and priorities of mobile students. The trends of student mobility are analysed, the relation between economic, social factors and attractiveness of higher education is identified and evaluated in the master thesis. According to identified tendencies, the aimed level of internationality of higher education in Lithuania is measured in the number of foreign students. Directions and opportunities for studies' internationalization and development in Lithuanian universities are identified. After the analysis of the theoretical and practical academic mobility development aspects, the conclusions of the master thesis are presented and suggestions for Lithuanian universities are offered. Structure: introduction, problem part, theoretical part, analytical part, project part, conclusions and suggestions, references.

After the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force, the process of concluding treaties between the EU and third countries or international organizations has sustained significant changes. The most important procedural novelty is the establishment of the ordinary procedure that covers almost all agreements the EU concludes with third parties. Under the Lisbon Treaty, this procedure involves a number of stages: negotiations, signing the agreement, and decision to conclude the agreement. For agreements whose subject matter exclusively or predominantly falls into the domain of common foreign and security policy, there are several derogations from the uniform rules of the ordinary procedure. The same provision of the founding treaty regulates the procedures for amending and suspending the agreement in force, as well as the judicial control procedure of those agreements that are yet to be concluded. The ordinary procedure does not cover two subject-specific proceedings pertaining to relatively narrow areas of EU action. More specifically, they refer to the conclusion of agreements in the area of common trade policy and agreements on the exchange rate of the Euro against the currencies of non-member states. The exclusion of trade agreements is probably the result of the differences that still exist in the division of competencies between the Member States and the EU regarding trade in the area of some services. On the other hand, the enactment of a special procedure for agreements on the Euro exchange rate in relation to the national currency rates of third countries stems from the need to ensure the Union's unique position in this field. On the institutional level, the most important actors in the process of concluding EU agreements are the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. The Council has retained the central role in all types of treaty procedures, and it decides on essential issues related to the course and outcome of the process. The Commission has retained the major role in initiating and negotiating the agreements, but it is no longer the exclusive initiator and negotiator in the agreement process. Namely, depending on the subject of the treaty, new entrants in that role are the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and the European Central Bank. The European Parliament has strengthened its position in the procedure for concluding EU agreements and can, therefore, be considered the largest 'net' winner of the Lisbon Treaty reform. This is partly due to its new role in the course of negotiations, which implies the right to be immediately and fully informed about all stages of the proceedings, but to a much greater extent it refers to the powers that this body has in the final stage preceding the conclusion of the agreement. Finally, the EU Court of Justice has an important role in this process; its task is to control the compliance of the EU agreements with the founding treaties prior to their conclusion.

This work aims to evaluate the international legal status of Chechnya in different periods of its fight for independence on the basis of international legal norms and to determine a type of armed conflicts that took place in Chechnya as well as to review violations of human rights and the international humanitarian law made during these armed conflicts. Following international legal acts the work reveals contents of the freedom of national self-determination and its relation to the principle of territorial integrity. Also, the work reviews qualifications of persons of the international law with a particular attention given to the concept and attributes of the state and examines the most important aspects of the status of Chechnya. Also, this research presents the concept of the armed conflict and discusses features of international and non-international armed conflicts on which basis the type of conflicts that took place in Chechnya has been determined. The work overviews the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on which basis violations of the humanitarian law that were made during the armed conflicts in Chechnya have been determined. In 1991/1992 Chechnya had all main qualifications of the state: population, a defined territory and the government. According to the norms of the international law this meant its establishment as the state. The victory of Chechnya in the First Chechnya War has proved Chechnya statehood once again. Russia de facto confirmed independence of Chechnya by its subsequent actions. After examination of possible different assessments of the armed conflicts in Chechnya and on the basis of the conclusion that Chechnya is an unrecognised state, it has been determined that the above armed conflicts should be considered as international conflicts.

This work aims to evaluate the international legal status of Chechnya in different periods of its fight for independence on the basis of international legal norms and to determine a type of armed conflicts that took place in Chechnya as well as to review violations of human rights and the international humanitarian law made during these armed conflicts. Following international legal acts the work reveals contents of the freedom of national self-determination and its relation to the principle of territorial integrity. Also, the work reviews qualifications of persons of the international law with a particular attention given to the concept and attributes of the state and examines the most important aspects of the status of Chechnya. Also, this research presents the concept of the armed conflict and discusses features of international and non-international armed conflicts on which basis the type of conflicts that took place in Chechnya has been determined. The work overviews the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on which basis violations of the humanitarian law that were made during the armed conflicts in Chechnya have been determined. In 1991/1992 Chechnya had all main qualifications of the state: population, a defined territory and the government. According to the norms of the international law this meant its establishment as the state. The victory of Chechnya in the First Chechnya War has proved Chechnya statehood once again. Russia de facto confirmed independence of Chechnya by its subsequent actions. After examination of possible different assessments of the armed conflicts in Chechnya and on the basis of the conclusion that Chechnya is an unrecognised state, it has been determined that the above armed conflicts should be considered as international conflicts.

A company needs to first calculate the risk factors and look at both advantages and disadvantages of international trade financing methods before choosing one. Also, a company must take into account the conditions of supplying, their partners and their own financial stance, countries' political, economic and social situation, the cost of international financing method. A company may choose the right, most secure and trustworthy international trade financing method after it has properly evaluated these factors. Therefore, the task of choosing the right method is relevant to every company engaging in international trade operations. It determines this master thesis topic's relevancy. The object of study of this master thesis – a company's international trade expansion and its financial models. The aim – to make a comparison of Mantinga , Ltd international trade financing models' analysis after the research of a company's international trade financial alternatives. The tasks established to achieve the set object are as follows: name the problems of international trade financing after thoroughly investigating international trade importance to companies' activities; unveil the essence of international trade financing based on scientific literature analysis; identify the fundamental financing models of international trade; form a methodology for the research of international trade financing; conduct the models' analysis of international trade expanse financing of Mantinga, Ltd. Lately, it has been noticed that the international trade scale is increasing. The financial reserves needed to engage in and expand such trade, determine the importance of choosing sources and methods of such trade. Thus, every company encounters obstacles which are related to its international trade financing source (inner or outer) and methods that reduce expenses and minimalize risks related to the companies' international trade operations decisions. The financing of international trade operations is distinguished by quite a large variety. Depending on the duration and objectives of funding, the amount of the transaction, the own funds of economic entities, additional participants (factoring, forfeiting organizations, export credit agencies) or certain financing conditions (discounting, bank guarantees) could be included into the model. The advantage of each model of international trade financing is the increasing of competitiveness – payment conditions are increasingly used as competitive instruments during the negotiation process. Customers seek for bargains to ensure reliable and attractive credit conditions. Merchants who have access to financing instruments are in a better position, which can stimulate export and national income growth. Based on Mantinga', Ltd financial responsibility and its financial activities results analysis, it was established that Mantinga, Lt should adopt factoring for its export since its expenses are 53 percent less than the bank's financed credit value for the same scale exports. The company also benefits additionally with factoring. It no longer needs to make discounts to clients who check out expeditiously. The risk of customers not paying in time gets eliminated and, as such, detriments are saved due to such failed payments. Factoring also improves customers' payment behavior, enhances the company's credit rating and the overall appeal in the view of interested countries.