Suchergebnisse

The thesis investigates the issue of the prohibition of incitement to hatred in International law. This issue is covered by a different international instruments, which have different approaches on its understanding. The case law created by the international judicial bodies which is empowered to examine complains on actions of States reflects this situation with an ambiguous and sometimes controversial decisions. Similar situation is observed in the academic field, there are different approaches on the understanding the public incitement to hatred. At the same time, current and future challenges, such as the world crisis, armed conflicts, globalization and migration create conditions in which there is a high possibility of the intolerant discriminative atmosphere in which one group may be incited towards another. The development of information technologies, such as social media and the Internet as such, provide fast and unlimited circulation of information, which also may include incitement to hatred. Due to that facts, it is crucial to create a unified approach on the public incitement to hatred, which covers relevant legislation, judicial practice and the findings of scholars and may be used by the national and international authorities to determine and eliminate different forms of public incitement to hatred.

The thesis investigates the issue of the prohibition of incitement to hatred in International law. This issue is covered by a different international instruments, which have different approaches on its understanding. The case law created by the international judicial bodies which is empowered to examine complains on actions of States reflects this situation with an ambiguous and sometimes controversial decisions. Similar situation is observed in the academic field, there are different approaches on the understanding the public incitement to hatred. At the same time, current and future challenges, such as the world crisis, armed conflicts, globalization and migration create conditions in which there is a high possibility of the intolerant discriminative atmosphere in which one group may be incited towards another. The development of information technologies, such as social media and the Internet as such, provide fast and unlimited circulation of information, which also may include incitement to hatred. Due to that facts, it is crucial to create a unified approach on the public incitement to hatred, which covers relevant legislation, judicial practice and the findings of scholars and may be used by the national and international authorities to determine and eliminate different forms of public incitement to hatred.

The article deals with the interconnected issues of tax "burden" and international tax competition. Author bases his argumentation vis'a vis these issues on holistic assumptions, namely on the postulates that the public sector is part of the economy and that taxes are not simply a burden laid down on the private sector, but the source of investment in the production (procurement) of public goods. Furthermore, author stresses that for more than a century one can follow the tendency of the increasing share of tax revenues in the national product, the so-called as Wagner's law. In recent decades, another - international-factor of fiscal policy is playing an increasingly importan role. This is tax competition among national states. This factor poses threat to tax bases of sovereign countries and leads, as some assume, to the appearance of tax havens, tax poaching, race-to-the botton, social dumping and other negative phenomenan which distort the natural course of economic development. This trend is supported by power centers which pursue the individualistic economic strategy and base their perception of economy on the premises of methodological individualism. Some other power centers, institutions, on the other hand, resist this tendency as harmful to the global welfare. The United Nations, OECD and partly EU assert that international harmonization in the field of taxation could be conductive to economic growth and prosperity of mankind.

The article deals with the interconnected issues of tax "burden" and international tax competition. Author bases his argumentation vis'a vis these issues on holistic assumptions, namely on the postulates that the public sector is part of the economy and that taxes are not simply a burden laid down on the private sector, but the source of investment in the production (procurement) of public goods. Furthermore, author stresses that for more than a century one can follow the tendency of the increasing share of tax revenues in the national product, the so-called as Wagner's law. In recent decades, another - international-factor of fiscal policy is playing an increasingly importan role. This is tax competition among national states. This factor poses threat to tax bases of sovereign countries and leads, as some assume, to the appearance of tax havens, tax poaching, race-to-the botton, social dumping and other negative phenomenan which distort the natural course of economic development. This trend is supported by power centers which pursue the individualistic economic strategy and base their perception of economy on the premises of methodological individualism. Some other power centers, institutions, on the other hand, resist this tendency as harmful to the global welfare. The United Nations, OECD and partly EU assert that international harmonization in the field of taxation could be conductive to economic growth and prosperity of mankind.

The article deals with the interconnected issues of tax "burden" and international tax competition. Author bases his argumentation vis'a vis these issues on holistic assumptions, namely on the postulates that the public sector is part of the economy and that taxes are not simply a burden laid down on the private sector, but the source of investment in the production (procurement) of public goods. Furthermore, author stresses that for more than a century one can follow the tendency of the increasing share of tax revenues in the national product, the so-called as Wagner's law. In recent decades, another - international-factor of fiscal policy is playing an increasingly importan role. This is tax competition among national states. This factor poses threat to tax bases of sovereign countries and leads, as some assume, to the appearance of tax havens, tax poaching, race-to-the botton, social dumping and other negative phenomenan which distort the natural course of economic development. This trend is supported by power centers which pursue the individualistic economic strategy and base their perception of economy on the premises of methodological individualism. Some other power centers, institutions, on the other hand, resist this tendency as harmful to the global welfare. The United Nations, OECD and partly EU assert that international harmonization in the field of taxation could be conductive to economic growth and prosperity of mankind.

The article deals with the interconnected issues of tax "burden" and international tax competition. Author bases his argumentation vis'a vis these issues on holistic assumptions, namely on the postulates that the public sector is part of the economy and that taxes are not simply a burden laid down on the private sector, but the source of investment in the production (procurement) of public goods. Furthermore, author stresses that for more than a century one can follow the tendency of the increasing share of tax revenues in the national product, the so-called as Wagner's law. In recent decades, another - international-factor of fiscal policy is playing an increasingly importan role. This is tax competition among national states. This factor poses threat to tax bases of sovereign countries and leads, as some assume, to the appearance of tax havens, tax poaching, race-to-the botton, social dumping and other negative phenomenan which distort the natural course of economic development. This trend is supported by power centers which pursue the individualistic economic strategy and base their perception of economy on the premises of methodological individualism. Some other power centers, institutions, on the other hand, resist this tendency as harmful to the global welfare. The United Nations, OECD and partly EU assert that international harmonization in the field of taxation could be conductive to economic growth and prosperity of mankind.

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 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.