John Rawls's famous "A theory of justice" firmly established itself as a classical work in the field of political philosophy. There is a huge mass of critical literature on it dealing with various details and aspects. Yet it seems nobody noticed some fatal internal inconsistency at the very basis of the project. That is, the fact that Rawlsian aim to make a theory of justice more geometrico diverges from his explicit belief in the unconditional value of justice and its conceptual independence of rationality.
John Rawls's famous "A theory of justice" firmly established itself as a classical work in the field of political philosophy. There is a huge mass of critical literature on it dealing with various details and aspects. Yet it seems nobody noticed some fatal internal inconsistency at the very basis of the project. That is, the fact that Rawlsian aim to make a theory of justice more geometrico diverges from his explicit belief in the unconditional value of justice and its conceptual independence of rationality.
John Rawls's famous "A theory of justice" firmly established itself as a classical work in the field of political philosophy. There is a huge mass of critical literature on it dealing with various details and aspects. Yet it seems nobody noticed some fatal internal inconsistency at the very basis of the project. That is, the fact that Rawlsian aim to make a theory of justice more geometrico diverges from his explicit belief in the unconditional value of justice and its conceptual independence of rationality.
John Rawls's famous "A theory of justice" firmly established itself as a classical work in the field of political philosophy. There is a huge mass of critical literature on it dealing with various details and aspects. Yet it seems nobody noticed some fatal internal inconsistency at the very basis of the project. That is, the fact that Rawlsian aim to make a theory of justice more geometrico diverges from his explicit belief in the unconditional value of justice and its conceptual independence of rationality.
Article analysis the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereina?er – CJEU or the Court) during development of mutual recognition principle in criminal justice. Firstly, it is being observed that CJEU has not given an explicit de\"nition regarding mutual recognition. However, the Court has acknowledged the principle as the foundation of criminal cooperation between Member states in European Union. In its rullings CJEU dealt with collisions between mutual recognition and other main principles of law such as non-discrimination, legality, proportionality. =e Court with the use of "mutual borrowing" has successfully incorporated mutual recognition into the European Union legal system and deepened the notion of it being as high as a constitutional level principle. =e research has clearly demonstrated that CJEU is an active defender of mutual trust which is the basis of mutual recognition principle. =e Court has established an unambiguous rule that Member state cannot follow any formal procedure during recognition of a decision. Besides this, CJEU has been straightforward about Member states having to fully trust one another and recognize a decision despite that the outcome according to its national legislation would be di^erent. On the other hand, recent position of the Court has slightly so?ened. According to CJEU, mutual trust can be contested by exceptional circumstances, especially by those, related to the protection of human rights. What is more, the Court proclaims the importance of mutual trust not only by explaining legal provisions related to principle of mutual recognition. CJEU has become a convenient platform for Member states to exchange their views regarding mutual recognition and to make each others legal systems more familiar as well. Cooperation between Member states during criminal proceedings goes hand in hand with the protection of human rights. =e Court, as an interpreter of related legal provisions, plays an important role in this matter as human rights has not been a priority while creating an efective system of international cooperation in criminal cases. Nonetheless, CJEU's position regarding protection of human rights remains quite controversial as it is not clear yet what is the relationship between the Court and the Court of Human Rights. =e importance of this area is supposed to grow as European Union through new legislation gradually strengthens the rights of suspects during criminal cooperation which means that the scope for CJEU's interpretations expands. In addition, the Court directly in&uences aspects of reintegration which are of the utmost importance ensuring proper protection of the interests of a convict.
Article analysis the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereina?er – CJEU or the Court) during development of mutual recognition principle in criminal justice. Firstly, it is being observed that CJEU has not given an explicit de\"nition regarding mutual recognition. However, the Court has acknowledged the principle as the foundation of criminal cooperation between Member states in European Union. In its rullings CJEU dealt with collisions between mutual recognition and other main principles of law such as non-discrimination, legality, proportionality. =e Court with the use of "mutual borrowing" has successfully incorporated mutual recognition into the European Union legal system and deepened the notion of it being as high as a constitutional level principle. =e research has clearly demonstrated that CJEU is an active defender of mutual trust which is the basis of mutual recognition principle. =e Court has established an unambiguous rule that Member state cannot follow any formal procedure during recognition of a decision. Besides this, CJEU has been straightforward about Member states having to fully trust one another and recognize a decision despite that the outcome according to its national legislation would be di^erent. On the other hand, recent position of the Court has slightly so?ened. According to CJEU, mutual trust can be contested by exceptional circumstances, especially by those, related to the protection of human rights. What is more, the Court proclaims the importance of mutual trust not only by explaining legal provisions related to principle of mutual recognition. CJEU has become a convenient platform for Member states to exchange their views regarding mutual recognition and to make each others legal systems more familiar as well. Cooperation between Member states during criminal proceedings goes hand in hand with the protection of human rights. =e Court, as an interpreter of related legal provisions, plays an important role in this matter as human rights has not been a priority while creating an efective system of international cooperation in criminal cases. Nonetheless, CJEU's position regarding protection of human rights remains quite controversial as it is not clear yet what is the relationship between the Court and the Court of Human Rights. =e importance of this area is supposed to grow as European Union through new legislation gradually strengthens the rights of suspects during criminal cooperation which means that the scope for CJEU's interpretations expands. In addition, the Court directly in&uences aspects of reintegration which are of the utmost importance ensuring proper protection of the interests of a convict.
Innovation in the age of globalisation is one of the essential aspects in the context of public administration, and solves the problems of modernisation of public administration influenced by global processes. In order to achieve improvement in the social, economic and technological areas, the public management organisation has to seek the innovation implementation process, it is expedient for it to assimilate the importance of innovativeness in the organisation. The adaptation of innovations in public administration improves the performance of organisations and enables public structures to operate more efficiently. The new public governace is considered to be an essential paradigm of today's public administration, which is changing, open to innovations and improvement. Therefore, it is believed that the successful innovation of a public administration organization can be determined by human resources, information technology and networking factors. The Master's Thesis raises a problematic question: What impact do the factors of the new public governance (human resources, information technologies and networking) have on the innovation of Administration of Šilutė district municipality (hereinafter – Administration)? The aim is to determine the impact of the new public governance factors to the innovativeness of Administration. To achieve this goal, three tasks are set: to review innovativeness in the public sector, based on the legal regulation of the European Union and national level; to analyze the factors of the new public governance in the context of innovativeness, detailing the concept of the new public governance; to carry out a study in order to assess the impact of the new public governance factors on the innovativeness of the Administration. The object of research was the Administration of Šilutė district municipality. The Thesis shows that innovations are important components of the activities of organisations regulated at the European Union and national level, and the factors of the new public governance are significant factors in the field of innovativness of public organisation. The results of the research showed that in the Administration, the factors of human resources, information technologies and networking have a significant impact to the innovativeness of the organisation. The highest impact is lead by the information technologies factor, the minor – by the networking factor.
Innovation in the age of globalisation is one of the essential aspects in the context of public administration, and solves the problems of modernisation of public administration influenced by global processes. In order to achieve improvement in the social, economic and technological areas, the public management organisation has to seek the innovation implementation process, it is expedient for it to assimilate the importance of innovativeness in the organisation. The adaptation of innovations in public administration improves the performance of organisations and enables public structures to operate more efficiently. The new public governace is considered to be an essential paradigm of today's public administration, which is changing, open to innovations and improvement. Therefore, it is believed that the successful innovation of a public administration organization can be determined by human resources, information technology and networking factors. The Master's Thesis raises a problematic question: What impact do the factors of the new public governance (human resources, information technologies and networking) have on the innovation of Administration of Šilutė district municipality (hereinafter – Administration)? The aim is to determine the impact of the new public governance factors to the innovativeness of Administration. To achieve this goal, three tasks are set: to review innovativeness in the public sector, based on the legal regulation of the European Union and national level; to analyze the factors of the new public governance in the context of innovativeness, detailing the concept of the new public governance; to carry out a study in order to assess the impact of the new public governance factors on the innovativeness of the Administration. The object of research was the Administration of Šilutė district municipality. The Thesis shows that innovations are important components of the activities of organisations regulated at the European Union and national level, and the factors of the new public governance are significant factors in the field of innovativness of public organisation. The results of the research showed that in the Administration, the factors of human resources, information technologies and networking have a significant impact to the innovativeness of the organisation. The highest impact is lead by the information technologies factor, the minor – by the networking factor.
Innovation in the age of globalisation is one of the essential aspects in the context of public administration, and solves the problems of modernisation of public administration influenced by global processes. In order to achieve improvement in the social, economic and technological areas, the public management organisation has to seek the innovation implementation process, it is expedient for it to assimilate the importance of innovativeness in the organisation. The adaptation of innovations in public administration improves the performance of organisations and enables public structures to operate more efficiently. The new public governace is considered to be an essential paradigm of today's public administration, which is changing, open to innovations and improvement. Therefore, it is believed that the successful innovation of a public administration organization can be determined by human resources, information technology and networking factors. The Master's Thesis raises a problematic question: What impact do the factors of the new public governance (human resources, information technologies and networking) have on the innovation of Administration of Šilutė district municipality (hereinafter – Administration)? The aim is to determine the impact of the new public governance factors to the innovativeness of Administration. To achieve this goal, three tasks are set: to review innovativeness in the public sector, based on the legal regulation of the European Union and national level; to analyze the factors of the new public governance in the context of innovativeness, detailing the concept of the new public governance; to carry out a study in order to assess the impact of the new public governance factors on the innovativeness of the Administration. The object of research was the Administration of Šilutė district municipality. The Thesis shows that innovations are important components of the activities of organisations regulated at the European Union and national level, and the factors of the new public governance are significant factors in the field of innovativness of public organisation. The results of the research showed that in the Administration, the factors of human resources, information technologies and networking have a significant impact to the innovativeness of the organisation. The highest impact is lead by the information technologies factor, the minor – by the networking factor.
Innovation in the age of globalisation is one of the essential aspects in the context of public administration, and solves the problems of modernisation of public administration influenced by global processes. In order to achieve improvement in the social, economic and technological areas, the public management organisation has to seek the innovation implementation process, it is expedient for it to assimilate the importance of innovativeness in the organisation. The adaptation of innovations in public administration improves the performance of organisations and enables public structures to operate more efficiently. The new public governace is considered to be an essential paradigm of today's public administration, which is changing, open to innovations and improvement. Therefore, it is believed that the successful innovation of a public administration organization can be determined by human resources, information technology and networking factors. The Master's Thesis raises a problematic question: What impact do the factors of the new public governance (human resources, information technologies and networking) have on the innovation of Administration of Šilutė district municipality (hereinafter – Administration)? The aim is to determine the impact of the new public governance factors to the innovativeness of Administration. To achieve this goal, three tasks are set: to review innovativeness in the public sector, based on the legal regulation of the European Union and national level; to analyze the factors of the new public governance in the context of innovativeness, detailing the concept of the new public governance; to carry out a study in order to assess the impact of the new public governance factors on the innovativeness of the Administration. The object of research was the Administration of Šilutė district municipality. The Thesis shows that innovations are important components of the activities of organisations regulated at the European Union and national level, and the factors of the new public governance are significant factors in the field of innovativness of public organisation. The results of the research showed that in the Administration, the factors of human resources, information technologies and networking have a significant impact to the innovativeness of the organisation. The highest impact is lead by the information technologies factor, the minor – by the networking factor.
The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.
The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.
The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.
The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.
The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.
