Suchergebnisse

It is suggested that the reader consider an earlier publication by the same authors with a similar theme: "Perceptions of criminal justice in society" (Dobryninas, A., Dobrynina, M., Česnienė, I., Giedraitis, V., Merkevičius, R. "On Perceptions of Criminal Justice in Society." Sociologija: Mintis ir veiksmas. 2012. Issue 2. pg. 222–238). This article empirically illustrates how criminal justice principles are used to understand different social groups' perspectives, what are the similarities and differences between these groups, how the intergroup communications about criminal justice issues form, and so on. The authors analyzed and summarized qualitative data (focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews with Lithuanian criminal justice experts, politicians, journalists, community leaders) and quantitative data (using a Lithuanian representative survey of the population and Lithuanian mass media content analysis), which was collected during 2012–2014. The first chapter is devoted to the social normative perceptions of criminal justice, the second – the economic and political aspects which influenced the understanding of criminal justice in society, and the third chapter – examines the influence of mass media on the Lithuanian Criminal Justice system's public image. It is concluded that a consensus on the implementation of the principles of criminal justice among different groups is possible only in part. While the needs are the same as the criminal justice system, decisions must be impartial, objective, humane, equal for all, but how to achieve such a consensus of opinions is very divided. The study participants indicated a variety of reasons that impede the achievement of a mutual understanding: financial constraints, lack of inter-institutional cooperation, party or individual interests take precedence over the interests of society, the role of the media and so on. It is also proposed to improve the current situation in the organization and promotion of communication and alignment of interest between different social groups that have to be done in cooperation with the mass media and other governmental and nongovernmental institutions.

It is suggested that the reader consider an earlier publication by the same authors with a similar theme: "Perceptions of criminal justice in society" (Dobryninas, A., Dobrynina, M., Česnienė, I., Giedraitis, V., Merkevičius, R. "On Perceptions of Criminal Justice in Society." Sociologija: Mintis ir veiksmas. 2012. Issue 2. pg. 222–238). This article empirically illustrates how criminal justice principles are used to understand different social groups' perspectives, what are the similarities and differences between these groups, how the intergroup communications about criminal justice issues form, and so on. The authors analyzed and summarized qualitative data (focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews with Lithuanian criminal justice experts, politicians, journalists, community leaders) and quantitative data (using a Lithuanian representative survey of the population and Lithuanian mass media content analysis), which was collected during 2012–2014. The first chapter is devoted to the social normative perceptions of criminal justice, the second – the economic and political aspects which influenced the understanding of criminal justice in society, and the third chapter – examines the influence of mass media on the Lithuanian Criminal Justice system's public image. It is concluded that a consensus on the implementation of the principles of criminal justice among different groups is possible only in part. While the needs are the same as the criminal justice system, decisions must be impartial, objective, humane, equal for all, but how to achieve such a consensus of opinions is very divided. The study participants indicated a variety of reasons that impede the achievement of a mutual understanding: financial constraints, lack of inter-institutional cooperation, party or individual interests take precedence over the interests of society, the role of the media and so on. It is also proposed to improve the current situation in the organization and promotion of communication and alignment of interest between different social groups that have to be done in cooperation with the mass media and other governmental and nongovernmental institutions.

It is suggested that the reader consider an earlier publication by the same authors with a similar theme: "Perceptions of criminal justice in society" (Dobryninas, A., Dobrynina, M., Česnienė, I., Giedraitis, V., Merkevičius, R. "On Perceptions of Criminal Justice in Society." Sociologija: Mintis ir veiksmas. 2012. Issue 2. pg. 222–238). This article empirically illustrates how criminal justice principles are used to understand different social groups' perspectives, what are the similarities and differences between these groups, how the intergroup communications about criminal justice issues form, and so on. The authors analyzed and summarized qualitative data (focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews with Lithuanian criminal justice experts, politicians, journalists, community leaders) and quantitative data (using a Lithuanian representative survey of the population and Lithuanian mass media content analysis), which was collected during 2012–2014. The first chapter is devoted to the social normative perceptions of criminal justice, the second – the economic and political aspects which influenced the understanding of criminal justice in society, and the third chapter – examines the influence of mass media on the Lithuanian Criminal Justice system's public image. It is concluded that a consensus on the implementation of the principles of criminal justice among different groups is possible only in part. While the needs are the same as the criminal justice system, decisions must be impartial, objective, humane, equal for all, but how to achieve such a consensus of opinions is very divided. The study participants indicated a variety of reasons that impede the achievement of a mutual understanding: financial constraints, lack of inter-institutional cooperation, party or individual interests take precedence over the interests of society, the role of the media and so on. It is also proposed to improve the current situation in the organization and promotion of communication and alignment of interest between different social groups that have to be done in cooperation with the mass media and other governmental and nongovernmental institutions.

It is suggested that the reader consider an earlier publication by the same authors with a similar theme: "Perceptions of criminal justice in society" (Dobryninas, A., Dobrynina, M., Česnienė, I., Giedraitis, V., Merkevičius, R. "On Perceptions of Criminal Justice in Society." Sociologija: Mintis ir veiksmas. 2012. Issue 2. pg. 222–238). This article empirically illustrates how criminal justice principles are used to understand different social groups' perspectives, what are the similarities and differences between these groups, how the intergroup communications about criminal justice issues form, and so on. The authors analyzed and summarized qualitative data (focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews with Lithuanian criminal justice experts, politicians, journalists, community leaders) and quantitative data (using a Lithuanian representative survey of the population and Lithuanian mass media content analysis), which was collected during 2012–2014. The first chapter is devoted to the social normative perceptions of criminal justice, the second – the economic and political aspects which influenced the understanding of criminal justice in society, and the third chapter – examines the influence of mass media on the Lithuanian Criminal Justice system's public image. It is concluded that a consensus on the implementation of the principles of criminal justice among different groups is possible only in part. While the needs are the same as the criminal justice system, decisions must be impartial, objective, humane, equal for all, but how to achieve such a consensus of opinions is very divided. The study participants indicated a variety of reasons that impede the achievement of a mutual understanding: financial constraints, lack of inter-institutional cooperation, party or individual interests take precedence over the interests of society, the role of the media and so on. It is also proposed to improve the current situation in the organization and promotion of communication and alignment of interest between different social groups that have to be done in cooperation with the mass media and other governmental and nongovernmental institutions.

It is suggested that the reader consider an earlier publication by the same authors with a similar theme: "Perceptions of criminal justice in society" (Dobryninas, A., Dobrynina, M., Česnienė, I., Giedraitis, V., Merkevičius, R. "On Perceptions of Criminal Justice in Society." Sociologija: Mintis ir veiksmas. 2012. Issue 2. pg. 222–238). This article empirically illustrates how criminal justice principles are used to understand different social groups' perspectives, what are the similarities and differences between these groups, how the intergroup communications about criminal justice issues form, and so on. The authors analyzed and summarized qualitative data (focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews with Lithuanian criminal justice experts, politicians, journalists, community leaders) and quantitative data (using a Lithuanian representative survey of the population and Lithuanian mass media content analysis), which was collected during 2012–2014. The first chapter is devoted to the social normative perceptions of criminal justice, the second – the economic and political aspects which influenced the understanding of criminal justice in society, and the third chapter – examines the influence of mass media on the Lithuanian Criminal Justice system's public image. It is concluded that a consensus on the implementation of the principles of criminal justice among different groups is possible only in part. While the needs are the same as the criminal justice system, decisions must be impartial, objective, humane, equal for all, but how to achieve such a consensus of opinions is very divided. The study participants indicated a variety of reasons that impede the achievement of a mutual understanding: financial constraints, lack of inter-institutional cooperation, party or individual interests take precedence over the interests of society, the role of the media and so on. It is also proposed to improve the current situation in the organization and promotion of communication and alignment of interest ...

The article begins with a discussion of the transitional justice concept, which is followed by a brief overview of the developments of the study field. It notes that the classical works on transitional justice focus on the implementation of various transitional justice policies, their adaptability to specific needs of societies, emerging after a repressive rule or a violent ethnic conflict, and the possible benefits resulting from an active engagement in the past, whereas the more recent inquiries demonstrate an important empirical turn. Since the year 2000, there has been an increase in comparative studies attempting to empirically verify the effect of transitional justice mechanisms on societal transitions. This new wave of research calls into question the previous assumption regarding the ability of transitional justice mechanisms to contribute to peace and reconciliation and demonstrates that this relationship may be more complicated than initially thought. The article continues with the discussion of the main debates in the field. It covers the well-known debates on Peace vs. Justice, Truth vs. Justice, and provides an overview of the problems faced by those attempting to explore the causal relationship among the transitional justice mechanisms and societal reconciliation, democratization and peace. The methodological issues of definitions and problems with proving causality are addressed. The article concludes with recommendations for future inquiries.

The article begins with a discussion of the transitional justice concept, which is followed by a brief overview of the developments of the study field. It notes that the classical works on transitional justice focus on the implementation of various transitional justice policies, their adaptability to specific needs of societies, emerging after a repressive rule or a violent ethnic conflict, and the possible benefits resulting from an active engagement in the past, whereas the more recent inquiries demonstrate an important empirical turn. Since the year 2000, there has been an increase in comparative studies attempting to empirically verify the effect of transitional justice mechanisms on societal transitions. This new wave of research calls into question the previous assumption regarding the ability of transitional justice mechanisms to contribute to peace and reconciliation and demonstrates that this relationship may be more complicated than initially thought. The article continues with the discussion of the main debates in the field. It covers the well-known debates on Peace vs. Justice, Truth vs. Justice, and provides an overview of the problems faced by those attempting to explore the causal relationship among the transitional justice mechanisms and societal reconciliation, democratization and peace. The methodological issues of definitions and problems with proving causality are addressed. The article concludes with recommendations for future inquiries.

The article begins with a discussion of the transitional justice concept, which is followed by a brief overview of the developments of the study field. It notes that the classical works on transitional justice focus on the implementation of various transitional justice policies, their adaptability to specific needs of societies, emerging after a repressive rule or a violent ethnic conflict, and the possible benefits resulting from an active engagement in the past, whereas the more recent inquiries demonstrate an important empirical turn. Since the year 2000, there has been an increase in comparative studies attempting to empirically verify the effect of transitional justice mechanisms on societal transitions. This new wave of research calls into question the previous assumption regarding the ability of transitional justice mechanisms to contribute to peace and reconciliation and demonstrates that this relationship may be more complicated than initially thought. The article continues with the discussion of the main debates in the field. It covers the well-known debates on Peace vs. Justice, Truth vs. Justice, and provides an overview of the problems faced by those attempting to explore the causal relationship among the transitional justice mechanisms and societal reconciliation, democratization and peace. The methodological issues of definitions and problems with proving causality are addressed. The article concludes with recommendations for future inquiries.

The article begins with a discussion of the transitional justice concept, which is followed by a brief overview of the developments of the study field. It notes that the classical works on transitional justice focus on the implementation of various transitional justice policies, their adaptability to specific needs of societies, emerging after a repressive rule or a violent ethnic conflict, and the possible benefits resulting from an active engagement in the past, whereas the more recent inquiries demonstrate an important empirical turn. Since the year 2000, there has been an increase in comparative studies attempting to empirically verify the effect of transitional justice mechanisms on societal transitions. This new wave of research calls into question the previous assumption regarding the ability of transitional justice mechanisms to contribute to peace and reconciliation and demonstrates that this relationship may be more complicated than initially thought. The article continues with the discussion of the main debates in the field. It covers the well-known debates on Peace vs. Justice, Truth vs. Justice, and provides an overview of the problems faced by those attempting to explore the causal relationship among the transitional justice mechanisms and societal reconciliation, democratization and peace. The methodological issues of definitions and problems with proving causality are addressed. The article concludes with recommendations for future inquiries.

Master's degree theme – Administration and modernization of apartment buidings in Klaipėda city municipality. Themes actuality is about sustainable development, which is closely related to implementation of governance principles in the public sector. Work objective – to evaluate the administration and modernization of apartment buildings in Klaipėda city municipality. Tasks set for the implementation of the goal: analyze multi-apartment houses from the theory view; examine multi-apartment houses modernization process in Lithuania by reviewing the legal regulation, modernization need and implemented practice; carry out Administration and modernization of apartment buidings research in Klaipėda city municipality, from the point of view of the representatives of the administering companies. From theoretically perspective, analyzing multi-apartment building administration and modernization concept as one of components of housing policy. Reviewing administration and modernization of apartment buidings legal regulation and from that occuring problems, providing administration forms and modernization review. Revealing the need of modernization in the context of sustainable development. To answer the question about multi-apartment building occuring problems by modernizating them in Klaipėda city, a qualitative study was performed, during which promoting and hindering factors of modernization were realised, identified the problems which are faced by multi-aparment administration workers and revealed the methods which workers use to encourages habitants for modernization. This research revealed that administration of apartment buidings workers are facing variety of problems like negative attitude and passivity of habitants towards modernization, lack of will for cooperating and communicating. Multi-apartment building administrators are taking initiatives to encourage residents to become more involved in the management of their home. One of the main problems – difficult communication proccess. The modernization process is ...

This article gives the overview of the implementation of strategic planning system in Lithuania and identifies the problems that were posed while implementing the mentioned system. The reforms were practically implemented in 2000 when the Strategic Planning Manual was adopted by the Government of Lithuania. The Manual provides instructions for the preparation of strategic plans. In 2000 for the first time ministries' and Government agencies' strategic plans were prepared following the budget formation cycle for the year 2001. Following the Manual the ministries and Government agencies pointed out expected results they wanted to achieve. In this way the activity transformed from process oriented into result oriented. Monitoring and reporting is a fundamental part of a good planning process and in 2002 for the first time ministries and Government agencies have reported on the results achieved against their planning targets. This article also includes analysis of experience as well as suggestions for future improvement. Progress is required at two levels: first, the political level (the Prime Minister and Ministers) needs to be more actively involved in the deliberations on priority setting. Second, the administrative level needs to improve decision–making process. ; Straipsnio tikslas – supažindinti skaitytojus su strateginio planavimo diegimo Lietuvoje patirtimi, apibrėžti iškilusias problemas bei suformuluoti galimas tobulinimo kryptis. Praktinio – apžvalginio pobūdžio straipsnyje pateikiamos strateginio planavimo diegimo Lietuvoje ištakos, Vyriausybės aprobuotos Strateginio planavimo metodikos pagrindiniai principai bei jos taikymas viešojo administravimo institucijose. Esminių pokyčių įvyko 2000 metais, kai ministerijų ir Vyriausybės įstaigų strateginių veiklos planų rengimas buvo integruotas į 2001 metų valstybės biudžeto rengimo ciklą. Vadovaudamosi patvirtinta Strateginio planavimo metodika, institucijos pirmą kartą nurodė, kokiems konkretiems tikslams bus panaudoti valstybės biudžeto asignavimai ir kokių konkrečių rezultatų tikisi pasiekti. Taigi strateginis planavimas reikalauja institucijų veiklą orientuoti į rezultatą, o ne į procesą. 2002 metais ministerijos ir Vyriausybės įstaigos pirmą kartą atsiskaitė už strateginiuose planuose numatytų tikslų įgyvendinimą. Autoriai, remdamiesi dvejų metų strateginio planavimo patirtimi, straipsnyje pateikia pasiūlymų, kaip toliau tobulinti procesą. Akcentuojama būtinybė formuojant viešąją politiką tobulinti prioritetų nustatymą, o ją įgyvendinant – tobulinti visą sprendimų priėmimo procesą.

The European Communiy was, and still is, to a large extent, concerned with the economic aim of creating a common market. At the time of the establishment of the Community, any social benefit was merely an advantageous consequence of the desire to avoid distortions of competition. Therefore it is not surprising that the Treaty of the European Community itself hardly contains any genuine fundamental labour right which the Community institutions and Mamber States should respect when exercising their powers. The fact that the Community has gradually transformed itself into an organization that has labour rights high on its agenda is for a major part due to the proactive stance of the Court of Justice. Ever since 1969 it has been clear from the Courts' case-law that fundamental human rights in general are part of the general principles of Community law and protected by the Court. The Court has also recognized certain labour rights as fundamental human rights. In certain cases the Court of Justice went further than merely recognizing fundmental labour rights as a "touchstone". Sometimes the Court engages in the creation of detailed actively enforceable labour rights. The Court has often provided detailed guidelines for a genuine enforcement of certain labour rights. I recall, for instance, the principle of equal pay for equal work and work of equal value, the rights to a wide range of social benefits for migrant workers, the freedom of associations and the freedom to choose an occupation and the right to engage in work. Thus the aim of the research work is to give a topical and exemplary overview of the labour rights that the European Court of Justice has determined and introduced into the Community legal order. Apart from fostering labour rights through the impact of Community law on the Member States' social policies, the Court of Justice has also played a major role in the actual creation of European labour rights. This research work is also intended to show that most of the labour rights and freedoms guaranteed in the International conventions of social rights and the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union have already been recognized by the Court of Justice. However, the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union has made a number of labour rights more visible. In doing so, it will undoubtedly contribute to the invocability of those rights by the subjects of the European Union legal order. The Charter allows the Court of Justice to continue to play the socially activist role it has often played throughout the past years. Such a proactive role of the Court in determination of labour rights has once again reaffirmed that respect to human rights, including labour rights, is of an exceptional importance in the European Union scale of values.

The European Communiy was, and still is, to a large extent, concerned with the economic aim of creating a common market. At the time of the establishment of the Community, any social benefit was merely an advantageous consequence of the desire to avoid distortions of competition. Therefore it is not surprising that the Treaty of the European Community itself hardly contains any genuine fundamental labour right which the Community institutions and Mamber States should respect when exercising their powers. The fact that the Community has gradually transformed itself into an organization that has labour rights high on its agenda is for a major part due to the proactive stance of the Court of Justice. Ever since 1969 it has been clear from the Courts' case-law that fundamental human rights in general are part of the general principles of Community law and protected by the Court. The Court has also recognized certain labour rights as fundamental human rights. In certain cases the Court of Justice went further than merely recognizing fundmental labour rights as a "touchstone". Sometimes the Court engages in the creation of detailed actively enforceable labour rights. The Court has often provided detailed guidelines for a genuine enforcement of certain labour rights. I recall, for instance, the principle of equal pay for equal work and work of equal value, the rights to a wide range of social benefits for migrant workers, the freedom of associations and the freedom to choose an occupation and the right to engage in work. Thus the aim of the research work is to give a topical and exemplary overview of the labour rights that the European Court of Justice has determined and introduced into the Community legal order. Apart from fostering labour rights through the impact of Community law on the Member States' social policies, the Court of Justice has also played a major role in the actual creation of European labour rights. This research work is also intended to show that most of the labour rights and freedoms guaranteed in the International conventions of social rights and the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union have already been recognized by the Court of Justice. However, the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union has made a number of labour rights more visible. In doing so, it will undoubtedly contribute to the invocability of those rights by the subjects of the European Union legal order. The Charter allows the Court of Justice to continue to play the socially activist role it has often played throughout the past years. Such a proactive role of the Court in determination of labour rights has once again reaffirmed that respect to human rights, including labour rights, is of an exceptional importance in the European Union scale of values.

The European Communiy was, and still is, to a large extent, concerned with the economic aim of creating a common market. At the time of the establishment of the Community, any social benefit was merely an advantageous consequence of the desire to avoid distortions of competition. Therefore it is not surprising that the Treaty of the European Community itself hardly contains any genuine fundamental labour right which the Community institutions and Mamber States should respect when exercising their powers. The fact that the Community has gradually transformed itself into an organization that has labour rights high on its agenda is for a major part due to the proactive stance of the Court of Justice. Ever since 1969 it has been clear from the Courts' case-law that fundamental human rights in general are part of the general principles of Community law and protected by the Court. The Court has also recognized certain labour rights as fundamental human rights. In certain cases the Court of Justice went further than merely recognizing fundmental labour rights as a "touchstone". Sometimes the Court engages in the creation of detailed actively enforceable labour rights. The Court has often provided detailed guidelines for a genuine enforcement of certain labour rights. I recall, for instance, the principle of equal pay for equal work and work of equal value, the rights to a wide range of social benefits for migrant workers, the freedom of associations and the freedom to choose an occupation and the right to engage in work. Thus the aim of the research work is to give a topical and exemplary overview of the labour rights that the European Court of Justice has determined and introduced into the Community legal order. Apart from fostering labour rights through the impact of Community law on the Member States' social policies, the Court of Justice has also played a major role in the actual creation of European labour rights. This research work is also intended to show that most of the labour rights and freedoms guaranteed in the International conventions of social rights and the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union have already been recognized by the Court of Justice. However, the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union has made a number of labour rights more visible. In doing so, it will undoubtedly contribute to the invocability of those rights by the subjects of the European Union legal order. The Charter allows the Court of Justice to continue to play the socially activist role it has often played throughout the past years. Such a proactive role of the Court in determination of labour rights has once again reaffirmed that respect to human rights, including labour rights, is of an exceptional importance in the European Union scale of values.

The European Communiy was, and still is, to a large extent, concerned with the economic aim of creating a common market. At the time of the establishment of the Community, any social benefit was merely an advantageous consequence of the desire to avoid distortions of competition. Therefore it is not surprising that the Treaty of the European Community itself hardly contains any genuine fundamental labour right which the Community institutions and Mamber States should respect when exercising their powers. The fact that the Community has gradually transformed itself into an organization that has labour rights high on its agenda is for a major part due to the proactive stance of the Court of Justice. Ever since 1969 it has been clear from the Courts' case-law that fundamental human rights in general are part of the general principles of Community law and protected by the Court. The Court has also recognized certain labour rights as fundamental human rights. In certain cases the Court of Justice went further than merely recognizing fundmental labour rights as a "touchstone". Sometimes the Court engages in the creation of detailed actively enforceable labour rights. The Court has often provided detailed guidelines for a genuine enforcement of certain labour rights. I recall, for instance, the principle of equal pay for equal work and work of equal value, the rights to a wide range of social benefits for migrant workers, the freedom of associations and the freedom to choose an occupation and the right to engage in work. Thus the aim of the research work is to give a topical and exemplary overview of the labour rights that the European Court of Justice has determined and introduced into the Community legal order. Apart from fostering labour rights through the impact of Community law on the Member States' social policies, the Court of Justice has also played a major role in the actual creation of European labour rights. This research work is also intended to show that most of the labour rights and freedoms guaranteed in the International conventions of social rights and the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union have already been recognized by the Court of Justice. However, the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union has made a number of labour rights more visible. In doing so, it will undoubtedly contribute to the invocability of those rights by the subjects of the European Union legal order. The Charter allows the Court of Justice to continue to play the socially activist role it has often played throughout the past years. Such a proactive role of the Court in determination of labour rights has once again reaffirmed that respect to human rights, including labour rights, is of an exceptional importance in the European Union scale of values.