Suchergebnisse

Therefore, in such catholic countries as Lithuania, the euthanasia problem is rather relevant. The liberal world often argues about different forms of death: abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia. Definitely, that's not just finance or policy; it's a human's life. However the case when the human's life collapses and just the heart and brain are functioning is possible. It is very important to find out both what the society's approach and arguments towards euthanasia are and euthanasia legitimacy. Therefore, it is the key issue of this paper. The object of this paper is the euthanasia legitimacy problem. The aims are evaluation of society's approach towards euthanasia and identification of the key euthanasia legitimacy problems. The goals are following: 1. to review and evaluate Lithuanian and global approach towards euthanasia and life, legal regulation; 2. to analyze approaches of different society groups, arguments for and against euthanasia legitimacy; 3. to identify euthanasia legitimacy problems. The Christian culture as well as other cultures acknowledges the exclusive right to the human life. Considering that, the human life is the main value in the international documents, legal European Union documents as well as in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. In addition to that fact, there is no united opinion about euthanasia legitimacy question in the whole Europe. Facts relative to idea that each human is private person with own moral and religious provisions, whether to maintain life or not in the case of critical condition should be considered personally. There are various arguments regarding importance of the following things such as exclusive priority for the human life and human privacy (right to choose). Considering that euthanasia is forbidden in some countries and some of them allow doing that (Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxemburg and State of Oregon). Euthanasia is forbidden in Lithuania, but it is possible to meet features of passive voluntary euthanasia in legal acts, where a patient has the right to refuse the treatment. The society is ready to legitimize euthanasia in Lithuania. Acceptance is related to approach to the life. The humans who consider the life as the highest spiritual worth disagree with euthanasia legitimacy and opponents consider the life as biological condition which is created by human (the beginning is pregnancy and end of life is death). The society is minded to accept voluntary euthanasia. The society has to decide on that in the way of referendum. Part of the society would be ready to agree with euthanasia in the hopeless cases. Determination depends on agreement or disagreement with euthanasia. Majority confirms that life is the highest value, but on the other hand that part agrees with euthanasia. Therefore, the society goes round in circles between choice of traditional and postmodern values. Agreement with euthanasia shows that values system transforms rejecting traditional values, ethical provisions and that leads to the system of postmodern values. This fact determines undervaluation of traditional values and norms, different approaches to religious and moral provisions, backsliding from the Church and increasing individuality. Euthanasia legitimacy problems arise due to different society groups approaches. There are many opinions among representatives of different professions, men and women and etc.

Therefore, in such catholic countries as Lithuania, the euthanasia problem is rather relevant. The liberal world often argues about different forms of death: abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia. Definitely, that's not just finance or policy; it's a human's life. However the case when the human's life collapses and just the heart and brain are functioning is possible. It is very important to find out both what the society's approach and arguments towards euthanasia are and euthanasia legitimacy. Therefore, it is the key issue of this paper. The object of this paper is the euthanasia legitimacy problem. The aims are evaluation of society's approach towards euthanasia and identification of the key euthanasia legitimacy problems. The goals are following: 1. to review and evaluate Lithuanian and global approach towards euthanasia and life, legal regulation; 2. to analyze approaches of different society groups, arguments for and against euthanasia legitimacy; 3. to identify euthanasia legitimacy problems. The Christian culture as well as other cultures acknowledges the exclusive right to the human life. Considering that, the human life is the main value in the international documents, legal European Union documents as well as in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. In addition to that fact, there is no united opinion about euthanasia legitimacy question in the whole Europe. Facts relative to idea that each human is private person with own moral and religious provisions, whether to maintain life or not in the case of critical condition should be considered personally. There are various arguments regarding importance of the following things such as exclusive priority for the human life and human privacy (right to choose). Considering that euthanasia is forbidden in some countries and some of them allow doing that (Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxemburg and State of Oregon). Euthanasia is forbidden in Lithuania, but it is possible to meet features of passive voluntary euthanasia in legal acts, where a patient has the right to refuse the treatment. The society is ready to legitimize euthanasia in Lithuania. Acceptance is related to approach to the life. The humans who consider the life as the highest spiritual worth disagree with euthanasia legitimacy and opponents consider the life as biological condition which is created by human (the beginning is pregnancy and end of life is death). The society is minded to accept voluntary euthanasia. The society has to decide on that in the way of referendum. Part of the society would be ready to agree with euthanasia in the hopeless cases. Determination depends on agreement or disagreement with euthanasia. Majority confirms that life is the highest value, but on the other hand that part agrees with euthanasia. Therefore, the society goes round in circles between choice of traditional and postmodern values. Agreement with euthanasia shows that values system transforms rejecting traditional values, ethical provisions and that leads to the system of postmodern values. This fact determines undervaluation of traditional values and norms, different approaches to religious and moral provisions, backsliding from the Church and increasing individuality. Euthanasia legitimacy problems arise due to different society groups approaches. There are many opinions among representatives of different professions, men and women and etc.

It may be challenging to see how illegal hunting, a crime that ostensibly proceeds as shoot, shovel and shut up in remote rural communities, at all communicates with the regime. Examining the socio-legal interplay between hunters and state regulation, however, clarifies illegal hunting to be part of a politically motivated pattern of dissent that signals hunters' disenfranchisement from the polity. While few contemporary illegal hunters cut conscientious figures like Robin Hood, their violation of illegitimate law may likewise testify to a profound disjuncture between legality and legitimacy. This is the premise taken in the following research. Here it is observed contemporary Swedish hunters experience the deliberative system pertaining to wildlife and wolf conservation to be systematically stacked against them and unable to serve as a site for critical law-making that provides equal uptake of all voices. One manifestation of their growing disenfranchisement is the establishment of a counterpublic mobilised on the basis of shared semantics for the sorts of deliberative deficits they argue befall them in the present. Within the remit of their counterpublic, hunters undertake and justify illegal hunting along with other forms of disengaging dissent like abstentions, non-compliance, boycotts and conscientious refusals with state agencies. The research captures hunters' dissent in Smith's deliberative disobedience, a deliberative and Habermasian grounded reinterpretation of the more familiar classical theory of civil disobedience. On this perspective, illegal hunting signals a deficit in the deliberative system, which hunters both bypass by taking an alternative conduit for contestation, and draw attention to when they undertake dissent. The dissent in this case study is deconstructed in terms of its grammar—as simultaneously engaging and disengaging with the premises of power—and in terms of its communicative content. Set within the field of Environmental Communication, the dissertation is intended as an empirical and theoretical contribution to a discussion on the boundaries of political dialogue in the context of civic disenfranchisement: it asks whether some of hunters' dissent may be parsed as a call for a more inclusive debate, or as dialogic acts in themselves. Finally, it presents ways toward short-term and longer-term reconciliation of hunters with the deliberative system, drawing on the work of contestatory citizen mini-publics from the third wave of deliberative democracy.

This article concerns with typical legal provisions, that identifies level, scope and forms of state's involvement in international tax competition, also general legal background, that empowers or, on the opposite – restricts the effects of those provisions or various administrative practices, showing that there are certain criteria, enabling to describe international tax competition not only economically – as harmful or useful, or politically – as fair or unfair, but also legally – i.e. as legal or illegal. It is clear that individual legal provisions, that makes the essence of international tax competition, rarely operates separately and functionality, effectiveness or harmfulness of every preferential tax regime have to be analyzed having in mind all relevant elements that form certain regime, however object of legitimacy test first of all is each separate legal norm. Every of those separately taken norms have to satisfy not only general but also special, i.e. applied only in certain fields of law (administrative, civil, financial, tax etc.), legal criteria for form and substance (for example, to be set and applied by competent authority, non-discriminate, be proportionate etc.), that are set by the national law. Nevertheless, if aforementioned formal requirements are quite clear, their content should be assessed not only from the perspectives of national law or general legal principles, but also in the light of state's international obligations of different origin and legal weight.

This article concerns with typical legal provisions, that identifies level, scope and forms of state's involvement in international tax competition, also general legal background, that empowers or, on the opposite – restricts the effects of those provisions or various administrative practices, showing that there are certain criteria, enabling to describe international tax competition not only economically – as harmful or useful, or politically – as fair or unfair, but also legally – i.e. as legal or illegal. It is clear that individual legal provisions, that makes the essence of international tax competition, rarely operates separately and functionality, effectiveness or harmfulness of every preferential tax regime have to be analyzed having in mind all relevant elements that form certain regime, however object of legitimacy test first of all is each separate legal norm. Every of those separately taken norms have to satisfy not only general but also special, i.e. applied only in certain fields of law (administrative, civil, financial, tax etc.), legal criteria for form and substance (for example, to be set and applied by competent authority, non-discriminate, be proportionate etc.), that are set by the national law. Nevertheless, if aforementioned formal requirements are quite clear, their content should be assessed not only from the perspectives of national law or general legal principles, but also in the light of state's international obligations of different origin and legal weight.

This article concerns with typical legal provisions, that identifies level, scope and forms of state's involvement in international tax competition, also general legal background, that empowers or, on the opposite – restricts the effects of those provisions or various administrative practices, showing that there are certain criteria, enabling to describe international tax competition not only economically – as harmful or useful, or politically – as fair or unfair, but also legally – i.e. as legal or illegal. It is clear that individual legal provisions, that makes the essence of international tax competition, rarely operates separately and functionality, effectiveness or harmfulness of every preferential tax regime have to be analyzed having in mind all relevant elements that form certain regime, however object of legitimacy test first of all is each separate legal norm. Every of those separately taken norms have to satisfy not only general but also special, i.e. applied only in certain fields of law (administrative, civil, financial, tax etc.), legal criteria for form and substance (for example, to be set and applied by competent authority, non-discriminate, be proportionate etc.), that are set by the national law. Nevertheless, if aforementioned formal requirements are quite clear, their content should be assessed not only from the perspectives of national law or general legal principles, but also in the light of state's international obligations of different origin and legal weight.

This article concerns with typical legal provisions, that identifies level, scope and forms of state's involvement in international tax competition, also general legal background, that empowers or, on the opposite – restricts the effects of those provisions or various administrative practices, showing that there are certain criteria, enabling to describe international tax competition not only economically – as harmful or useful, or politically – as fair or unfair, but also legally – i.e. as legal or illegal. It is clear that individual legal provisions, that makes the essence of international tax competition, rarely operates separately and functionality, effectiveness or harmfulness of every preferential tax regime have to be analyzed having in mind all relevant elements that form certain regime, however object of legitimacy test first of all is each separate legal norm. Every of those separately taken norms have to satisfy not only general but also special, i.e. applied only in certain fields of law (administrative, civil, financial, tax etc.), legal criteria for form and substance (for example, to be set and applied by competent authority, non-discriminate, be proportionate etc.), that are set by the national law. Nevertheless, if aforementioned formal requirements are quite clear, their content should be assessed not only from the perspectives of national law or general legal principles, but also in the light of state's international obligations of different origin and legal weight.

Nature and Legitimacy of the Macroprudential Policy This paper analyzes the concept of macroprudential policy by introducing the evolution of its development and legitimation. As the starting point, the economic crisis of 2008 that shocked has been chosen. It was the latest crisis that led to the understanding of the importance of macroprudential policy measures in ensuring financial stability. As a result, at the request of the European Commission the report by the jacques de larosière group of experts not only gave a detailed account of the causes of the global economic crisis but also issued thirty-one recommendations on the basis of which the responsible authorities of the european union and the member states have substantially modernized their systems for the stability of the financial system. The work presents this new regulation and the activities of the bank of Lithuania in the field of macroprudential policy implementation. The first part is devoted to the presentation of macroprudential policies until 2008, while the second half presents the valid and current regulation of macroprudential policy. As a result, there is a clear contrast between the former and the existing legal regulation, not only listing the changes that have taken place in politic.