Suchergebnisse

Summary Citizenship Plurality: Contemporary Trends Citizenship denotes the existence of a specific legal tie between individual and a state conferring mutual rights and duties. It is a matter of domestic jurisdiction of states, but the freedom of states to regulate their citizenship is restricted by rules of international law to protect fundamentals human rights and freedoms. States citizenship laws must be consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognized with regard to citizenship. Citizenship Plurality means that individual is the citizen of two or more different states at the same time. An individual may acquire more than one citizenship as a result of the conflicting citizenship laws of different states or of the conferment of citizenship by naturalization or any other manner, which does not result in the renunciation of a prior citizenship. For a long time considerable international and domestic effort has been directed toward avoiding or reducing these situations, because some of the problems may be affected by the lack of citizenship plurality in the area of obligations to military service, diplomatic protection, tax payments, election etc. Just nowadays these problems are no more threatened. Equalisation of rights between men and women, international migration, mixed marriages, globalization, EU integration and other factors are influencing legislation on tolerance toward citizenship plurality. More and more often the conferment of right and duties are related with criterion of habitual residence and not with possession of citizenship. The question of recognition of citizenship plurality in Lithuania became a matter of great relevance to our society after the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of November 13, 2006 on the compliance of the provisions of legal acts regulating the citizenship relations with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The ruling states that the legal regulation established in the Law on Citizenship (wording of 17 September 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) which was in effect at the time of consideration of this constitutional justice case, is in conflict with the Constitution. The essential problem was that under the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Constitution that with the exception of individual cases provided for by law, no one may be a citizen of both the Republic of Lithuania and another state at the same time, while the legal regulation continually expanded the legislative possibilities for citizens of the Republic of Lithuania also to hold citizenship of another state. Such legal regulation not only does not prevent from citizenship plurality but even encourages such tendency. Lithuanian citizenship legal regulation may be changed by amendments of Law on Citizenship, but it would be sufficient to provide individual cases of citizenship plurality. To fully permit citizenship plurality it is urgent need of referendum to change the Constitution.

Although the value system has been discussed since the antiquity, the list of underlying values has not been available yet. Socrates elaborated on virtue, courage and justice, Plato was concerned about truth, goodness, wisdom, determination and temperance. Aristotle analysed ethical norms. Thomas Aquinas considered values to be perfection, which exists as absolute good. He distinguished prudence, justice, volitional morality, faith, hope and love. Jeanas-Jacquesas Rousseau tended to exalt ideas of liberty, equality, fraternity, and humanism and considered happiness, reason, sympathy to be underlying values, encouraged development of volition, independence and pro-activeness. The most relevant values for Immanuel Kant included reason, liberty, self-respect, honour, duty, autonomy, volition and goodness. The philosophers of the 20th century, for example, Max Scheler, made attempts to classify values. The Italian philosopher Battista Mondina stated that values can be of different levels (from the perspective of values not all the things and behaviour patterns are equal: some of them possess more value, whereas the others – less) and comprise a certain hierarchy. He presents a more detailed classification of values, which better complies with life and attitudes of an individual in the 20th century. In the end of the 20th century the researchers got an idea of creating a hierarchy of values relevant to a separate nation. The description of the project "Polish Axiological Dictionary", which distinguishes the values of importance to the Polish, can be considered an example. It is obvious that a unified conception of values did not exist: different authors treated values in a different way. The concept value is used in various meanings: as an aspect of world value, as attractive objects, life quality, valuable things or phenomena, behaviour norms which influence decisions. Values reflect what is most valuable for an individual from cultural, psychological, sociological, moral and esthetical perspectives. An individual is governed and guided by values; he/she lives for them. The values make up the core of every culture. However, the issue of values raises many questions. Firstly, does a canon of universal values exist? In fact, such values as motherland, patriotism, democracy and tolerance are important but are they equally important? Such daily life values as – work, career, and money – are conceptualised. The question arises if this has always and everywhere been like this? Are such values as family, marriage, child still relevant these days? Most likely for Lithuanians these values will hardly differ from common European or common human values but it is still interesting what is typical only of Lithuanians, what did they include into their value system adopting experience of neighbouring countries and what presupposed the meaning of words. Working on the book "Values in the Worldview of Lithuanians" an idea came to mind that following the concept analysis, attempts can be made to classify Lithuanian values. Various classification principles can be applied: Societal values: state, nation, motherland, language, freedom, land, work, commitment, justice, duty, honour, morality, the good, the beautiful, morals, etc. • Personal values: happiness, family, home, personal liberty, health, loves, etc. They can also be related to the individual's growth: • Values that build up the personality: home, family, nature, faith, work, morals, love – that is, everything, what a person gets in the family. • Values that improve the personality: state, nation, language, freedom, patriotism, empathy, tolerance, wisdom, etc. – that is, everything, what a person gets at school and in his/her further life. However, strict boundaries do not exist and cannot exist because a person functions as a member of society as well as a separate individual.

Although the value system has been discussed since the antiquity, the list of underlying values has not been available yet. Socrates elaborated on virtue, courage and justice, Plato was concerned about truth, goodness, wisdom, determination and temperance. Aristotle analysed ethical norms. Thomas Aquinas considered values to be perfection, which exists as absolute good. He distinguished prudence, justice, volitional morality, faith, hope and love. Jeanas-Jacquesas Rousseau tended to exalt ideas of liberty, equality, fraternity, and humanism and considered happiness, reason, sympathy to be underlying values, encouraged development of volition, independence and pro-activeness. The most relevant values for Immanuel Kant included reason, liberty, self-respect, honour, duty, autonomy, volition and goodness. The philosophers of the 20th century, for example, Max Scheler, made attempts to classify values. The Italian philosopher Battista Mondina stated that values can be of different levels (from the perspective of values not all the things and behaviour patterns are equal: some of them possess more value, whereas the others – less) and comprise a certain hierarchy. He presents a more detailed classification of values, which better complies with life and attitudes of an individual in the 20th century. In the end of the 20th century the researchers got an idea of creating a hierarchy of values relevant to a separate nation. The description of the project "Polish Axiological Dictionary", which distinguishes the values of importance to the Polish, can be considered an example. It is obvious that a unified conception of values did not exist: different authors treated values in a different way. The concept value is used in various meanings: as an aspect of world value, as attractive objects, life quality, valuable things or phenomena, behaviour norms which influence decisions. Values reflect what is most valuable for an individual from cultural, psychological, sociological, moral and esthetical perspectives. An individual is governed and guided by values; he/she lives for them. The values make up the core of every culture. However, the issue of values raises many questions. Firstly, does a canon of universal values exist? In fact, such values as motherland, patriotism, democracy and tolerance are important but are they equally important? Such daily life values as – work, career, and money – are conceptualised. The question arises if this has always and everywhere been like this? Are such values as family, marriage, child still relevant these days? Most likely for Lithuanians these values will hardly differ from common European or common human values but it is still interesting what is typical only of Lithuanians, what did they include into their value system adopting experience of neighbouring countries and what presupposed the meaning of words. Working on the book "Values in the Worldview of Lithuanians" an idea came to mind that following the concept analysis, attempts can be made to classify Lithuanian values. Various classification principles can be applied: Societal values: state, nation, motherland, language, freedom, land, work, commitment, justice, duty, honour, morality, the good, the beautiful, morals, etc. • Personal values: happiness, family, home, personal liberty, health, loves, etc. They can also be related to the individual's growth: • Values that build up the personality: home, family, nature, faith, work, morals, love – that is, everything, what a person gets in the family. • Values that improve the personality: state, nation, language, freedom, patriotism, empathy, tolerance, wisdom, etc. – that is, everything, what a person gets at school and in his/her further life. However, strict boundaries do not exist and cannot exist because a person functions as a member of society as well as a separate individual.

Although the value system has been discussed since the antiquity, the list of underlying values has not been available yet. Socrates elaborated on virtue, courage and justice, Plato was concerned about truth, goodness, wisdom, determination and temperance. Aristotle analysed ethical norms. Thomas Aquinas considered values to be perfection, which exists as absolute good. He distinguished prudence, justice, volitional morality, faith, hope and love. Jeanas-Jacquesas Rousseau tended to exalt ideas of liberty, equality, fraternity, and humanism and considered happiness, reason, sympathy to be underlying values, encouraged development of volition, independence and pro-activeness. The most relevant values for Immanuel Kant included reason, liberty, self-respect, honour, duty, autonomy, volition and goodness. The philosophers of the 20th century, for example, Max Scheler, made attempts to classify values. The Italian philosopher Battista Mondina stated that values can be of different levels (from the perspective of values not all the things and behaviour patterns are equal: some of them possess more value, whereas the others – less) and comprise a certain hierarchy. He presents a more detailed classification of values, which better complies with life and attitudes of an individual in the 20th century. In the end of the 20th century the researchers got an idea of creating a hierarchy of values relevant to a separate nation. The description of the project "Polish Axiological Dictionary", which distinguishes the values of importance to the Polish, can be considered an example. It is obvious that a unified conception of values did not exist: different authors treated values in a different way. The concept value is used in various meanings: as an aspect of world value, as attractive objects, life quality, valuable things or phenomena, behaviour norms which influence decisions. Values reflect what is most valuable for an individual from cultural, psychological, sociological, moral and esthetical perspectives. An individual is governed and guided by values; he/she lives for them. The values make up the core of every culture. However, the issue of values raises many questions. Firstly, does a canon of universal values exist? In fact, such values as motherland, patriotism, democracy and tolerance are important but are they equally important? Such daily life values as – work, career, and money – are conceptualised. The question arises if this has always and everywhere been like this? Are such values as family, marriage, child still relevant these days? Most likely for Lithuanians these values will hardly differ from common European or common human values but it is still interesting what is typical only of Lithuanians, what did they include into their value system adopting experience of neighbouring countries and what presupposed the meaning of words. Working on the book "Values in the Worldview of Lithuanians" an idea came to mind that following the concept analysis, attempts can be made to classify Lithuanian values. Various classification principles can be applied: Societal values: state, nation, motherland, language, freedom, land, work, commitment, justice, duty, honour, morality, the good, the beautiful, morals, etc. • Personal values: happiness, family, home, personal liberty, health, loves, etc. They can also be related to the individual's growth: • Values that build up the personality: home, family, nature, faith, work, morals, love – that is, everything, what a person gets in the family. • Values that improve the personality: state, nation, language, freedom, patriotism, empathy, tolerance, wisdom, etc. – that is, everything, what a person gets at school and in his/her further life. However, strict boundaries do not exist and cannot exist because a person functions as a member of society as well as a separate individual.

Although the value system has been discussed since the antiquity, the list of underlying values has not been available yet. Socrates elaborated on virtue, courage and justice, Plato was concerned about truth, goodness, wisdom, determination and temperance. Aristotle analysed ethical norms. Thomas Aquinas considered values to be perfection, which exists as absolute good. He distinguished prudence, justice, volitional morality, faith, hope and love. Jeanas-Jacquesas Rousseau tended to exalt ideas of liberty, equality, fraternity, and humanism and considered happiness, reason, sympathy to be underlying values, encouraged development of volition, independence and pro-activeness. The most relevant values for Immanuel Kant included reason, liberty, self-respect, honour, duty, autonomy, volition and goodness. The philosophers of the 20th century, for example, Max Scheler, made attempts to classify values. The Italian philosopher Battista Mondina stated that values can be of different levels (from the perspective of values not all the things and behaviour patterns are equal: some of them possess more value, whereas the others – less) and comprise a certain hierarchy. He presents a more detailed classification of values, which better complies with life and attitudes of an individual in the 20th century. In the end of the 20th century the researchers got an idea of creating a hierarchy of values relevant to a separate nation. The description of the project "Polish Axiological Dictionary", which distinguishes the values of importance to the Polish, can be considered an example. It is obvious that a unified conception of values did not exist: different authors treated values in a different way. The concept value is used in various meanings: as an aspect of world value, as attractive objects, life quality, valuable things or phenomena, behaviour norms which influence decisions. Values reflect what is most valuable for an individual from cultural, psychological, sociological, moral and esthetical perspectives. An individual is governed and guided by values; he/she lives for them. The values make up the core of every culture. However, the issue of values raises many questions. Firstly, does a canon of universal values exist? In fact, such values as motherland, patriotism, democracy and tolerance are important but are they equally important? Such daily life values as – work, career, and money – are conceptualised. The question arises if this has always and everywhere been like this? Are such values as family, marriage, child still relevant these days? Most likely for Lithuanians these values will hardly differ from common European or common human values but it is still interesting what is typical only of Lithuanians, what did they include into their value system adopting experience of neighbouring countries and what presupposed the meaning of words. Working on the book "Values in the Worldview of Lithuanians" an idea came to mind that following the concept analysis, attempts can be made to classify Lithuanian values. Various classification principles can be applied: Societal values: state, nation, motherland, language, freedom, land, work, commitment, justice, duty, honour, morality, the good, the beautiful, morals, etc. • Personal values: happiness, family, home, personal liberty, health, loves, etc. They can also be related to the individual's growth: • Values that build up the personality: home, family, nature, faith, work, morals, love – that is, everything, what a person gets in the family. • Values that improve the personality: state, nation, language, freedom, patriotism, empathy, tolerance, wisdom, etc. – that is, everything, what a person gets at school and in his/her further life. However, strict boundaries do not exist and cannot exist because a person functions as a member of society as well as a separate individual.

Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights is devoted for the protection and respect of family and private life. Talking about family life, it is important to say that the definition of it have evolved for years creating more and more legal issues. The Court has considered the family to include husband and wife and children who are dependent on them, including illegitimate and adopted children. It seems that de facto family ties can arise where parties are living together outside marriage and children born out of such relationships form part of the family unit from the moment of birth and by the very fact of it. The family ties exist even where the parents are not living together at the time of the child's birth. In some circumstances, relations with grandparents may be protected under Article 8. More remote relationships are generally not close enough to consti¬tute family relationships protected by Article 8. There is, however, some slender evidence to suggest that a broader view is being taken of what constitutes the family. Engagement does not in itself constitute family life, but the relationship between a prisoner and his fiancee falls within private life. The same is true of transsexuals couples. Implementing one of those rights, arise a violation of other rights, embodied in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. The conflict usually is between articles 8 and 10. The freedom of expression is called as the essential foundations of democratic society. The media has a "public watch dog" function, as it mentioned in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Media has a task to import not only information which is favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also offend, chocked or disturbed information. Society has a right to obtain information about political matters or about matters of public interest. This freedom includes two components: freedom to receive information and freedom to impart them. These rights must be used in a such way that they do not constitute the violation of private life. Under the Convention, right to respect family or private life embodied in the article 8 and freedom of expression embodied in the Article 10 are not absolute. They state some restrictions and limitations. The interference is legitimate when it is necessary in a democratic society, interest of national security, prevention or disorder of crime and other. This is so called negative obligations. The problems of the protection of human rights can arise when the state fails to take such the obligations, for instance to enact some particular law – so called positive obligations. Thus it could the violation not only when the state fails to take positive obligations, but also when such the law trespasses the limit of the proportionality taking negative obligations. The problems about private life are coming out of its changing concept in XXI century. New technologies have vested the society with new instruments and made individuals' lives more convenient. Evolution of technologies and social life enhanced individuals to access to information and knowledge; thus it inevitably may lead to a situation when members of society recognize the right to know, right to communicate, right to express views and contribute to the society as a more vital and valuable than traditional and straightforward "right to be left alone". Legally speaking, of all the European human rights in the international catalogue, privacy is perhaps the most difficult to define and circumscribe. Nowadays, a person has less control on his personal information, because private life and privacy has become less important as to receive information and freedom to impart it. What's why Europe and all the world confronts with big problems of violation of human rights in context of the protection of personal data The solution of these problems could be self regulation and legislation of various legal acts.

Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights is devoted for the protection and respect of family and private life. Talking about family life, it is important to say that the definition of it have evolved for years creating more and more legal issues. The Court has considered the family to include husband and wife and children who are dependent on them, including illegitimate and adopted children. It seems that de facto family ties can arise where parties are living together outside marriage and children born out of such relationships form part of the family unit from the moment of birth and by the very fact of it. The family ties exist even where the parents are not living together at the time of the child's birth. In some circumstances, relations with grandparents may be protected under Article 8. More remote relationships are generally not close enough to consti¬tute family relationships protected by Article 8. There is, however, some slender evidence to suggest that a broader view is being taken of what constitutes the family. Engagement does not in itself constitute family life, but the relationship between a prisoner and his fiancee falls within private life. The same is true of transsexuals couples. Implementing one of those rights, arise a violation of other rights, embodied in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. The conflict usually is between articles 8 and 10. The freedom of expression is called as the essential foundations of democratic society. The media has a "public watch dog" function, as it mentioned in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Media has a task to import not only information which is favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also offend, chocked or disturbed information. Society has a right to obtain information about political matters or about matters of public interest. This freedom includes two components: freedom to receive information and freedom to impart them. These rights must be used in a such way that they do not constitute the violation of private life. Under the Convention, right to respect family or private life embodied in the article 8 and freedom of expression embodied in the Article 10 are not absolute. They state some restrictions and limitations. The interference is legitimate when it is necessary in a democratic society, interest of national security, prevention or disorder of crime and other. This is so called negative obligations. The problems of the protection of human rights can arise when the state fails to take such the obligations, for instance to enact some particular law – so called positive obligations. Thus it could the violation not only when the state fails to take positive obligations, but also when such the law trespasses the limit of the proportionality taking negative obligations. The problems about private life are coming out of its changing concept in XXI century. New technologies have vested the society with new instruments and made individuals' lives more convenient. Evolution of technologies and social life enhanced individuals to access to information and knowledge; thus it inevitably may lead to a situation when members of society recognize the right to know, right to communicate, right to express views and contribute to the society as a more vital and valuable than traditional and straightforward "right to be left alone". Legally speaking, of all the European human rights in the international catalogue, privacy is perhaps the most difficult to define and circumscribe. Nowadays, a person has less control on his personal information, because private life and privacy has become less important as to receive information and freedom to impart it. What's why Europe and all the world confronts with big problems of violation of human rights in context of the protection of personal data The solution of these problems could be self regulation and legislation of various legal acts.

In the present work the author reviews the two scientific monographs and twenty scientific articles in which the history of the Lithuanian legal system is investigated. The author aspires to elucidate how did the main subsystems of the Lithuanian legal system – legislation, jurisdiction and jurisprudence – appeared and developed up to the end of the 20th century in the context of evolution of the Western legal tradition. The basic methods of research used in the works are historical, comparative and teleological. The main theses of the reviewed scientific monographs and articles are these: The law of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) was created by the Government on the basis of the national Lithuanian law and some elements of the custom Slav law. Substitution of the custom Slav law for the Lithuanian public and private law took place in those provinces in the 14th-16th centuries. The custom Slav law hampered forming of the system of law of the GDL. It was created finally in the middle of the 16th century. The law of the GDL was a medieval estate law. Estate is a legal phenomenon and law determines signs and features of any estate. Main sign of any estate is rights leaved to him by law and protected by state. Estate system, that is an organization of society into classes rigidly divided for political purposes and defined primarily by law, is based on a legal inequality of estates. Any estate is a stable order closed to outsiders. In order to belong to estate any person must correspond to certain conditions determined by law. At the same time any person can belong to a few different social groups but only to one estate. The estate system of the GDL was formed finally in the middle of the 16th century. It was defined by the Second Statute of Lithuania and consisted of four estates: nobility, clergy, peasantry and townspeople. The nobility and the clergy were privileged. They governed the state and exploited bondsmen. In the towns which obtained the Magdeburg Law the townsmen were free, but haven't political rights and privileges. The author believes that all persons were subjects of medieval law of Lithuania, but their legal capacity was not equal. This inequality was determined by law. Volume of legal capacity of these persons depended upon their age, sex, citizenship, religion and estate. It could be changed in accordance with law. Under certain conditions loss of legal capacity also was able. Collective subjects of law were the GDL itself (not its government bodies or officials), the people of Lithuania as a political unit (not estates or ethnographic nations), political confederations of noblemen (if they were sanctioned by the Grand Duke), self-governing territorial units (counties, towns, etc.), guilds organized by craftsmen and merchants and self-governing religions communities. The author believes that a land-ownership in the GDL was divided. Two persons held the same land. One of them was an immediate owner, the second was a superior owner of the land. An immediate owner's right to dispose the land was limited by a superior owner's rights to this land. In the 14th-first half of the 16th century an ancestral land was the main form of land-ownership in the GDL. At first an ancestral land was owned without obligation of vassalage. Since the beginning of the 16th century an owner of an ancestral land was obliged to military service from his land. Since the 14th century a benefice was the second form of feudal land-ownership in the GDL. Gradually a benefice turned into a feud. In 1566 the Second Statute of Lithuania gave the equal rights to all owners of ancestral lands and feuds. They got the freedom to dispose all their lands, but were obliged to military service from their real estate. In the middle of the 16th century the domain of the Grand Duke was divided into the State lands and Throne lands. The Grand Duke's freedom to dispose these lands was limited. Up to the middle of the 16th century there were no permanent circuit courts for land disputes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. All state courts heard land cases in their permanent quarters and moved in locality to survey borders only if it was very necessary. The Government of the GDL stimulated activity of arbitration and village courts and set them to resolve land disputes in locality. The first permanent circuit court (Sub-Chamber court) for boundary disputes was established in every county during the court reform in 1564-1566. Up to the middle of the 16th century jurisdiction of the Church determined by canons was very wide and came into collision with jurisdiction of the State. Besides clergymen and other subjects of the Church spiritual courts prosecuted noblemen, peasants and townsfolk. Competence of secular and spiritual courts was delimited clearly by the Third Statute of Lithuania. In accordance with this Statute spiritual courts could prosecute noblemen, peasants and townsfolk only if a certain case was bound up with religion or marriage. The medieval conception of formal evidences existed and dominated in the GDL from the 13th century up to the 18th century. The court was passive because all evidences were collected and produced by the plaintiff or by the defendant, and legal force of any evidence was determined by Lithuanian custom law and by the Lithuanian Statutes. The author believes that compurgators were not eye-witnesses of crime or event, there testified on oath only about good name of somebody. Compurgators swore together with plaintiff or defendant. Witnesses testified to or against somebody without oath. The legal status of witnesses and compurgators determined by the Lithuanian custom law and the First Lithuanian Statute was partly corrected by the Second and the Third Lithuanian Statutes in 1566 and 1588. Dietsky office appeared in the Ancient Slav State about the 11th century. From the 13th century onwards this office functioned in the GDL. Vizh office was instituted in the end of the 15th century or in the beginning of the 16th century in the GDL. Dietsky and Vizh were court officers executed judgements. Vizh was also official witness in criminal and civil cases. Vozny office was established in the GDL during the judicial reform in 1564-1566. Vozny was an important official of a court of law. He used to be elected by county noblemen. His duty was to inspect damages, wounds, and to witness at a trial. He was an executor of court's sentences. The number of lawyers who took scholastic degrees increased in the GDL in the 16th century. They developed legal terminology, introduced the written form of contracts and elaborated many legal acts. The Lithuanian Statutes should be regarded as the acme of progressive legal theoretical thought and practical activity. They surmounted the codification of the legislation of the GDL and brought the country to the leading position among other European countries. Yet the high standard, progressive spirit and intrinsic humanistic ideas by themselves did not mean that the Statutes were properly applied. In the 16th century, the lack of qualified lawyers complicated application of the Lithuanian Statutes. The legal sophistication of judges was often rather poor. Even members of the Lithuanian Tribunal of the GDL were not professional lawyers. The requirement constituted in the Lithuanian Statutes that only nobility were eligible to the position of judges was hardly observed because for a long time there had been not a single law school or college in the GDL. Why the Faculty of Law had not been founded in the Vilnius Jesuits' Academy before 1641? The author believes that the problem may be viewed in the context of international relations between the Kingdom of Poland and the GDL. In the year of the foundation of Vilnius University, one more event important for the legal development of GDL took place: creation of the highest appeal court – Lithuanian Tribunal. Polish landlords did not tolerate the steps strengthening the statehood of Lithuania. Creation of the Lithuanian Tribunal was a difficult victory of the GDL nobility. It is quite possible that concession to the University of Krakow and recognition of Polish monopoly in preparing lawyers were the cost paid for the mentioned victory. It seemed then more important to have their own appeal court than to prepare lawyers in the GDL. In the one article the author aspires to elucidate what was a medieval university – integral part of the town or feudal benefice, what were professors ant students – full fledged citizens of the town or aliens, and what were courts of the university – State or private, secular or ecclesiastical. The author established that any university in the Middle Ages was a self-governing professional corporation similar with guild or craft. Doctors and scholars (like merchants or craftsmen) elected rector and some others officials who governed and administered justice. Mostly university was an integral part of the town; professors ant students could exercise their rights on an equality with citizens of the town. Sometimes university was ruled by the Bishop or King as a feudal benefice independent from the town magistrates and courts (in this case the relations between town citizens and students were exceptionally strained). A very ample jurisdiction was allowed to the Rector's court, extending to all civil cases and all criminal cases except such as involved mutilation (in those criminal cases the jurisdiction of the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges was recognized). Rector was required to suppress quarrels between students and townsmen, or among the students themselves. If Rector failed to punish offenders, a scholar or doctor was amenable to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. The Bishop always reserved to himself spiritual jurisdiction over professors ant students. An appellate civil jurisdiction was reserved to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. It should be recognized that the legal system

In the present work the author reviews the two scientific monographs and twenty scientific articles in which the history of the Lithuanian legal system is investigated. The author aspires to elucidate how did the main subsystems of the Lithuanian legal system – legislation, jurisdiction and jurisprudence – appeared and developed up to the end of the 20th century in the context of evolution of the Western legal tradition. The basic methods of research used in the works are historical, comparative and teleological. The main theses of the reviewed scientific monographs and articles are these: The law of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) was created by the Government on the basis of the national Lithuanian law and some elements of the custom Slav law. Substitution of the custom Slav law for the Lithuanian public and private law took place in those provinces in the 14th-16th centuries. The custom Slav law hampered forming of the system of law of the GDL. It was created finally in the middle of the 16th century. The law of the GDL was a medieval estate law. Estate is a legal phenomenon and law determines signs and features of any estate. Main sign of any estate is rights leaved to him by law and protected by state. Estate system, that is an organization of society into classes rigidly divided for political purposes and defined primarily by law, is based on a legal inequality of estates. Any estate is a stable order closed to outsiders. In order to belong to estate any person must correspond to certain conditions determined by law. At the same time any person can belong to a few different social groups but only to one estate. The estate system of the GDL was formed finally in the middle of the 16th century. It was defined by the Second Statute of Lithuania and consisted of four estates: nobility, clergy, peasantry and townspeople. The nobility and the clergy were privileged. They governed the state and exploited bondsmen. In the towns which obtained the Magdeburg Law the townsmen were free, but haven't political rights and privileges. The author believes that all persons were subjects of medieval law of Lithuania, but their legal capacity was not equal. This inequality was determined by law. Volume of legal capacity of these persons depended upon their age, sex, citizenship, religion and estate. It could be changed in accordance with law. Under certain conditions loss of legal capacity also was able. Collective subjects of law were the GDL itself (not its government bodies or officials), the people of Lithuania as a political unit (not estates or ethnographic nations), political confederations of noblemen (if they were sanctioned by the Grand Duke), self-governing territorial units (counties, towns, etc.), guilds organized by craftsmen and merchants and self-governing religions communities. The author believes that a land-ownership in the GDL was divided. Two persons held the same land. One of them was an immediate owner, the second was a superior owner of the land. An immediate owner's right to dispose the land was limited by a superior owner's rights to this land. In the 14th-first half of the 16th century an ancestral land was the main form of land-ownership in the GDL. At first an ancestral land was owned without obligation of vassalage. Since the beginning of the 16th century an owner of an ancestral land was obliged to military service from his land. Since the 14th century a benefice was the second form of feudal land-ownership in the GDL. Gradually a benefice turned into a feud. In 1566 the Second Statute of Lithuania gave the equal rights to all owners of ancestral lands and feuds. They got the freedom to dispose all their lands, but were obliged to military service from their real estate. In the middle of the 16th century the domain of the Grand Duke was divided into the State lands and Throne lands. The Grand Duke's freedom to dispose these lands was limited. Up to the middle of the 16th century there were no permanent circuit courts for land disputes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. All state courts heard land cases in their permanent quarters and moved in locality to survey borders only if it was very necessary. The Government of the GDL stimulated activity of arbitration and village courts and set them to resolve land disputes in locality. The first permanent circuit court (Sub-Chamber court) for boundary disputes was established in every county during the court reform in 1564-1566. Up to the middle of the 16th century jurisdiction of the Church determined by canons was very wide and came into collision with jurisdiction of the State. Besides clergymen and other subjects of the Church spiritual courts prosecuted noblemen, peasants and townsfolk. Competence of secular and spiritual courts was delimited clearly by the Third Statute of Lithuania. In accordance with this Statute spiritual courts could prosecute noblemen, peasants and townsfolk only if a certain case was bound up with religion or marriage. The medieval conception of formal evidences existed and dominated in the GDL from the 13th century up to the 18th century. The court was passive because all evidences were collected and produced by the plaintiff or by the defendant, and legal force of any evidence was determined by Lithuanian custom law and by the Lithuanian Statutes. The author believes that compurgators were not eye-witnesses of crime or event, there testified on oath only about good name of somebody. Compurgators swore together with plaintiff or defendant. Witnesses testified to or against somebody without oath. The legal status of witnesses and compurgators determined by the Lithuanian custom law and the First Lithuanian Statute was partly corrected by the Second and the Third Lithuanian Statutes in 1566 and 1588. Dietsky office appeared in the Ancient Slav State about the 11th century. From the 13th century onwards this office functioned in the GDL. Vizh office was instituted in the end of the 15th century or in the beginning of the 16th century in the GDL. Dietsky and Vizh were court officers executed judgements. Vizh was also official witness in criminal and civil cases. Vozny office was established in the GDL during the judicial reform in 1564-1566. Vozny was an important official of a court of law. He used to be elected by county noblemen. His duty was to inspect damages, wounds, and to witness at a trial. He was an executor of court's sentences. The number of lawyers who took scholastic degrees increased in the GDL in the 16th century. They developed legal terminology, introduced the written form of contracts and elaborated many legal acts. The Lithuanian Statutes should be regarded as the acme of progressive legal theoretical thought and practical activity. They surmounted the codification of the legislation of the GDL and brought the country to the leading position among other European countries. Yet the high standard, progressive spirit and intrinsic humanistic ideas by themselves did not mean that the Statutes were properly applied. In the 16th century, the lack of qualified lawyers complicated application of the Lithuanian Statutes. The legal sophistication of judges was often rather poor. Even members of the Lithuanian Tribunal of the GDL were not professional lawyers. The requirement constituted in the Lithuanian Statutes that only nobility were eligible to the position of judges was hardly observed because for a long time there had been not a single law school or college in the GDL. Why the Faculty of Law had not been founded in the Vilnius Jesuits' Academy before 1641? The author believes that the problem may be viewed in the context of international relations between the Kingdom of Poland and the GDL. In the year of the foundation of Vilnius University, one more event important for the legal development of GDL took place: creation of the highest appeal court – Lithuanian Tribunal. Polish landlords did not tolerate the steps strengthening the statehood of Lithuania. Creation of the Lithuanian Tribunal was a difficult victory of the GDL nobility. It is quite possible that concession to the University of Krakow and recognition of Polish monopoly in preparing lawyers were the cost paid for the mentioned victory. It seemed then more important to have their own appeal court than to prepare lawyers in the GDL. In the one article the author aspires to elucidate what was a medieval university – integral part of the town or feudal benefice, what were professors ant students – full fledged citizens of the town or aliens, and what were courts of the university – State or private, secular or ecclesiastical. The author established that any university in the Middle Ages was a self-governing professional corporation similar with guild or craft. Doctors and scholars (like merchants or craftsmen) elected rector and some others officials who governed and administered justice. Mostly university was an integral part of the town; professors ant students could exercise their rights on an equality with citizens of the town. Sometimes university was ruled by the Bishop or King as a feudal benefice independent from the town magistrates and courts (in this case the relations between town citizens and students were exceptionally strained). A very ample jurisdiction was allowed to the Rector's court, extending to all civil cases and all criminal cases except such as involved mutilation (in those criminal cases the jurisdiction of the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges was recognized). Rector was required to suppress quarrels between students and townsmen, or among the students themselves. If Rector failed to punish offenders, a scholar or doctor was amenable to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. The Bishop always reserved to himself spiritual jurisdiction over professors ant students. An appellate civil jurisdiction was reserved to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. It should be recognized that the legal system

In the present work the author reviews the two scientific monographs and twenty scientific articles in which the history of the Lithuanian legal system is investigated. The author aspires to elucidate how did the main subsystems of the Lithuanian legal system – legislation, jurisdiction and jurisprudence – appeared and developed up to the end of the 20th century in the context of evolution of the Western legal tradition. The basic methods of research used in the works are historical, comparative and teleological. The main theses of the reviewed scientific monographs and articles are these: The law of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) was created by the Government on the basis of the national Lithuanian law and some elements of the custom Slav law. Substitution of the custom Slav law for the Lithuanian public and private law took place in those provinces in the 14th-16th centuries. The custom Slav law hampered forming of the system of law of the GDL. It was created finally in the middle of the 16th century. The law of the GDL was a medieval estate law. Estate is a legal phenomenon and law determines signs and features of any estate. Main sign of any estate is rights leaved to him by law and protected by state. Estate system, that is an organization of society into classes rigidly divided for political purposes and defined primarily by law, is based on a legal inequality of estates. Any estate is a stable order closed to outsiders. In order to belong to estate any person must correspond to certain conditions determined by law. At the same time any person can belong to a few different social groups but only to one estate. The estate system of the GDL was formed finally in the middle of the 16th century. It was defined by the Second Statute of Lithuania and consisted of four estates: nobility, clergy, peasantry and townspeople. The nobility and the clergy were privileged. They governed the state and exploited bondsmen. In the towns which obtained the Magdeburg Law the townsmen were free, but haven't political rights and privileges. The author believes that all persons were subjects of medieval law of Lithuania, but their legal capacity was not equal. This inequality was determined by law. Volume of legal capacity of these persons depended upon their age, sex, citizenship, religion and estate. It could be changed in accordance with law. Under certain conditions loss of legal capacity also was able. Collective subjects of law were the GDL itself (not its government bodies or officials), the people of Lithuania as a political unit (not estates or ethnographic nations), political confederations of noblemen (if they were sanctioned by the Grand Duke), self-governing territorial units (counties, towns, etc.), guilds organized by craftsmen and merchants and self-governing religions communities. The author believes that a land-ownership in the GDL was divided. Two persons held the same land. One of them was an immediate owner, the second was a superior owner of the land. An immediate owner's right to dispose the land was limited by a superior owner's rights to this land. In the 14th-first half of the 16th century an ancestral land was the main form of land-ownership in the GDL. At first an ancestral land was owned without obligation of vassalage. Since the beginning of the 16th century an owner of an ancestral land was obliged to military service from his land. Since the 14th century a benefice was the second form of feudal land-ownership in the GDL. Gradually a benefice turned into a feud. In 1566 the Second Statute of Lithuania gave the equal rights to all owners of ancestral lands and feuds. They got the freedom to dispose all their lands, but were obliged to military service from their real estate. In the middle of the 16th century the domain of the Grand Duke was divided into the State lands and Throne lands. The Grand Duke's freedom to dispose these lands was limited. Up to the middle of the 16th century there were no permanent circuit courts for land disputes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. All state courts heard land cases in their permanent quarters and moved in locality to survey borders only if it was very necessary. The Government of the GDL stimulated activity of arbitration and village courts and set them to resolve land disputes in locality. The first permanent circuit court (Sub-Chamber court) for boundary disputes was established in every county during the court reform in 1564-1566. Up to the middle of the 16th century jurisdiction of the Church determined by canons was very wide and came into collision with jurisdiction of the State. Besides clergymen and other subjects of the Church spiritual courts prosecuted noblemen, peasants and townsfolk. Competence of secular and spiritual courts was delimited clearly by the Third Statute of Lithuania. In accordance with this Statute spiritual courts could prosecute noblemen, peasants and townsfolk only if a certain case was bound up with religion or marriage. The medieval conception of formal evidences existed and dominated in the GDL from the 13th century up to the 18th century. The court was passive because all evidences were collected and produced by the plaintiff or by the defendant, and legal force of any evidence was determined by Lithuanian custom law and by the Lithuanian Statutes. The author believes that compurgators were not eye-witnesses of crime or event, there testified on oath only about good name of somebody. Compurgators swore together with plaintiff or defendant. Witnesses testified to or against somebody without oath. The legal status of witnesses and compurgators determined by the Lithuanian custom law and the First Lithuanian Statute was partly corrected by the Second and the Third Lithuanian Statutes in 1566 and 1588. Dietsky office appeared in the Ancient Slav State about the 11th century. From the 13th century onwards this office functioned in the GDL. Vizh office was instituted in the end of the 15th century or in the beginning of the 16th century in the GDL. Dietsky and Vizh were court officers executed judgements. Vizh was also official witness in criminal and civil cases. Vozny office was established in the GDL during the judicial reform in 1564-1566. Vozny was an important official of a court of law. He used to be elected by county noblemen. His duty was to inspect damages, wounds, and to witness at a trial. He was an executor of court's sentences. The number of lawyers who took scholastic degrees increased in the GDL in the 16th century. They developed legal terminology, introduced the written form of contracts and elaborated many legal acts. The Lithuanian Statutes should be regarded as the acme of progressive legal theoretical thought and practical activity. They surmounted the codification of the legislation of the GDL and brought the country to the leading position among other European countries. Yet the high standard, progressive spirit and intrinsic humanistic ideas by themselves did not mean that the Statutes were properly applied. In the 16th century, the lack of qualified lawyers complicated application of the Lithuanian Statutes. The legal sophistication of judges was often rather poor. Even members of the Lithuanian Tribunal of the GDL were not professional lawyers. The requirement constituted in the Lithuanian Statutes that only nobility were eligible to the position of judges was hardly observed because for a long time there had been not a single law school or college in the GDL. Why the Faculty of Law had not been founded in the Vilnius Jesuits' Academy before 1641? The author believes that the problem may be viewed in the context of international relations between the Kingdom of Poland and the GDL. In the year of the foundation of Vilnius University, one more event important for the legal development of GDL took place: creation of the highest appeal court – Lithuanian Tribunal. Polish landlords did not tolerate the steps strengthening the statehood of Lithuania. Creation of the Lithuanian Tribunal was a difficult victory of the GDL nobility. It is quite possible that concession to the University of Krakow and recognition of Polish monopoly in preparing lawyers were the cost paid for the mentioned victory. It seemed then more important to have their own appeal court than to prepare lawyers in the GDL. In the one article the author aspires to elucidate what was a medieval university – integral part of the town or feudal benefice, what were professors ant students – full fledged citizens of the town or aliens, and what were courts of the university – State or private, secular or ecclesiastical. The author established that any university in the Middle Ages was a self-governing professional corporation similar with guild or craft. Doctors and scholars (like merchants or craftsmen) elected rector and some others officials who governed and administered justice. Mostly university was an integral part of the town; professors ant students could exercise their rights on an equality with citizens of the town. Sometimes university was ruled by the Bishop or King as a feudal benefice independent from the town magistrates and courts (in this case the relations between town citizens and students were exceptionally strained). A very ample jurisdiction was allowed to the Rector's court, extending to all civil cases and all criminal cases except such as involved mutilation (in those criminal cases the jurisdiction of the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges was recognized). Rector was required to suppress quarrels between students and townsmen, or among the students themselves. If Rector failed to punish offenders, a scholar or doctor was amenable to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. The Bishop always reserved to himself spiritual jurisdiction over professors ant students. An appellate civil jurisdiction was reserved to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. It should be recognized that the legal system

In the present work the author reviews the two scientific monographs and twenty scientific articles in which the history of the Lithuanian legal system is investigated. The author aspires to elucidate how did the main subsystems of the Lithuanian legal system – legislation, jurisdiction and jurisprudence – appeared and developed up to the end of the 20th century in the context of evolution of the Western legal tradition. The basic methods of research used in the works are historical, comparative and teleological. The main theses of the reviewed scientific monographs and articles are these: The law of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) was created by the Government on the basis of the national Lithuanian law and some elements of the custom Slav law. Substitution of the custom Slav law for the Lithuanian public and private law took place in those provinces in the 14th-16th centuries. The custom Slav law hampered forming of the system of law of the GDL. It was created finally in the middle of the 16th century. The law of the GDL was a medieval estate law. Estate is a legal phenomenon and law determines signs and features of any estate. Main sign of any estate is rights leaved to him by law and protected by state. Estate system, that is an organization of society into classes rigidly divided for political purposes and defined primarily by law, is based on a legal inequality of estates. Any estate is a stable order closed to outsiders. In order to belong to estate any person must correspond to certain conditions determined by law. At the same time any person can belong to a few different social groups but only to one estate. The estate system of the GDL was formed finally in the middle of the 16th century. It was defined by the Second Statute of Lithuania and consisted of four estates: nobility, clergy, peasantry and townspeople. The nobility and the clergy were privileged. They governed the state and exploited bondsmen. In the towns which obtained the Magdeburg Law the townsmen were free, but haven't political rights and privileges. The author believes that all persons were subjects of medieval law of Lithuania, but their legal capacity was not equal. This inequality was determined by law. Volume of legal capacity of these persons depended upon their age, sex, citizenship, religion and estate. It could be changed in accordance with law. Under certain conditions loss of legal capacity also was able. Collective subjects of law were the GDL itself (not its government bodies or officials), the people of Lithuania as a political unit (not estates or ethnographic nations), political confederations of noblemen (if they were sanctioned by the Grand Duke), self-governing territorial units (counties, towns, etc.), guilds organized by craftsmen and merchants and self-governing religions communities. The author believes that a land-ownership in the GDL was divided. Two persons held the same land. One of them was an immediate owner, the second was a superior owner of the land. An immediate owner's right to dispose the land was limited by a superior owner's rights to this land. In the 14th-first half of the 16th century an ancestral land was the main form of land-ownership in the GDL. At first an ancestral land was owned without obligation of vassalage. Since the beginning of the 16th century an owner of an ancestral land was obliged to military service from his land. Since the 14th century a benefice was the second form of feudal land-ownership in the GDL. Gradually a benefice turned into a feud. In 1566 the Second Statute of Lithuania gave the equal rights to all owners of ancestral lands and feuds. They got the freedom to dispose all their lands, but were obliged to military service from their real estate. In the middle of the 16th century the domain of the Grand Duke was divided into the State lands and Throne lands. The Grand Duke's freedom to dispose these lands was limited. Up to the middle of the 16th century there were no permanent circuit courts for land disputes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. All state courts heard land cases in their permanent quarters and moved in locality to survey borders only if it was very necessary. The Government of the GDL stimulated activity of arbitration and village courts and set them to resolve land disputes in locality. The first permanent circuit court (Sub-Chamber court) for boundary disputes was established in every county during the court reform in 1564-1566. Up to the middle of the 16th century jurisdiction of the Church determined by canons was very wide and came into collision with jurisdiction of the State. Besides clergymen and other subjects of the Church spiritual courts prosecuted noblemen, peasants and townsfolk. Competence of secular and spiritual courts was delimited clearly by the Third Statute of Lithuania. In accordance with this Statute spiritual courts could prosecute noblemen, peasants and townsfolk only if a certain case was bound up with religion or marriage. The medieval conception of formal evidences existed and dominated in the GDL from the 13th century up to the 18th century. The court was passive because all evidences were collected and produced by the plaintiff or by the defendant, and legal force of any evidence was determined by Lithuanian custom law and by the Lithuanian Statutes. The author believes that compurgators were not eye-witnesses of crime or event, there testified on oath only about good name of somebody. Compurgators swore together with plaintiff or defendant. Witnesses testified to or against somebody without oath. The legal status of witnesses and compurgators determined by the Lithuanian custom law and the First Lithuanian Statute was partly corrected by the Second and the Third Lithuanian Statutes in 1566 and 1588. Dietsky office appeared in the Ancient Slav State about the 11th century. From the 13th century onwards this office functioned in the GDL. Vizh office was instituted in the end of the 15th century or in the beginning of the 16th century in the GDL. Dietsky and Vizh were court officers executed judgements. Vizh was also official witness in criminal and civil cases. Vozny office was established in the GDL during the judicial reform in 1564-1566. Vozny was an important official of a court of law. He used to be elected by county noblemen. His duty was to inspect damages, wounds, and to witness at a trial. He was an executor of court's sentences. The number of lawyers who took scholastic degrees increased in the GDL in the 16th century. They developed legal terminology, introduced the written form of contracts and elaborated many legal acts. The Lithuanian Statutes should be regarded as the acme of progressive legal theoretical thought and practical activity. They surmounted the codification of the legislation of the GDL and brought the country to the leading position among other European countries. Yet the high standard, progressive spirit and intrinsic humanistic ideas by themselves did not mean that the Statutes were properly applied. In the 16th century, the lack of qualified lawyers complicated application of the Lithuanian Statutes. The legal sophistication of judges was often rather poor. Even members of the Lithuanian Tribunal of the GDL were not professional lawyers. The requirement constituted in the Lithuanian Statutes that only nobility were eligible to the position of judges was hardly observed because for a long time there had been not a single law school or college in the GDL. Why the Faculty of Law had not been founded in the Vilnius Jesuits' Academy before 1641? The author believes that the problem may be viewed in the context of international relations between the Kingdom of Poland and the GDL. In the year of the foundation of Vilnius University, one more event important for the legal development of GDL took place: creation of the highest appeal court – Lithuanian Tribunal. Polish landlords did not tolerate the steps strengthening the statehood of Lithuania. Creation of the Lithuanian Tribunal was a difficult victory of the GDL nobility. It is quite possible that concession to the University of Krakow and recognition of Polish monopoly in preparing lawyers were the cost paid for the mentioned victory. It seemed then more important to have their own appeal court than to prepare lawyers in the GDL. In the one article the author aspires to elucidate what was a medieval university – integral part of the town or feudal benefice, what were professors ant students – full fledged citizens of the town or aliens, and what were courts of the university – State or private, secular or ecclesiastical. The author established that any university in the Middle Ages was a self-governing professional corporation similar with guild or craft. Doctors and scholars (like merchants or craftsmen) elected rector and some others officials who governed and administered justice. Mostly university was an integral part of the town; professors ant students could exercise their rights on an equality with citizens of the town. Sometimes university was ruled by the Bishop or King as a feudal benefice independent from the town magistrates and courts (in this case the relations between town citizens and students were exceptionally strained). A very ample jurisdiction was allowed to the Rector's court, extending to all civil cases and all criminal cases except such as involved mutilation (in those criminal cases the jurisdiction of the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges was recognized). Rector was required to suppress quarrels between students and townsmen, or among the students themselves. If Rector failed to punish offenders, a scholar or doctor was amenable to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. The Bishop always reserved to himself spiritual jurisdiction over professors ant students. An appellate civil jurisdiction was reserved to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. It should be recognized that the legal system