Suchergebnisse

The article furthers the research on the relation of democratizing states with their former non-democratic regimes by focusing on the situation in the Central and Eastern Europe's re-established democracies. The author utilizes his previously introduced research framework, based on the assessment (and interplay) of the type of the regime and the manner in which it ended. This serves to emphasize differences in the democratic transition of the region's states and, accordingly, the various paths chosen by new leaders in dealing with the problem of Communist party activist responsibility. The article also touches upon structural and psychological legacy of Communism. Along with glaring commonalities of the former Communist bloc, there were specific issues as well. In short, the findings reflect the following: 1 ) The transition of Hungary, in many aspects, replicates the "reforma pactada" formula. Partially, this holds true for Poland, too, but its position was complicated by limits on democratic representation set via the pact, that ring more of those achieved by military hierarchy in the event of extrication. The two states may be viewed as hardly favorable to the purge of old apparatus, despite the Poles' formal lustration laws. 2) In the Czech Republic and former East Germany (GDR), the situation became favorable to the prosecution of regime's activists, as the stagnating post-totalitarianism simply collapsed in those countries leaving a power vacuum, without a possibility to mobilize in self-defence. However, the broad range purges, that ensued in these states, much too often came in contradiction with the principles of rule of law and universal human rights. 3) The Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) did not experience direct collapse of the system, even though they also had just gone through stagnation.[.].

The article furthers the research on the relation of democratizing states with their former non-democratic regimes by focusing on the situation in the Central and Eastern Europe's re-established democracies. The author utilizes his previously introduced research framework, based on the assessment (and interplay) of the type of the regime and the manner in which it ended. This serves to emphasize differences in the democratic transition of the region's states and, accordingly, the various paths chosen by new leaders in dealing with the problem of Communist party activist responsibility. The article also touches upon structural and psychological legacy of Communism. Along with glaring commonalities of the former Communist bloc, there were specific issues as well. In short, the findings reflect the following: 1 ) The transition of Hungary, in many aspects, replicates the "reforma pactada" formula. Partially, this holds true for Poland, too, but its position was complicated by limits on democratic representation set via the pact, that ring more of those achieved by military hierarchy in the event of extrication. The two states may be viewed as hardly favorable to the purge of old apparatus, despite the Poles' formal lustration laws. 2) In the Czech Republic and former East Germany (GDR), the situation became favorable to the prosecution of regime's activists, as the stagnating post-totalitarianism simply collapsed in those countries leaving a power vacuum, without a possibility to mobilize in self-defence. However, the broad range purges, that ensued in these states, much too often came in contradiction with the principles of rule of law and universal human rights. 3) The Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) did not experience direct collapse of the system, even though they also had just gone through stagnation.[.].

The article furthers the research on the relation of democratizing states with their former non-democratic regimes by focusing on the situation in the Central and Eastern Europe's re-established democracies. The author utilizes his previously introduced research framework, based on the assessment (and interplay) of the type of the regime and the manner in which it ended. This serves to emphasize differences in the democratic transition of the region's states and, accordingly, the various paths chosen by new leaders in dealing with the problem of Communist party activist responsibility. The article also touches upon structural and psychological legacy of Communism. Along with glaring commonalities of the former Communist bloc, there were specific issues as well. In short, the findings reflect the following: 1 ) The transition of Hungary, in many aspects, replicates the "reforma pactada" formula. Partially, this holds true for Poland, too, but its position was complicated by limits on democratic representation set via the pact, that ring more of those achieved by military hierarchy in the event of extrication. The two states may be viewed as hardly favorable to the purge of old apparatus, despite the Poles' formal lustration laws. 2) In the Czech Republic and former East Germany (GDR), the situation became favorable to the prosecution of regime's activists, as the stagnating post-totalitarianism simply collapsed in those countries leaving a power vacuum, without a possibility to mobilize in self-defence. However, the broad range purges, that ensued in these states, much too often came in contradiction with the principles of rule of law and universal human rights. 3) The Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) did not experience direct collapse of the system, even though they also had just gone through stagnation.[.].

This article argues that the emphasis on the global European vision necessitates a look at various aspects of nations, lands and regions relationaly rather than in aggregate, universal oversystemic terms. Moreover, the origins of ancient Greek idea of Europe are submitted for consideration.

This article argues that the emphasis on the global European vision necessitates a look at various aspects of nations, lands and regions relationaly rather than in aggregate, universal oversystemic terms. Moreover, the origins of ancient Greek idea of Europe are submitted for consideration.

Among the crime investigation trends that are given priority, a special role should be attached to special knowledge usage in crimes investigation. In Criminal Process Code that is currently in force in Lithuania, the following of special knowledge usage are distinguished: a specialist's participation in investigation actions, a specialist's conclusion, the expertise and the revision. In Criminal Process Codes of many countries, only one form of special knowledge usage is distinguished, i.e. expertise. In the new Criminal Process Code of Lithuania, they propose to regulate only these forms of special knowledge usage: the expertise and a specialist's participation in investigation actions. The perspectives of special knowledge usage might be subdivided into the following groups: the adjustment of legal basis, the solution of organisational issues, the preparation of specialists and the raising of their qualification, the development of technical basis. It is proposed to prepare criminalists-technicians and experts in the Law Academy of Lithuania since there are several important and considerable reasons for this. First, criminalists-technicians work in me police structure and the specialists for the structure are prepared by the Law Academy of Lithuania. Second, a well-prepared modern teaching basis is available here and a sufficient material and intellectual potential is accumulated. Currently, there are no laws in Lithuania regulating the activities of non-expert institutions carrying out expertises and the issue of licences granting the right for persons to carry out expertises. A governmental Public Coordination Service for Expertise Issues should solve this by coordinating the activities of all expert institutions, licensing expert work and organising scientific methodological activities.

Among the crime investigation trends that are given priority, a special role should be attached to special knowledge usage in crimes investigation. In Criminal Process Code that is currently in force in Lithuania, the following of special knowledge usage are distinguished: a specialist's participation in investigation actions, a specialist's conclusion, the expertise and the revision. In Criminal Process Codes of many countries, only one form of special knowledge usage is distinguished, i.e. expertise. In the new Criminal Process Code of Lithuania, they propose to regulate only these forms of special knowledge usage: the expertise and a specialist's participation in investigation actions. The perspectives of special knowledge usage might be subdivided into the following groups: the adjustment of legal basis, the solution of organisational issues, the preparation of specialists and the raising of their qualification, the development of technical basis. It is proposed to prepare criminalists-technicians and experts in the Law Academy of Lithuania since there are several important and considerable reasons for this. First, criminalists-technicians work in me police structure and the specialists for the structure are prepared by the Law Academy of Lithuania. Second, a well-prepared modern teaching basis is available here and a sufficient material and intellectual potential is accumulated. Currently, there are no laws in Lithuania regulating the activities of non-expert institutions carrying out expertises and the issue of licences granting the right for persons to carry out expertises. A governmental Public Coordination Service for Expertise Issues should solve this by coordinating the activities of all expert institutions, licensing expert work and organising scientific methodological activities.

One of today major problems of public administration – defense system of the state and planning of her strategy. Sucha situation is, because too small attention was paid for it in literature of public administration, like a specific problem that belong to sector of public administration. This problem often is solved only in military aspect, and is hold as a part of military defense system. There are not enough competitive specialist and experts who would understand sucha problem and would take part solving it as well. It is very important to understand, that defense system is systematic objekt and all problematic should be taken as a whole system that integrate and accumulate different, even opposite elements. Spectrum of methods is very wide, and amount is very large, and for realization well-organized and effective management should be involved. Effectiveness of defense system depends on ability to use all possible resources that are in the state. That is why defense system and control of he implementation should belong to public administration.

One of today major problems of public administration – defense system of the state and planning of her strategy. Sucha situation is, because too small attention was paid for it in literature of public administration, like a specific problem that belong to sector of public administration. This problem often is solved only in military aspect, and is hold as a part of military defense system. There are not enough competitive specialist and experts who would understand sucha problem and would take part solving it as well. It is very important to understand, that defense system is systematic objekt and all problematic should be taken as a whole system that integrate and accumulate different, even opposite elements. Spectrum of methods is very wide, and amount is very large, and for realization well-organized and effective management should be involved. Effectiveness of defense system depends on ability to use all possible resources that are in the state. That is why defense system and control of he implementation should belong to public administration.

In the early stages of European integration, an education policy had not been identified as a political area for joint actions of the Member States. The first initiatives with regard to education by the European Communities of sizable political impact were undertaken in 1976. In December 1991, the Maastricht Treaty of the European Union finally laid the grounds for a legitimate role to be played by the EC Commission in the field of education. European Cummnity does not regulate the content of teaching and the organization of education systems of the Member States. The education policy of the European Union at present is mainly implemented through a series of programmes concerned with education and training. It is interesting to note that, while Member States of the Community are fiercely defending their own right to establish a content and methods of national education, the Community is recommending quite a different approach to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. As a result, people in Central and Eastern Europe are starting to feel that the transfer of knowledge, experience, and paradigms, which takes place, on the whole, rather uncritically, threatens their cultural identity. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the substantial positive impact of the programmes providing assistance to newly developing democracies, which were established by the Community after the fall of the Communist regimes in 1989 and 1990.

In the early stages of European integration, an education policy had not been identified as a political area for joint actions of the Member States. The first initiatives with regard to education by the European Communities of sizable political impact were undertaken in 1976. In December 1991, the Maastricht Treaty of the European Union finally laid the grounds for a legitimate role to be played by the EC Commission in the field of education. European Cummnity does not regulate the content of teaching and the organization of education systems of the Member States. The education policy of the European Union at present is mainly implemented through a series of programmes concerned with education and training. It is interesting to note that, while Member States of the Community are fiercely defending their own right to establish a content and methods of national education, the Community is recommending quite a different approach to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. As a result, people in Central and Eastern Europe are starting to feel that the transfer of knowledge, experience, and paradigms, which takes place, on the whole, rather uncritically, threatens their cultural identity. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the substantial positive impact of the programmes providing assistance to newly developing democracies, which were established by the Community after the fall of the Communist regimes in 1989 and 1990.

In the early stages of European integration, an education policy had not been identified as a political area for joint actions of the Member States. The first initiatives with regard to education by the European Communities of sizable political impact were undertaken in 1976. In December 1991, the Maastricht Treaty of the European Union finally laid the grounds for a legitimate role to be played by the EC Commission in the field of education. European Cummnity does not regulate the content of teaching and the organization of education systems of the Member States. The education policy of the European Union at present is mainly implemented through a series of programmes concerned with education and training. It is interesting to note that, while Member States of the Community are fiercely defending their own right to establish a content and methods of national education, the Community is recommending quite a different approach to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. As a result, people in Central and Eastern Europe are starting to feel that the transfer of knowledge, experience, and paradigms, which takes place, on the whole, rather uncritically, threatens their cultural identity. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the substantial positive impact of the programmes providing assistance to newly developing democracies, which were established by the Community after the fall of the Communist regimes in 1989 and 1990.

In the early stages of European integration, an education policy had not been identified as a political area for joint actions of the Member States. The first initiatives with regard to education by the European Communities of sizable political impact were undertaken in 1976. In December 1991, the Maastricht Treaty of the European Union finally laid the grounds for a legitimate role to be played by the EC Commission in the field of education. European Cummnity does not regulate the content of teaching and the organization of education systems of the Member States. The education policy of the European Union at present is mainly implemented through a series of programmes concerned with education and training. It is interesting to note that, while Member States of the Community are fiercely defending their own right to establish a content and methods of national education, the Community is recommending quite a different approach to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. As a result, people in Central and Eastern Europe are starting to feel that the transfer of knowledge, experience, and paradigms, which takes place, on the whole, rather uncritically, threatens their cultural identity. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the substantial positive impact of the programmes providing assistance to newly developing democracies, which were established by the Community after the fall of the Communist regimes in 1989 and 1990.

The Republic of Belarus is the most authoritarian state in Central and Central-Eastern Europe. The international security community identifies the threats of Aleksandr Lukashenko's regime at global and regional levels. The article analyses the problem: what are the concrete threats posed to Lithuania by the Belarusian authoritarianism? The profiles of the problem presented here - the origins of authoritarianism in Belarus, the pattern of the dependence in the relations between Belarus and Russia, the international security community and Belarus, the development of the Lithuania-Belarus relationship - make it possible to identify eventual threats to Lithuania arising within political, social, economic and ecological sectors.

The Republic of Belarus is the most authoritarian state in Central and Central-Eastern Europe. The international security community identifies the threats of Aleksandr Lukashenko's regime at global and regional levels. The article analyses the problem: what are the concrete threats posed to Lithuania by the Belarusian authoritarianism? The profiles of the problem presented here - the origins of authoritarianism in Belarus, the pattern of the dependence in the relations between Belarus and Russia, the international security community and Belarus, the development of the Lithuania-Belarus relationship - make it possible to identify eventual threats to Lithuania arising within political, social, economic and ecological sectors.