Suchergebnisse

The object of this research is topical and important, because there are not a lot of similar researches. This study works on bicameral and unicameral parliaments – they are analysed and compared. The very concentration of the work is not to scrutinize the parliaments of different countries, but, to find differences in the way of comparison and analyse between unicameralism and bicameralism. For the purpose to reach the goal and to implement tasks of this research, we use methods of systematic analyse, comparison of law, concluding, analyse of documents, historical comparison, intentions of the legislator, logical, linguistic, etc. We can hardly imagine democracy and its implementation without the institution of parliament nowadays. Parliament is institution of public authority. And the parliament expresses the will of the sovereign of the state – the People – in the most proper way. The parliament has the power of legislation, but each country decides which model suits better – unicameralism or bicameralism. Firstly is analysed the history of parliamentarism. Later is presentation of short view of genesis of the theory of separation of powers and what place parliament takes in it. Also is looking for and analysing the reasons, why countries choose one or other model of parliament. In the second part of this research we have chosen for analyse examples of different countries (Lithuania and Sweden), which have unicameral parliament. Is scrutinized the model of composition, internal structure and the process of legislature. In the third part is analogical analysing of bicameral parliaments in France, Check Republic, Germany and the United States of America. The mane advantage of bicameralism is that the bill, before becoming law, passed double control. But the process of legislation in the unicameral parliament is much faster.

The object of this research is topical and important, because there are not a lot of similar researches. This study works on bicameral and unicameral parliaments – they are analysed and compared. The very concentration of the work is not to scrutinize the parliaments of different countries, but, to find differences in the way of comparison and analyse between unicameralism and bicameralism. For the purpose to reach the goal and to implement tasks of this research, we use methods of systematic analyse, comparison of law, concluding, analyse of documents, historical comparison, intentions of the legislator, logical, linguistic, etc. We can hardly imagine democracy and its implementation without the institution of parliament nowadays. Parliament is institution of public authority. And the parliament expresses the will of the sovereign of the state – the People – in the most proper way. The parliament has the power of legislation, but each country decides which model suits better – unicameralism or bicameralism. Firstly is analysed the history of parliamentarism. Later is presentation of short view of genesis of the theory of separation of powers and what place parliament takes in it. Also is looking for and analysing the reasons, why countries choose one or other model of parliament. In the second part of this research we have chosen for analyse examples of different countries (Lithuania and Sweden), which have unicameral parliament. Is scrutinized the model of composition, internal structure and the process of legislature. In the third part is analogical analysing of bicameral parliaments in France, Check Republic, Germany and the United States of America. The mane advantage of bicameralism is that the bill, before becoming law, passed double control. But the process of legislation in the unicameral parliament is much faster.

The article covers the foundation, historical development, current situation and future of the European Parliament. The scientific analysis is based on a multidisciplinary approach with emphasis on the political role of the institution as it is starting to play a central role in the European integration. The future of the EU parliament is a key question for the future of the Union and is addressed by different proposals developed in this article.

The article covers the foundation, historical development, current situation and future of the European Parliament. The scientific analysis is based on a multidisciplinary approach with emphasis on the political role of the institution as it is starting to play a central role in the European integration. The future of the EU parliament is a key question for the future of the Union and is addressed by different proposals developed in this article.

The article covers the foundation, historical development, current situation and future of the European Parliament. The scientific analysis is based on a multidisciplinary approach with emphasis on the political role of the institution as it is starting to play a central role in the European integration. The future of the EU parliament is a key question for the future of the Union and is addressed by different proposals developed in this article.

The article identifies the main types of the rhetoric of drugs in Lithuanian Parliament in 2007-2008. It also reviews a scholarly literature and official documents on drugs policies. The review demonstrates that social scienticts and the United Nations Office policies. Drugs distinguish three main trends in drug policy: control policy, prevention policy and policy mix (control and prevention policy). To analyze the rhetoric of drugs. B. D. Holian's classification of crime rhetoric is used. After conducting a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the transcripts of the Lithuanian Parliament, two types of the rhetoric of drugs were identified: control and punishment rhetoric and prevention and treatment rhetoric. The main topics of the control and piishment rhetoric were related to drug control, punishment for drug possession and war on drugs. The main topics of the prevention and treatment rhetoric included drug education and prevention programs, and treatment for the dependency on illicit drugs. The analyzed data demonstrated that the control and punishment rhetoric was dominant. The word "drugs" was found in 227 context units (the lenght of context unit was 120 words). The control and pinishment rhetoric was found in 218 context units, prevention and treatment rhetoric, in 166 context units.

The article identifies the main types of the rhetoric of drugs in Lithuanian Parliament in 2007-2008. It also reviews a scholarly literature and official documents on drugs policies. The review demonstrates that social scienticts and the United Nations Office policies. Drugs distinguish three main trends in drug policy: control policy, prevention policy and policy mix (control and prevention policy). To analyze the rhetoric of drugs. B. D. Holian's classification of crime rhetoric is used. After conducting a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the transcripts of the Lithuanian Parliament, two types of the rhetoric of drugs were identified: control and punishment rhetoric and prevention and treatment rhetoric. The main topics of the control and piishment rhetoric were related to drug control, punishment for drug possession and war on drugs. The main topics of the prevention and treatment rhetoric included drug education and prevention programs, and treatment for the dependency on illicit drugs. The analyzed data demonstrated that the control and punishment rhetoric was dominant. The word "drugs" was found in 227 context units (the lenght of context unit was 120 words). The control and pinishment rhetoric was found in 218 context units, prevention and treatment rhetoric, in 166 context units.

The article identifies the main types of the rhetoric of drugs in Lithuanian Parliament in 2007-2008. It also reviews a scholarly literature and official documents on drugs policies. The review demonstrates that social scienticts and the United Nations Office policies. Drugs distinguish three main trends in drug policy: control policy, prevention policy and policy mix (control and prevention policy). To analyze the rhetoric of drugs. B. D. Holian's classification of crime rhetoric is used. After conducting a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the transcripts of the Lithuanian Parliament, two types of the rhetoric of drugs were identified: control and punishment rhetoric and prevention and treatment rhetoric. The main topics of the control and piishment rhetoric were related to drug control, punishment for drug possession and war on drugs. The main topics of the prevention and treatment rhetoric included drug education and prevention programs, and treatment for the dependency on illicit drugs. The analyzed data demonstrated that the control and punishment rhetoric was dominant. The word "drugs" was found in 227 context units (the lenght of context unit was 120 words). The control and pinishment rhetoric was found in 218 context units, prevention and treatment rhetoric, in 166 context units.

The article identifies the main types of the rhetoric of drugs in Lithuanian Parliament in 2007-2008. It also reviews a scholarly literature and official documents on drugs policies. The review demonstrates that social scienticts and the United Nations Office policies. Drugs distinguish three main trends in drug policy: control policy, prevention policy and policy mix (control and prevention policy). To analyze the rhetoric of drugs. B. D. Holian's classification of crime rhetoric is used. After conducting a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the transcripts of the Lithuanian Parliament, two types of the rhetoric of drugs were identified: control and punishment rhetoric and prevention and treatment rhetoric. The main topics of the control and piishment rhetoric were related to drug control, punishment for drug possession and war on drugs. The main topics of the prevention and treatment rhetoric included drug education and prevention programs, and treatment for the dependency on illicit drugs. The analyzed data demonstrated that the control and punishment rhetoric was dominant. The word "drugs" was found in 227 context units (the lenght of context unit was 120 words). The control and pinishment rhetoric was found in 218 context units, prevention and treatment rhetoric, in 166 context units.

The article identifies the main types of the rhetoric of drugs in Lithuanian Parliament in 2007-2008. It also reviews a scholarly literature and official documents on drugs policies. The review demonstrates that social scienticts and the United Nations Office policies. Drugs distinguish three main trends in drug policy: control policy, prevention policy and policy mix (control and prevention policy). To analyze the rhetoric of drugs. B. D. Holian's classification of crime rhetoric is used. After conducting a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the transcripts of the Lithuanian Parliament, two types of the rhetoric of drugs were identified: control and punishment rhetoric and prevention and treatment rhetoric. The main topics of the control and piishment rhetoric were related to drug control, punishment for drug possession and war on drugs. The main topics of the prevention and treatment rhetoric included drug education and prevention programs, and treatment for the dependency on illicit drugs. The analyzed data demonstrated that the control and punishment rhetoric was dominant. The word "drugs" was found in 227 context units (the lenght of context unit was 120 words). The control and pinishment rhetoric was found in 218 context units, prevention and treatment rhetoric, in 166 context units.

The article identifies the main types of the rhetoric of drugs in Lithuanian Parliament in 2007-2008. It also reviews a scholarly literature and official documents on drugs policies. The review demonstrates that social scienticts and the United Nations Office policies. Drugs distinguish three main trends in drug policy: control policy, prevention policy and policy mix (control and prevention policy). To analyze the rhetoric of drugs. B. D. Holian's classification of crime rhetoric is used. After conducting a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the transcripts of the Lithuanian Parliament, two types of the rhetoric of drugs were identified: control and punishment rhetoric and prevention and treatment rhetoric. The main topics of the control and piishment rhetoric were related to drug control, punishment for drug possession and war on drugs. The main topics of the prevention and treatment rhetoric included drug education and prevention programs, and treatment for the dependency on illicit drugs. The analyzed data demonstrated that the control and punishment rhetoric was dominant. The word "drugs" was found in 227 context units (the lenght of context unit was 120 words). The control and pinishment rhetoric was found in 218 context units, prevention and treatment rhetoric, in 166 context units.

The subject of the parliamentary law and public governance institutions is relevant and new, because it was not analysed before in the scientifical publications of Lithuanian constitutionalists. This subject includes the comparative aspects not only of the constitutional status, powers and interinstitutional relations between the President and the Parliament of Lithuania but also foreign countries governmental relations, status and powers (USA, Latvia and Portugal). The problem, set out in this master thesis, is the lack of systematic comparative analysis, that is connected to the presidential and parliamental relations and the fragmentary scientifical basis on this topic. The object of this thesis is the relations between the actual President and Parliament in Lithuania and three chosen foreign countries (USA, Latvia and Portugal), also their constitutional status, powers and functions that stipulates the mentioned governmental relations. The purpose of this work is to reveal the main aspects and possible solutions of the problematical situations in the sphere of presidential and parliamential relations, constitutional status, powers in the governmental field in Lithuania, USA, Latvia and Portugal. The purpose is obtained while using these main tasks: analysing the theory and the practice of the status, powers, intergovernmental relations in Lithuania, USA, Latvia and Portugal, introducing the similarities and the differences among all the mentioned countries and their governments. There are two hypothesis set out in this work: The mechanism of the relations of Lithuanian Parliament and President presupposes, that the Presidents' powers are inadequately limited in some areas of his actions and the second hypothesis is that the status, powers and relations of the Presidents and the Parliaments in USA, Latvia and Portugal confirms its' similarity to the President of Lithuania. The methods, used in this master thesis are: comparative systematic, teleological, documental analysis, logical method. At the end of analysis, the hypothesis, denoting that in the mechanism of the governmental relations the powers of the President are disproportionately limited, i.e. his rights in the process of the Governments' formation are too narrow and he has no constitutional right to apply to the Constitutional Court on the matter of the legal acts of Seimas incompatibility with the Constitution is confirmed. Moreover, the second hypothesis is partialy rejected: the intergovernmental relations of the researched foreign countries in the abstract level are similar to the governmental institutions of Lithuania but after the deeper examination the differences are also revealed. The American and Portuguese Presidents have strong powers and wide area of constitutional actions, unlike the President of Latvia, that has weaker status, powers and is more likely to be the nominal leader of the country. The master thesis consists of introduction, three main parts, conclusions, offers, the list of the literature used, anotation and the summary in Lithuanian and English languages. The first part of the this work consists of the analysis of the actual Parliament and President in Lithuania, their constitutional status, functions, powers and relations, the second part describes the same features of the three chosen foreign countries (USA, Latvia and Portugal) and the last part discloses the similarities and the differences among all those countries and their governmental relations. The Constitutions of Lithuania, USA, Latvia and Portugal were broadly used when writing this master thesis, as well as some laws, constitutional jurisprudence and some scientifical works of lithuanian constitutionalists, such as G. Mesonis, V. Sinkevičius, E. Jarašiūnas and others and some foreign scientists as well (especially american), such as G. Calabresi, I. Vladeck, W. Marshall and others.

The subject of the parliamentary law and public governance institutions is relevant and new, because it was not analysed before in the scientifical publications of Lithuanian constitutionalists. This subject includes the comparative aspects not only of the constitutional status, powers and interinstitutional relations between the President and the Parliament of Lithuania but also foreign countries governmental relations, status and powers (USA, Latvia and Portugal). The problem, set out in this master thesis, is the lack of systematic comparative analysis, that is connected to the presidential and parliamental relations and the fragmentary scientifical basis on this topic. The object of this thesis is the relations between the actual President and Parliament in Lithuania and three chosen foreign countries (USA, Latvia and Portugal), also their constitutional status, powers and functions that stipulates the mentioned governmental relations. The purpose of this work is to reveal the main aspects and possible solutions of the problematical situations in the sphere of presidential and parliamential relations, constitutional status, powers in the governmental field in Lithuania, USA, Latvia and Portugal. The purpose is obtained while using these main tasks: analysing the theory and the practice of the status, powers, intergovernmental relations in Lithuania, USA, Latvia and Portugal, introducing the similarities and the differences among all the mentioned countries and their governments. There are two hypothesis set out in this work: The mechanism of the relations of Lithuanian Parliament and President presupposes, that the Presidents' powers are inadequately limited in some areas of his actions and the second hypothesis is that the status, powers and relations of the Presidents and the Parliaments in USA, Latvia and Portugal confirms its' similarity to the President of Lithuania. The methods, used in this master thesis are: comparative systematic, teleological, documental analysis, logical method. At the end of analysis, the hypothesis, denoting that in the mechanism of the governmental relations the powers of the President are disproportionately limited, i.e. his rights in the process of the Governments' formation are too narrow and he has no constitutional right to apply to the Constitutional Court on the matter of the legal acts of Seimas incompatibility with the Constitution is confirmed. Moreover, the second hypothesis is partialy rejected: the intergovernmental relations of the researched foreign countries in the abstract level are similar to the governmental institutions of Lithuania but after the deeper examination the differences are also revealed. The American and Portuguese Presidents have strong powers and wide area of constitutional actions, unlike the President of Latvia, that has weaker status, powers and is more likely to be the nominal leader of the country. The master thesis consists of introduction, three main parts, conclusions, offers, the list of the literature used, anotation and the summary in Lithuanian and English languages. The first part of the this work consists of the analysis of the actual Parliament and President in Lithuania, their constitutional status, functions, powers and relations, the second part describes the same features of the three chosen foreign countries (USA, Latvia and Portugal) and the last part discloses the similarities and the differences among all those countries and their governmental relations. The Constitutions of Lithuania, USA, Latvia and Portugal were broadly used when writing this master thesis, as well as some laws, constitutional jurisprudence and some scientifical works of lithuanian constitutionalists, such as G. Mesonis, V. Sinkevičius, E. Jarašiūnas and others and some foreign scientists as well (especially american), such as G. Calabresi, I. Vladeck, W. Marshall and others.

The thesis aims to analyse the peculiarities of information behaviour of members of the Lithuanian Seimas in decision-making processes, and identify factors conditioning that behaviour. With regard to the exclusive power and authority of the MPs in making decisions that are of utmost importance to the state and its people, their exceptional status (being representatives of the Nation and adopting laws and various resolutions they embody the will of the Nation), the cognition of information behaviour of politicians, i.e. decision-makers who are among the most important actors of the political process, is critical, relevant and ponderable, as information being the foundation of political decisions is their indispensable element. Pursuing the goal set up in the thesis, the author offers a theoretical definition of the key determinants of MPs' information behaviour and frames a structural model encompassing the basic elements of MPs' information behaviour and factors influential of it; presents an empiric research that was conducted with a view to establish the peculiarities in the Seimas members' behaviour when searching for information and utilizing it in the context of decision-making, as well as investigates in what way individual and organizational factors determine their behaviour. The inquiry revealed what role, in the perception of the MPs, information plays in political processes, what information is required, how thoroughly and deeply politicians analyse information when making decisions, what sources of information are used, why, and what is their impact on decisions. In the research, special attention was bestowed on the analysis of how MPs assess information dissemination in the parliament and how they exploit information provision system, utilizing the derived data to offer possible trends for the improvement of information provision