Suchergebnisse

The object of this research is the Zaberezinskis family among the political elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: the association of the family's history (its genealogy, economic, political, foundational activity) with the rest of the environment of the GDL rulers of the Jagiellonian Dynasty. The general backdrop of the political life of the GDL makes it possible to see and evaluate the weight of the Zaberezininkis family among the country's ruling elite. From the late 15th to the middle of the 16th century, the aristocratic authority with its ages-old roots acquired institutional form. Foreseeing the possibility of rulers residing outside the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (as during Kazimierz Jagiellonian's rule), Alexander Jagiellonian's privilege of 6 August 1492 authorized broader prerogatives for the Council of Lords. At the same time, on the eve of the proclamation of the Grand Duke, the summoned parliament initiated the tradition of representation of the nobility. Institutional changes were accompanied by the reception of humanistic ideas, legal culture and political theory, linked to the custom, increasing at the time, of nobility sending their offspring to universities to pursue higher education. The story of the Zaberezinskis family, descendants of Rimvydas, is presented In the context of the formation of the GDL Republic (Respublica Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae), a political nation of descendants of the Romans (as the Lithuanian nobility portrayed themselves). The earliest data on the kin are associated with the times of Sigismund Kęstutaitis, and the latest with those of Sigismund Augustus. Members of the family played a particularly significant role in the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the times of Kazimierz Jagiellonian and his two sons Alexander and Sigismund the Old, from the 1480s until 1544. Responding to the postulates of the modern science of genealogy, the story of the family is presented according to its different branches. Against the background of key events in Lithuanian history, beginning from Jurgis Rimvydaitis and Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis, the careers of the latter's children and their descendants, their interrelationships, and factors influencing their careers are analysed. Due to the different status of different members of the family and the different amounts of data available in the sources, the questionnaire applied to different members of the family differs. Jonas Jurgaitis and his son Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis, who reached the highest posts, are the most significant, and the most extensive treatment is given to their biographies. The composition of the landholding and the development of the network of towns are discussed in a separate part of the study. The available data (including property holdings) do not directly confirm a family relationship between the Zaberezinskis and the Manvydas families. No sources have been found in which the Zaberezinskis in any way mention Manvydas or his brother, or a family relationship with them. In the view of the author of this work, the success of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinsky's career can be attributed to his holding the strategic post of Vicar of Polotsk at a key moment, the favour of Lithuanian Grand Duke Alexander and strong personal abilities. In consequence, Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinsky proved one of the most prominent personalities on the Council of Lords, achieving the particularly high offices of Voivode of Trakai and Grand Marshall, and personally taking part in the most important events in the interstate relations of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. For a variety of reasons (often due to early death), the only descendent of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis who achieved a significant political career was his son Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis (~1473-1538), who ultimately, like his father, assumed the posts of Voivode of Trakai and Grand Marshall of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. His relations with the other most influential high-ranking noblemen of the period are considered, especially the meaning of marriages contracted by him and arranged by him for his descendants and relatives. The gathered data regarding the formation and distribution of the family's latifundium show that the most important stage in the formation of the estate was the time of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis, although later the family also acquired significant properties through marriage and purchases. A major step in this process was the marriage of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis to the daughter, Ona, of Jonas Nasuta, who held large properties in Palenkė (Podlasie). Other ways land was acquired were purchases and gifts of the rulers (Casimir and Alexander). One such event that stands out is Alexander's gift in 1506 of the regions of Alytus and Simnas. Many of the surviving papers written by Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis in the final period of his life, when he resided in Alytus as Keeper of the City and the Region, testify to intense internal colonization of the area of Alytus and Simnas by the Nemunas River. Alytus and Simnas also include the most noteworthy church foundations made by Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis and his family, a clear witness to the founders' piety. As he gave the decisive impulse for Alytus and Simnas to become city-like settlements, he can properly be considered the founder of those cities. The political self-awareness of the Lithuanian aristocracy is best captured by the term from that period "the Republic of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" (Respublica Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae), as D. Kuolis has accurately observed. The theory of the Roman origins of the Lithuanian nobility, with all its consequences (such as e.g. the rule of law), can be considered the highest peak of the political culture of the ruling elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In 1525 (well before the Union of Lublin, which is often associated with Lithuanian republican traditions) Albertas Goštautas's memorial to the Grand Duchess Bona associated the notion of nobility with loyalty to the ruler and responsibility for the commonwealth (the republic). Although it can be said that certain Republican ideals drawn from antiquity thrived among the Lithuanian aristocracy, their dominant trait was conservatism (unwillingness to admit lesser nobility to the structures of power). The high-rank nobility clearly recognized the ruler as the head of the political body of the Grand Duchy, and sought for him a crown. The programme for a Kingdom of Lithuania should be linked to the need, fostered by aristocracy, for the GDL to have its own distinct identity, though having a separate ruler was important also for practical reasons: the unquestioned centralized government accelerated the defence mechanisms of the state. A contemporary observer testifies that, when the ruler was absent, the Lithuanian lords "did not know what to do, remained undecided and did nothing." The ruling elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, both in their actions and in what they wrote (in the Lithuanian chronicles and elsewhere), unequivocally showed that no agreements with the Polish Crown bound them. The role of the aristocracy in the political emancipation of the lesser nobility and the importance of the latter for the maturing of the Lithuanian-Polish Union are issues that still require further research. Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis gave some of his nobles personal freedom and economic autonomy, which can be regarded as a precondition for political emancipation.

Modern Western states declaring the right to fair and speedy trial have faced serious obstacles while implementing it. The judicial procedure is suffering from severe caseload leading to a substantial delay and increasing costs in litigation. The situation resulted in growing public dissatisfaction with the formal court system and a justice as a whole. This encouraged the states to look for new dispute resolution mechanisms which could be alternative to litigation and could overtake certain disputes from courts leaving access to justice more available. In 1950's USA introduced mediation in solving labor disputes. It showed a success and gained the support of legislation and judiciary which led to wide spread of mediation to other areas of dispute resolution: small claims, neighborhood, consumer, landlord-tenant, victim-offender, family, environmental disputes. Mediation can offer a cheaper, faster, less formal procedure compared to litigation. Mediation leaves the ultimate decision making process in the hands of the parties themselves. The third neutral person is only assisting the parties in developing the dialogue and reaching a mutually acceptable settlement of issues in dispute. This voluntarily reached settlement diminishes the friction between adverse parties, helps to maintain further amicable relations between parties and preserve the social peace and harmony. Confidentiality is regarded as a fundamental feature to effective mediation. It encourages candid and free nature of the discussion. Parties are then free to communicate without fear that the facts they disclosed during mediation will be used against them in court if mediation fails. Parties to mediation, the mediator, non-party participants are obliged to keep all the information related to mediation confidential. Parties to dispute can agree to disclose the protected information or a part of it. The mediator doesn't have such authority to decide upon disclosure of protected communications – he has an obligation to keep it confidential. But are there circumstances when mediator is compelled to disclose the confidential information? If so, what are they? Scientific novelty of the thesis The European Union (hereinafter – the EU) has acknowledged the importance of alternative dispute resolution (hereinafter - ADR) and especially mediation in reaching one of its political objectives in securing better access to justice. The EU institutions produced a number of legal instruments promoting the use of ADR: Green Paper on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil and Commercial Law presented by the European Commission in April 2002, European Code of Conduct for Mediators passed by the European Commission in 2004 and finally the Directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters enacted by the European Parliament and the Council in May 2008. Lithuania as a Member State has to ensure a proper implementation of the provisions of this Directive through the means of national legislation. The Directive provides for a minimum standards to ensure the protection of confidentiality in mediation but Member States are free to take stricter measures at domestic level. Regardless which approach Lithuania is going to take – softer or stricter - it has to ensure that legislation regulating confidentiality is to be clear, precise, understandable and fair to the users of mediation and especially to mediators. Parties to dispute can agree to disclose certain confidential information in later judicial or arbitration proceedings. Mediator doesn't have such authority – he is obliged to keep information confidential. The obligation of confidentiality for mediator arise from statutes defining mediation, codes of professional conduct or mediation agreements. The duty of confidentiality must be preserved in order to assure that the reasonable expectations of participants regarding the confidentiality are met rather than frustrated. The goal of this thesis is to provide the answer for the legal issue: is the duty of confidentiality placed upon mediators absolute? The proposed hypothesis is that the duty of confidentiality placed upon mediators is not absolute. In order to accomplish the goal of the thesis and to support or deny the hypothesis we take the following steps: 1. to analyze the mediation and to determine what its main features are; 2. to analyze the confidentiality in mediation; 3. to determine what are the legal means for safeguarding the confidentiality in mediation; 4. to determine the role of mediator in preserving the confidentiality in mediation; 5. to determine the scope of confidentiality whether there is exceptions to it. In order to accomplish the tasks set above we analyzed number of legal instruments passed by the institutions of European Union, Lithuanian legislation on mediation, the provisions of confidentiality in Uniform Mediation Act of United States of America. It was important to explore the legal means in safeguarding the confidentiality in mediation in different countries: statutory protection, without prejudice rule, mediation privilege, attorney-client privilege and contractual protection – in order to determine which legal instrument provides the most protection of confidentiality. We looked at the case law of United Kingdom, USA, Australia that emphasized the importance of confidentiality in mediation, also analyzed British case law establishing the exceptions from the confidentiality. After the above mentioned tasks are accomplished we make the following conclusions: 1. Mediation unlike other ADR and unlike judicial procedures, can offer an amicable dispute resolution procedure which is strictly confidential. 2. Confidentiality is one of the most important mediation features distinguishing it from other dispute resolution mechanisms and making it more attractive to the users. Legally protected confidentiality fosters the candid and open communications between parties and mediator increasing the effectiveness of the procedure. Lifting the shield of confidentiality would destroy the public trust in mediation and would discourage its potential users from engaging in mediation. 3. The statutory privilege against disclosure of any mediation communication by parties, the mediator and non-parties participants and ability to block others from disclosure – is the most effective legal instrument preserving the confidentiality in mediation and protecting the mediator from being called as a witness regarding confidential information. 4. The duty of confidentiality placed upon mediator is not absolute as it can be proved by several exceptions created by legislation and by courts. There is certain situations when courts can decide to look at otherwise privileged information when public interest to hear mediator testimony outweighs the interest in protecting the confidentiality and integrity of mediation. There are certain situations when courts are willing to hear the confidential information related to mediation. Absent any statutory protection the mediator may be called as a witness and could be compelled to testify. The mediator testimony may reveal certain information which could be in favor of one party and damaging to the other party this undermines the principle of mediator neutrality and the integrity of the process. All the exceptions to confidentiality must be construed carefully and precisely by statute leaving no ambiguities and providing the legal certainty for participants. The recommendations: In order to ensure the adequate protection of confidentiality in mediation we recommend: 1. to incorporate in the Code of Civil Procedure the provision prohibiting to call the mediator as a witness in civil or commercial proceedings; 2. to incorporate in Civil Dispute Conciliation Mediation Act the exception to confidentiality for information that is sought or offered to prove mediator malpractice claim or complaint; 3. to add an exception in Civil Dispute Conciliation Mediation Act that information about future or ongoing crimes which became known during mediation is not protected and must be disclosed to authorities.

Modern Western states declaring the right to fair and speedy trial have faced serious obstacles while implementing it. The judicial procedure is suffering from severe caseload leading to a substantial delay and increasing costs in litigation. The situation resulted in growing public dissatisfaction with the formal court system and a justice as a whole. This encouraged the states to look for new dispute resolution mechanisms which could be alternative to litigation and could overtake certain disputes from courts leaving access to justice more available. In 1950's USA introduced mediation in solving labor disputes. It showed a success and gained the support of legislation and judiciary which led to wide spread of mediation to other areas of dispute resolution: small claims, neighborhood, consumer, landlord-tenant, victim-offender, family, environmental disputes. Mediation can offer a cheaper, faster, less formal procedure compared to litigation. Mediation leaves the ultimate decision making process in the hands of the parties themselves. The third neutral person is only assisting the parties in developing the dialogue and reaching a mutually acceptable settlement of issues in dispute. This voluntarily reached settlement diminishes the friction between adverse parties, helps to maintain further amicable relations between parties and preserve the social peace and harmony. Confidentiality is regarded as a fundamental feature to effective mediation. It encourages candid and free nature of the discussion. Parties are then free to communicate without fear that the facts they disclosed during mediation will be used against them in court if mediation fails. Parties to mediation, the mediator, non-party participants are obliged to keep all the information related to mediation confidential. Parties to dispute can agree to disclose the protected information or a part of it. The mediator doesn't have such authority to decide upon disclosure of protected communications – he has an obligation to keep it confidential. But are there circumstances when mediator is compelled to disclose the confidential information? If so, what are they? Scientific novelty of the thesis The European Union (hereinafter – the EU) has acknowledged the importance of alternative dispute resolution (hereinafter - ADR) and especially mediation in reaching one of its political objectives in securing better access to justice. The EU institutions produced a number of legal instruments promoting the use of ADR: Green Paper on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil and Commercial Law presented by the European Commission in April 2002, European Code of Conduct for Mediators passed by the European Commission in 2004 and finally the Directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters enacted by the European Parliament and the Council in May 2008. Lithuania as a Member State has to ensure a proper implementation of the provisions of this Directive through the means of national legislation. The Directive provides for a minimum standards to ensure the protection of confidentiality in mediation but Member States are free to take stricter measures at domestic level. Regardless which approach Lithuania is going to take – softer or stricter - it has to ensure that legislation regulating confidentiality is to be clear, precise, understandable and fair to the users of mediation and especially to mediators. Parties to dispute can agree to disclose certain confidential information in later judicial or arbitration proceedings. Mediator doesn't have such authority – he is obliged to keep information confidential. The obligation of confidentiality for mediator arise from statutes defining mediation, codes of professional conduct or mediation agreements. The duty of confidentiality must be preserved in order to assure that the reasonable expectations of participants regarding the confidentiality are met rather than frustrated. The goal of this thesis is to provide the answer for the legal issue: is the duty of confidentiality placed upon mediators absolute? The proposed hypothesis is that the duty of confidentiality placed upon mediators is not absolute. In order to accomplish the goal of the thesis and to support or deny the hypothesis we take the following steps: 1. to analyze the mediation and to determine what its main features are; 2. to analyze the confidentiality in mediation; 3. to determine what are the legal means for safeguarding the confidentiality in mediation; 4. to determine the role of mediator in preserving the confidentiality in mediation; 5. to determine the scope of confidentiality whether there is exceptions to it. In order to accomplish the tasks set above we analyzed number of legal instruments passed by the institutions of European Union, Lithuanian legislation on mediation, the provisions of confidentiality in Uniform Mediation Act of United States of America. It was important to explore the legal means in safeguarding the confidentiality in mediation in different countries: statutory protection, without prejudice rule, mediation privilege, attorney-client privilege and contractual protection – in order to determine which legal instrument provides the most protection of confidentiality. We looked at the case law of United Kingdom, USA, Australia that emphasized the importance of confidentiality in mediation, also analyzed British case law establishing the exceptions from the confidentiality. After the above mentioned tasks are accomplished we make the following conclusions: 1. Mediation unlike other ADR and unlike judicial procedures, can offer an amicable dispute resolution procedure which is strictly confidential. 2. Confidentiality is one of the most important mediation features distinguishing it from other dispute resolution mechanisms and making it more attractive to the users. Legally protected confidentiality fosters the candid and open communications between parties and mediator increasing the effectiveness of the procedure. Lifting the shield of confidentiality would destroy the public trust in mediation and would discourage its potential users from engaging in mediation. 3. The statutory privilege against disclosure of any mediation communication by parties, the mediator and non-parties participants and ability to block others from disclosure – is the most effective legal instrument preserving the confidentiality in mediation and protecting the mediator from being called as a witness regarding confidential information. 4. The duty of confidentiality placed upon mediator is not absolute as it can be proved by several exceptions created by legislation and by courts. There is certain situations when courts can decide to look at otherwise privileged information when public interest to hear mediator testimony outweighs the interest in protecting the confidentiality and integrity of mediation. There are certain situations when courts are willing to hear the confidential information related to mediation. Absent any statutory protection the mediator may be called as a witness and could be compelled to testify. The mediator testimony may reveal certain information which could be in favor of one party and damaging to the other party this undermines the principle of mediator neutrality and the integrity of the process. All the exceptions to confidentiality must be construed carefully and precisely by statute leaving no ambiguities and providing the legal certainty for participants. The recommendations: In order to ensure the adequate protection of confidentiality in mediation we recommend: 1. to incorporate in the Code of Civil Procedure the provision prohibiting to call the mediator as a witness in civil or commercial proceedings; 2. to incorporate in Civil Dispute Conciliation Mediation Act the exception to confidentiality for information that is sought or offered to prove mediator malpractice claim or complaint; 3. to add an exception in Civil Dispute Conciliation Mediation Act that information about future or ongoing crimes which became known during mediation is not protected and must be disclosed to authorities.

Modern Western states declaring the right to fair and speedy trial have faced serious obstacles while implementing it. The judicial procedure is suffering from severe caseload leading to a substantial delay and increasing costs in litigation. The situation resulted in growing public dissatisfaction with the formal court system and a justice as a whole. This encouraged the states to look for new dispute resolution mechanisms which could be alternative to litigation and could overtake certain disputes from courts leaving access to justice more available. In 1950's USA introduced mediation in solving labor disputes. It showed a success and gained the support of legislation and judiciary which led to wide spread of mediation to other areas of dispute resolution: small claims, neighborhood, consumer, landlord-tenant, victim-offender, family, environmental disputes. Mediation can offer a cheaper, faster, less formal procedure compared to litigation. Mediation leaves the ultimate decision making process in the hands of the parties themselves. The third neutral person is only assisting the parties in developing the dialogue and reaching a mutually acceptable settlement of issues in dispute. This voluntarily reached settlement diminishes the friction between adverse parties, helps to maintain further amicable relations between parties and preserve the social peace and harmony. Confidentiality is regarded as a fundamental feature to effective mediation. It encourages candid and free nature of the discussion. Parties are then free to communicate without fear that the facts they disclosed during mediation will be used against them in court if mediation fails. Parties to mediation, the mediator, non-party participants are obliged to keep all the information related to mediation confidential. Parties to dispute can agree to disclose the protected information or a part of it. The mediator doesn't have such authority to decide upon disclosure of protected communications – he has an obligation to keep it confidential. But are there circumstances when mediator is compelled to disclose the confidential information? If so, what are they? Scientific novelty of the thesis The European Union (hereinafter – the EU) has acknowledged the importance of alternative dispute resolution (hereinafter - ADR) and especially mediation in reaching one of its political objectives in securing better access to justice. The EU institutions produced a number of legal instruments promoting the use of ADR: Green Paper on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil and Commercial Law presented by the European Commission in April 2002, European Code of Conduct for Mediators passed by the European Commission in 2004 and finally the Directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters enacted by the European Parliament and the Council in May 2008. Lithuania as a Member State has to ensure a proper implementation of the provisions of this Directive through the means of national legislation. The Directive provides for a minimum standards to ensure the protection of confidentiality in mediation but Member States are free to take stricter measures at domestic level. Regardless which approach Lithuania is going to take – softer or stricter - it has to ensure that legislation regulating confidentiality is to be clear, precise, understandable and fair to the users of mediation and especially to mediators. Parties to dispute can agree to disclose certain confidential information in later judicial or arbitration proceedings. Mediator doesn't have such authority – he is obliged to keep information confidential. The obligation of confidentiality for mediator arise from statutes defining mediation, codes of professional conduct or mediation agreements. The duty of confidentiality must be preserved in order to assure that the reasonable expectations of participants regarding the confidentiality are met rather than frustrated. The goal of this thesis is to provide the answer for the legal issue: is the duty of confidentiality placed upon mediators absolute? The proposed hypothesis is that the duty of confidentiality placed upon mediators is not absolute. In order to accomplish the goal of the thesis and to support or deny the hypothesis we take the following steps: 1. to analyze the mediation and to determine what its main features are; 2. to analyze the confidentiality in mediation; 3. to determine what are the legal means for safeguarding the confidentiality in mediation; 4. to determine the role of mediator in preserving the confidentiality in mediation; 5. to determine the scope of confidentiality whether there is exceptions to it. In order to accomplish the tasks set above we analyzed number of legal instruments passed by the institutions of European Union, Lithuanian legislation on mediation, the provisions of confidentiality in Uniform Mediation Act of United States of America. It was important to explore the legal means in safeguarding the confidentiality in mediation in different countries: statutory protection, without prejudice rule, mediation privilege, attorney-client privilege and contractual protection – in order to determine which legal instrument provides the most protection of confidentiality. We looked at the case law of United Kingdom, USA, Australia that emphasized the importance of confidentiality in mediation, also analyzed British case law establishing the exceptions from the confidentiality. After the above mentioned tasks are accomplished we make the following conclusions: 1. Mediation unlike other ADR and unlike judicial procedures, can offer an amicable dispute resolution procedure which is strictly confidential. 2. Confidentiality is one of the most important mediation features distinguishing it from other dispute resolution mechanisms and making it more attractive to the users. Legally protected confidentiality fosters the candid and open communications between parties and mediator increasing the effectiveness of the procedure. Lifting the shield of confidentiality would destroy the public trust in mediation and would discourage its potential users from engaging in mediation. 3. The statutory privilege against disclosure of any mediation communication by parties, the mediator and non-parties participants and ability to block others from disclosure – is the most effective legal instrument preserving the confidentiality in mediation and protecting the mediator from being called as a witness regarding confidential information. 4. The duty of confidentiality placed upon mediator is not absolute as it can be proved by several exceptions created by legislation and by courts. There is certain situations when courts can decide to look at otherwise privileged information when public interest to hear mediator testimony outweighs the interest in protecting the confidentiality and integrity of mediation. There are certain situations when courts are willing to hear the confidential information related to mediation. Absent any statutory protection the mediator may be called as a witness and could be compelled to testify. The mediator testimony may reveal certain information which could be in favor of one party and damaging to the other party this undermines the principle of mediator neutrality and the integrity of the process. All the exceptions to confidentiality must be construed carefully and precisely by statute leaving no ambiguities and providing the legal certainty for participants. The recommendations: In order to ensure the adequate protection of confidentiality in mediation we recommend: 1. to incorporate in the Code of Civil Procedure the provision prohibiting to call the mediator as a witness in civil or commercial proceedings; 2. to incorporate in Civil Dispute Conciliation Mediation Act the exception to confidentiality for information that is sought or offered to prove mediator malpractice claim or complaint; 3. to add an exception in Civil Dispute Conciliation Mediation Act that information about future or ongoing crimes which became known during mediation is not protected and must be disclosed to authorities.

This article examines the provisions of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Compensation of Damage Resulting from the USSR Occupation (hereinafter -- the Law), which was adopted on 13 June 2000, in the light of customary rules of international law on state responsibility, as codified in the 2001 the UN International Law Commission's Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (hereinafter -- the ILC Draft Articles). The main aim of the article is to deal with the international legal grounds of the responsibility of the Russian Federation for the Soviet occupation of the Republic of Lithuania and, against this background, to identify the role of the Law. The ground of Russia's responsibility is an internationally wrongful act committed as the aggression against the Republic of Lithuania, which was started by the 15 June 1940 incursion by the Soviet armed forces & subsequently continued in the form of the illegal occupation of Lithuania until the restoration of Lithuania's independence on 11 March 1990, however, the illegal presence of the foreign forces on Lithuania's soil ended only in 1993. The fact of the 1940 Soviet aggression & illegal occupation of the Baltic States has been widely recognized by the international community, it was even acknowledged by the USSR & Russia in 1989-1991. Therefore there is no doubt that under international law from 1940-1990 the Republic of Lithuania had been an occupied State. That is why the illegal occupation with its consequences, as the breach of an international obligation not to resort to aggression having a continuing character, constitutes an objective element of an internationally wrongful act being the ground for Russia's responsibility. That also explains why the title of the Law refers to the occupation. Meanwhile the specific feature of subjective element is addressed in the preamble of the Law. That is the continuity of the Russian State & the corresponding identity of its international legal personality with the Soviet Union, which was claimed by Russia & generally recognized by the international community. Therefore under international law the Russian Federation is the State continuing the rights & obligations of the former USSR (ie., it is the same international legal person). Consequently, internationally wrongful acts of the latter, including the Soviet occupation of Lithuania & the other two Baltic States, should be attributable to the Russian Federation. Apart from the ground for Russia's responsibility, the issue of reparation is addressed in the article. In accordance with international law (the ILC Draft Article), the principle of full reparation should be applied to realize responsibility for an internationally wrongful act. The full reparation for the injury can be provided in the form of restitution, compensation & satisfaction, while any financially assessable damage should be covered by compensation when restitution is not practically possible. Responsibility for the Soviet occupation is the latter case. Therefore in this sense the Law concretizes the claim of Lithuania as it lays down the obligations of the Government of Lithuania to calculate the damage & seek its compensation from Russia. In conformity with the principle of full reparation, the provisions of the Law require to calculate the damage for all period of the Soviet occupation as well as to cover all types of financially assessable damage. The third main issue addressed in this article is admissibility of a claim for reparation, ie., the procedural requirements to be observed by the injured State invoking an international responsibility of other State. The main requirement, as follows from Art. 43 of the ILC Draft Articles, is that the injured State should give a timely & proper notice of its claim to the State responsible for an internationally wrongful act; the claim is admissible when it is waived by the injured State or it can be inadmissible when it is not maintained. However, a mere lapse of time without a claim is being resolved, including delay in its prosecution due to refusal of the respondent State, cannot result in loss of the right of the injured State to invoke responsibility. In this regard the Law is a unilateral act of the State of Lithuania which formulates & concretizes the claim for Russia's responsibility. The form of this act was determined by Lithuanian national rather than international law as the former requires that any compulsory rules or instructions for the Government can be laid down by the Seimas (the Parliament) only in the form of (statutory) law. As it is clear from the preamble of the Law, in continuing & consolidating the previous Lithuanian acts invoking Russia's responsibility the Law demonstrates that the claim for responsibility has been raised without any unreasonable delay a long time ago (the first time Lithuania declared about its claim for reparation in 1991) & Russia is aware of that claim from the very beginning. In such a manner the Law also proves a consistent & unchanging position of Lithuania with regard to Russia's responsibility. Therefore, the Law evidences that the claim of Lithuania remains admissible although still being unresolved & notwithstanding that Russia is rejecting it. Under international law the injured State has the right to waive its claim for responsibility of another State. National law may, however, restrict that right in setting up appropriate duties for the authorities of the injured State. In this regard it follows from the preamble of the Law that under Lithuanian constitutional law no State organ or official can declare a waiver of the claim for Russia's responsibility because the Law is based on & aims at implementation of the corresponding decision by the 14 June 1992 national referendum that demanded to seek reparation for the Soviet occupation. Therefore, the waiver can be declared only by other referendum as well as without a referendum the Seimas cannot abolish the provisions of the Law requiring to seek a compensation (such kind of action could amount to the waiver in the sense of Art. 45(a) of the ILC Draft Articles). To keep the claim for responsibility of another State admissible & valid, when it is being unresolved a long time, the injured State should do everything it can reasonably do to maintain the claim. Otherwise it can be questioned, whether the right to invoke responsibility is lost due to conduct of the injured State in the sense of Art. 45(b) of the ILC Draft Articles. Therefore, to avoid similar doubts the Law obliged the Government to seek constantly the compensation for the damage caused by the Soviet occupation. Since Russia used to reject Lithuania's initiatives to conduct negotiations on the matter & any other way of settlement is not available without Russia's consent, it can be stated that as yet, in particular due to the Law, the conduct of Lithuania has not raised any serious doubts with regard to validity of its claim for compensation. Obviously such doubts would be serious if any kind of moratorium on the claim had been announced. To sum it up, it can be concluded that the Law is based on & is consistent with the rules of international law. It also implements the international legal requirements for the proper declaration & maintenance of the claim for reparation. Therefore both under international law & under Lithuanian constitutional law the Law has been necessary to consolidate & consistently maintain the claim to Russia for the compensation of the damages caused by the Soviet occupation. Lastly, it should be noted that a proper settlement of the problem of Russia's responsibility for the Soviet occupation of Lithuania is not a question of self-interest for Lithuania & it should pursue the claim for compensation not only due to the decision by the 14 June 1992 referendum. Not accidentally Art. 1 of the ILC Draft Articles refers that "every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State." It is also not accidentally that the preamble of the 1991 Treaty between Lithuania & Russia states that mutual confidence between the people of both Parties is hard to achieve without elimination of the consequences of the Soviet annexation of Lithuania. Like for national law, rule of law & justice cannot be established without realization & inevitability of responsibility for grave breaches of international law. Therefore the realization of responsibility for the 1940 aggression against the Baltic States & its consequences would undoubtedly contribute to general prevention of such grave breaches as well as would assure that similar tragic events never happen again in the history of Lithuania. Such kind of prevention should be at the focus of attention of the whole international community rather than only Lithuania & the other two Baltic States, since a prohibition of aggression is a long-standing rule of jus cogens character & obligation erga omnes towards international community. Adapted from the source document.