Suchergebnisse

The United States of America and France are states that have much in common. The USA has the greatest political, economic and military power in the world, and France held this position before the Second World War. Both, the Unites States and France, were the sources of democratic values in the eighteenth century. Currently the two countries have the same values and objectives for the world community: defence of human rights, promotion of democracy, maintenance of international stability and peace, fight against terrorism. However, France has always opposed the United States on one issue or other. It may be in the realm of international diplomacy, where one can discern a distinct distaste for America's oftproclaimed sole-superpower status, or on matters of culture, where France is always the first to denounce American "cultural imperialism." Lately, Franco – American friction has manifested itself most visibly in the UN Security Council over the Iraq war. Both countries realized the necessity to disarm Iraq yet France opposed the resolution authorizing the war against Iraq. France's antipathy to war, pessimism to crate stability in Iraq and refusal to recognize the leadership of the United States can be conceived as the reasons of the opposition. France is no longer the superpower that it was, and that leads to a strategic difference in how the two countries pursue their goals. [.].

The United States of America and France are states that have much in common. The USA has the greatest political, economic and military power in the world, and France held this position before the Second World War. Both, the Unites States and France, were the sources of democratic values in the eighteenth century. Currently the two countries have the same values and objectives for the world community: defence of human rights, promotion of democracy, maintenance of international stability and peace, fight against terrorism. However, France has always opposed the United States on one issue or other. It may be in the realm of international diplomacy, where one can discern a distinct distaste for America's oftproclaimed sole-superpower status, or on matters of culture, where France is always the first to denounce American "cultural imperialism." Lately, Franco – American friction has manifested itself most visibly in the UN Security Council over the Iraq war. Both countries realized the necessity to disarm Iraq yet France opposed the resolution authorizing the war against Iraq. France's antipathy to war, pessimism to crate stability in Iraq and refusal to recognize the leadership of the United States can be conceived as the reasons of the opposition. France is no longer the superpower that it was, and that leads to a strategic difference in how the two countries pursue their goals. [.].

The United States of America and France are states that have much in common. The USA has the greatest political, economic and military power in the world, and France held this position before the Second World War. Both, the Unites States and France, were the sources of democratic values in the eighteenth century. Currently the two countries have the same values and objectives for the world community: defence of human rights, promotion of democracy, maintenance of international stability and peace, fight against terrorism. However, France has always opposed the United States on one issue or other. It may be in the realm of international diplomacy, where one can discern a distinct distaste for America's oftproclaimed sole-superpower status, or on matters of culture, where France is always the first to denounce American "cultural imperialism." Lately, Franco – American friction has manifested itself most visibly in the UN Security Council over the Iraq war. Both countries realized the necessity to disarm Iraq yet France opposed the resolution authorizing the war against Iraq. France's antipathy to war, pessimism to crate stability in Iraq and refusal to recognize the leadership of the United States can be conceived as the reasons of the opposition. France is no longer the superpower that it was, and that leads to a strategic difference in how the two countries pursue their goals. [.].

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.

The aims of this article are to describe the fundamental connection between State government, counties and municipalities and to expose peculiarities of interaction of State government subjects and Local Self-government institutions. The survey method is grounded on the systemic research and analysis of the Lithuanian legal acts: Law on the Local Self-government, Law on the Governing of the County and Law on the Regional Development. The main conclusions of the article are following: a) the objects, functions and responsibility of Regional institutions and Counties are separated by legal acts, but in fact Regional institutions and Counties are indivisible unit; b) in reality municipalities become subordinate to the State government and restraint from Self-government institutions appreciable by limited liberty of decision making and finance resources, and intensive state inspection of procedures; c) there is not fully realized principle of decentralization. In the future State government system and Local Self-government reforms could take the way of self-governmental regions making and the power, functions and decision making competence of municipalities could be extended

The aims of this article are to describe the fundamental connection between State government, counties and municipalities and to expose peculiarities of interaction of State government subjects and Local Self-government institutions. The survey method is grounded on the systemic research and analysis of the Lithuanian legal acts: Law on the Local Self-government, Law on the Governing of the County and Law on the Regional Development. The main conclusions of the article are following: a) the objects, functions and responsibility of Regional institutions and Counties are separated by legal acts, but in fact Regional institutions and Counties are indivisible unit; b) in reality municipalities become subordinate to the State government and restraint from Self-government institutions appreciable by limited liberty of decision making and finance resources, and intensive state inspection of procedures; c) there is not fully realized principle of decentralization. In the future State government system and Local Self-government reforms could take the way of self-governmental regions making and the power, functions and decision making competence of municipalities could be extended

La societè democratique doit assurer la libertė de la religion pour un chaque perssone. Chaque fois existe le risque heurter cette ligne. L' état constitue la limite de pouvoir d' organisation de la religions . Dans les pays se trouve les modeles variés de la separation l'églises entre l'états : religion de l'état, l'état et la religion sont sepparé partiellement, ainsi l'état entre l'eglise sont separé entieterement. Constitution de Lituanie fortifie qu'il n'y a pas religion d'état. On peut a dire, que en Lituanie agire modelle de separation partiellement. Le systeme d'éducations forme la citoyenneté, donne aux élèves une armature intellectuelle et morale. Dans l'école de statalè les élèves doivent choisir entre les classes des religions traditionnellles ou les classes d'éthique. La Cour constitutionnelle est constaté que dans le pays existe trois systemes d'organizations de religion: les religions traditionnelles, les religionsacceptè par l'état et les autres organizations. Les autres religions ont plus moins des droits que celle on assure pour religions traditionnelle. La doctrine constitutionnelle explique que cette situation est donné par la Constitution. Les actes normatives du droit ne fixe pas le clairs fondation, qui détermine les droit pour la commmunautè religieuse Neuf communautès traditionnelles et un organisation religieuse qui a la reconaissance d'ėtat agirent en Lituanie. Les autres communautés religiosses sont enregistré et agire sous un forme de la personne juridique. En République Lituanie trois dèsision de la Cour constitutionnel sont importants, qui formint base lėgal d'église centre l'église et l'état.

La societè democratique doit assurer la libertė de la religion pour un chaque perssone. Chaque fois existe le risque heurter cette ligne. L' état constitue la limite de pouvoir d' organisation de la religions . Dans les pays se trouve les modeles variés de la separation l'églises entre l'états : religion de l'état, l'état et la religion sont sepparé partiellement, ainsi l'état entre l'eglise sont separé entieterement. Constitution de Lituanie fortifie qu'il n'y a pas religion d'état. On peut a dire, que en Lituanie agire modelle de separation partiellement. Le systeme d'éducations forme la citoyenneté, donne aux élèves une armature intellectuelle et morale. Dans l'école de statalè les élèves doivent choisir entre les classes des religions traditionnellles ou les classes d'éthique. La Cour constitutionnelle est constaté que dans le pays existe trois systemes d'organizations de religion: les religions traditionnelles, les religionsacceptè par l'état et les autres organizations. Les autres religions ont plus moins des droits que celle on assure pour religions traditionnelle. La doctrine constitutionnelle explique que cette situation est donné par la Constitution. Les actes normatives du droit ne fixe pas le clairs fondation, qui détermine les droit pour la commmunautè religieuse Neuf communautès traditionnelles et un organisation religieuse qui a la reconaissance d'ėtat agirent en Lituanie. Les autres communautés religiosses sont enregistré et agire sous un forme de la personne juridique. En République Lituanie trois dèsision de la Cour constitutionnel sont importants, qui formint base lėgal d'église centre l'église et l'état.

La societè democratique doit assurer la libertė de la religion pour un chaque perssone. Chaque fois existe le risque heurter cette ligne. L' état constitue la limite de pouvoir d' organisation de la religions . Dans les pays se trouve les modeles variés de la separation l'églises entre l'états : religion de l'état, l'état et la religion sont sepparé partiellement, ainsi l'état entre l'eglise sont separé entieterement. Constitution de Lituanie fortifie qu'il n'y a pas religion d'état. On peut a dire, que en Lituanie agire modelle de separation partiellement. Le systeme d'éducations forme la citoyenneté, donne aux élèves une armature intellectuelle et morale. Dans l'école de statalè les élèves doivent choisir entre les classes des religions traditionnellles ou les classes d'éthique. La Cour constitutionnelle est constaté que dans le pays existe trois systemes d'organizations de religion: les religions traditionnelles, les religionsacceptè par l'état et les autres organizations. Les autres religions ont plus moins des droits que celle on assure pour religions traditionnelle. La doctrine constitutionnelle explique que cette situation est donné par la Constitution. Les actes normatives du droit ne fixe pas le clairs fondation, qui détermine les droit pour la commmunautè religieuse Neuf communautès traditionnelles et un organisation religieuse qui a la reconaissance d'ėtat agirent en Lituanie. Les autres communautés religiosses sont enregistré et agire sous un forme de la personne juridique. En République Lituanie trois dèsision de la Cour constitutionnel sont importants, qui formint base lėgal d'église centre l'église et l'état.

La societè democratique doit assurer la libertė de la religion pour un chaque perssone. Chaque fois existe le risque heurter cette ligne. L' état constitue la limite de pouvoir d' organisation de la religions . Dans les pays se trouve les modeles variés de la separation l'églises entre l'états : religion de l'état, l'état et la religion sont sepparé partiellement, ainsi l'état entre l'eglise sont separé entieterement. Constitution de Lituanie fortifie qu'il n'y a pas religion d'état. On peut a dire, que en Lituanie agire modelle de separation partiellement. Le systeme d'éducations forme la citoyenneté, donne aux élèves une armature intellectuelle et morale. Dans l'école de statalè les élèves doivent choisir entre les classes des religions traditionnellles ou les classes d'éthique. La Cour constitutionnelle est constaté que dans le pays existe trois systemes d'organizations de religion: les religions traditionnelles, les religionsacceptè par l'état et les autres organizations. Les autres religions ont plus moins des droits que celle on assure pour religions traditionnelle. La doctrine constitutionnelle explique que cette situation est donné par la Constitution. Les actes normatives du droit ne fixe pas le clairs fondation, qui détermine les droit pour la commmunautè religieuse Neuf communautès traditionnelles et un organisation religieuse qui a la reconaissance d'ėtat agirent en Lituanie. Les autres communautés religiosses sont enregistré et agire sous un forme de la personne juridique. En République Lituanie trois dèsision de la Cour constitutionnel sont importants, qui formint base lėgal d'église centre l'église et l'état.

The goal of this paper is to analyse the political discourse of one among the most influential thinkers of Islamic resurgence movement, Hasan al-Banna, who is frequently considered the father of contemporary radical movements advocating the must for the Islamic state what is due to extra-legal activities of his created Islamic organization "The Muslim Brotherhood" which was often taken as an organizational model by subsequent Islamic groups. The theoretical analysis, however, of the major principles that Hasan al-Banna employs in constructing foundations of the legitimate Islamic state reveals that his political theory is compromising and open to the basic values of Western democracy. This article seeks to shown how Hasan al-Banna reconstructs Islamic political theory by reworking the meanings of its basic foundations.