Suchergebnisse

Italian historian Sebastiano Ciampi, has spent 22 years investigating the Italian and Polish communications history. This is the first professional historian, as the Italian witch collected and posted information related to the subject. To inform the public about his findings an to commemorate it in the beggining of XIXth centyry he published fuor books and Tritoma , that are not available to the public and often not even aware of them. And though the author has worked on behalf of the Polish government and sought information about its citizens, but as Lithuanian and Polish history are inseparable, among the collected data there are some news about Lithuania as well. So the main purpose of this research is to look what kind of information about the Lithuania in the XVI-XIX centuries, the author has detected in his studies, and to look what is his contribution to the Northern Italian and Lithuanian history of communication studies. So the work starts with the looking at the author's personality and his life, then it goes to the information, the author has found, about the italians in Lithuania and lithuanians in Italy, with the presentations of the material that S. Ciampi detected, with gives us the opportunity to lead to conclusions of the guests that visited Lithuania, their work in this country and the contibution to the Lithianian art. Later, fifteen letters are discussed. Letters, that were written in diferent periods and are published in these books, that directy or no concerns Lithuania, or lithuanians, that were involved in some events.Finally, different messages and announcements are discussed, and stories relating to the subject. The final section presents conclusions that answers the fundamental question of this work: what is S. Ciampi's contribution to the Northern Italian and Lithuanian history of communication studies- he brought the unknown names of italian artists, doctors in Lituania into the scientific circulation, gave an oppotunity to look, through the published letters, what interested the Italian rulers about our country in different times.

Italian historian Sebastiano Ciampi, has spent 22 years investigating the Italian and Polish communications history. This is the first professional historian, as the Italian witch collected and posted information related to the subject. To inform the public about his findings an to commemorate it in the beggining of XIXth centyry he published fuor books and Tritoma , that are not available to the public and often not even aware of them. And though the author has worked on behalf of the Polish government and sought information about its citizens, but as Lithuanian and Polish history are inseparable, among the collected data there are some news about Lithuania as well. So the main purpose of this research is to look what kind of information about the Lithuania in the XVI-XIX centuries, the author has detected in his studies, and to look what is his contribution to the Northern Italian and Lithuanian history of communication studies. So the work starts with the looking at the author's personality and his life, then it goes to the information, the author has found, about the italians in Lithuania and lithuanians in Italy, with the presentations of the material that S. Ciampi detected, with gives us the opportunity to lead to conclusions of the guests that visited Lithuania, their work in this country and the contibution to the Lithianian art. Later, fifteen letters are discussed. Letters, that were written in diferent periods and are published in these books, that directy or no concerns Lithuania, or lithuanians, that were involved in some events.Finally, different messages and announcements are discussed, and stories relating to the subject. The final section presents conclusions that answers the fundamental question of this work: what is S. Ciampi's contribution to the Northern Italian and Lithuanian history of communication studies- he brought the unknown names of italian artists, doctors in Lituania into the scientific circulation, gave an oppotunity to look, through the published letters, what interested the Italian rulers about our country in different times.

Italian historian Sebastiano Ciampi, has spent 22 years investigating the Italian and Polish communications history. This is the first professional historian, as the Italian witch collected and posted information related to the subject. To inform the public about his findings an to commemorate it in the beggining of XIXth centyry he published fuor books and Tritoma , that are not available to the public and often not even aware of them. And though the author has worked on behalf of the Polish government and sought information about its citizens, but as Lithuanian and Polish history are inseparable, among the collected data there are some news about Lithuania as well. So the main purpose of this research is to look what kind of information about the Lithuania in the XVI-XIX centuries, the author has detected in his studies, and to look what is his contribution to the Northern Italian and Lithuanian history of communication studies. So the work starts with the looking at the author's personality and his life, then it goes to the information, the author has found, about the italians in Lithuania and lithuanians in Italy, with the presentations of the material that S. Ciampi detected, with gives us the opportunity to lead to conclusions of the guests that visited Lithuania, their work in this country and the contibution to the Lithianian art. Later, fifteen letters are discussed. Letters, that were written in diferent periods and are published in these books, that directy or no concerns Lithuania, or lithuanians, that were involved in some events.Finally, different messages and announcements are discussed, and stories relating to the subject. The final section presents conclusions that answers the fundamental question of this work: what is S. Ciampi's contribution to the Northern Italian and Lithuanian history of communication studies- he brought the unknown names of italian artists, doctors in Lituania into the scientific circulation, gave an oppotunity to look, through the published letters, what interested the Italian rulers about our country in different times.

The article analyses the plans of Germany to seize Klaipėda Region in 1938, the political circumstances of the German ultimatum issued to Lithuania on 20 March 1939, the response of the Lithuanian Government to the German demands, the organisation of the retreat of Lithuanian military units and state institutions from Klaipėda, its process, and the dynamics of German units marching into Klaipėda Region. ;In spring 1938, after the Austrian Anschluss, the situation of Eastern Europe and the German politics with regard to Klaipėda essentially changed. The tension reached its peak in 1939, when the Germans occupied Czechoslovakia and focused on the occupation of Danzig. Although the Lithuanian Government started contemplating on the possible military occupation of Klaipėda Region at the beginning of March 1939, the evacuation which took place on 21–22 March 1939 from Klaipėda Region was chaotic and non-organised. Before any official documents on the ceding of the territory had been signed, the Lithuanian Government gave the first orders to start secret military evacuation from Klaipėda Region. No clear evacuation order were received from Lithuanian governing authorities, and the export of private and state property was implemented without any organised transportation. Belated information about the ceding of Klaipėda Region to Germany impeded effective implementation of evacuation plans by Lithuanian institutions and military units. The plans worked out for the Riflemen Union failed. On 22 March 1939, Lithuanian institutions no longer controlled the situation either in the city or the region of Klaipėda.

The article analyses the plans of Germany to seize Klaipėda Region in 1938, the political circumstances of the German ultimatum issued to Lithuania on 20 March 1939, the response of the Lithuanian Government to the German demands, the organisation of the retreat of Lithuanian military units and state institutions from Klaipėda, its process, and the dynamics of German units marching into Klaipėda Region. ;In spring 1938, after the Austrian Anschluss, the situation of Eastern Europe and the German politics with regard to Klaipėda essentially changed. The tension reached its peak in 1939, when the Germans occupied Czechoslovakia and focused on the occupation of Danzig. Although the Lithuanian Government started contemplating on the possible military occupation of Klaipėda Region at the beginning of March 1939, the evacuation which took place on 21–22 March 1939 from Klaipėda Region was chaotic and non-organised. Before any official documents on the ceding of the territory had been signed, the Lithuanian Government gave the first orders to start secret military evacuation from Klaipėda Region. No clear evacuation order were received from Lithuanian governing authorities, and the export of private and state property was implemented without any organised transportation. Belated information about the ceding of Klaipėda Region to Germany impeded effective implementation of evacuation plans by Lithuanian institutions and military units. The plans worked out for the Riflemen Union failed. On 22 March 1939, Lithuanian institutions no longer controlled the situation either in the city or the region of Klaipėda.

The author of the present article analyzes the legal regulation regarding the subjects responsible for the protection of public order in municipal territories with an emphasis on the collision between the activity and responsibility of the police and municipal institutions. The author suggests multiple solutions to the problem of competence delimitation in the sphere of public protection. According to the author, in municipal territories four multiple- choice forms of public order protection are possible and the right to choose the forms which would most effectively guarantee the safety of the community should belong to local government institutions. What is more, the article deals with an analysis of the organizational problems related to the implementation of the functions of public order protection and an evaluation of the prospects of the decentralization of these functions. The author presents a critical evaluation of the situation when public order protection requirements which logically derive from the interests of local residents are identified by central public administration institutions rather than local government institutions or regional-level institutions. The planning of the safe environment strategy must be based on the interests of a country's local residents; what is more, the particularities of different regions must be considered. To solve the mentioned problems two alternative public order protection strategy models are suggested. Finally, the author comes to the conclusion that local government institutions should be actively motivated to get involved in securing public safety through legal and organizational means.

The author of the present article analyzes the legal regulation regarding the subjects responsible for the protection of public order in municipal territories with an emphasis on the collision between the activity and responsibility of the police and municipal institutions. The author suggests multiple solutions to the problem of competence delimitation in the sphere of public protection. According to the author, in municipal territories four multiple- choice forms of public order protection are possible and the right to choose the forms which would most effectively guarantee the safety of the community should belong to local government institutions. What is more, the article deals with an analysis of the organizational problems related to the implementation of the functions of public order protection and an evaluation of the prospects of the decentralization of these functions. The author presents a critical evaluation of the situation when public order protection requirements which logically derive from the interests of local residents are identified by central public administration institutions rather than local government institutions or regional-level institutions. The planning of the safe environment strategy must be based on the interests of a country's local residents; what is more, the particularities of different regions must be considered. To solve the mentioned problems two alternative public order protection strategy models are suggested. Finally, the author comes to the conclusion that local government institutions should be actively motivated to get involved in securing public safety through legal and organizational means.

This study analyses the most important international legal status questions concerning Tibet and the Peoples Republic of China prior to 1949 m. invasion and the aftermath. The author takes a brief look at the international legal status of Tibet prior to the formentioned invasion and a diligent study of the most important periods of the historical development of Tibet and its international status, through analysing the most important international treaties, legal doctrine and other documents. Also the author acknowledges the current struggle of Tibet and it's people to regain independance or at least a workable, suitable for tibetans and legitimate autonomous status. The author also tries to take in account the actions and passiveness of international community and United Nations organization concering this issue. In this study it is shown, that the international community doesn't acknowledge the invasion of Tibet as opposing to the international laws and principles, however no real action is taken, therefore leaving the status of Tibet a very delicate matter where all possibilities have to be considered. Author is aiming to define the current situation in the world policy on the matter of Tibet, also the legal and current issues of Tibetan sovereignity, proving that the nation of Tibet is still in full sovereignity and is being occupied only in territorial conflict. Some of the most valid current problems of the legal status of Tobet are also discussed by the author. In particular, the duality of the international legal status of Tibet. Defining the dual and condradictory status of Tibet is one of the main goals of this paper. The delicacy and the complicated manner of the situation (taking in account political and military factors) is suggesting that until there is found a political will to act according to the international law, the status of Tibet has to be considered with utmost awereness and carefulness, because direct actions of separate countries may lead to even more dramatic and serious situations in local or global areas.

This study analyses the most important international legal status questions concerning Tibet and the Peoples Republic of China prior to 1949 m. invasion and the aftermath. The author takes a brief look at the international legal status of Tibet prior to the formentioned invasion and a diligent study of the most important periods of the historical development of Tibet and its international status, through analysing the most important international treaties, legal doctrine and other documents. Also the author acknowledges the current struggle of Tibet and it's people to regain independance or at least a workable, suitable for tibetans and legitimate autonomous status. The author also tries to take in account the actions and passiveness of international community and United Nations organization concering this issue. In this study it is shown, that the international community doesn't acknowledge the invasion of Tibet as opposing to the international laws and principles, however no real action is taken, therefore leaving the status of Tibet a very delicate matter where all possibilities have to be considered. Author is aiming to define the current situation in the world policy on the matter of Tibet, also the legal and current issues of Tibetan sovereignity, proving that the nation of Tibet is still in full sovereignity and is being occupied only in territorial conflict. Some of the most valid current problems of the legal status of Tobet are also discussed by the author. In particular, the duality of the international legal status of Tibet. Defining the dual and condradictory status of Tibet is one of the main goals of this paper. The delicacy and the complicated manner of the situation (taking in account political and military factors) is suggesting that until there is found a political will to act according to the international law, the status of Tibet has to be considered with utmost awereness and carefulness, because direct actions of separate countries may lead to even more dramatic and serious situations in local or global areas.

The paper aims to review one uninvestigated episode on the territory known as Klaipėda Region (Memel gebiet) in March 1939, before the Second World War. On 22-23 March 1939, Lithuania was coerced into yielding to Hitler's ultimatum for Klaipėda (Memel) to be ceded to Germany which caused a mass surge of refugees from Klaipėda to Lithuania Major. Many Lithuanian workers, employees, and businessmen in the region were scared by the aggressive Nazi Anschluss and fled from the region in panic, mostly to Lithuania. Another segment of the population was subsequently also expelled from the annexed region to Lithuania Major. The Lithuanian Government and its officials were not prepared for the large influx of refugees. To provide additional support, the Lithuanian Red Cross and many social and voluntary organisations became engaged in the refugee accomodation, catering, protection, and dealing with other problems

The paper aims to review one uninvestigated episode on the territory known as Klaipėda Region (Memel gebiet) in March 1939, before the Second World War. On 22-23 March 1939, Lithuania was coerced into yielding to Hitler's ultimatum for Klaipėda (Memel) to be ceded to Germany which caused a mass surge of refugees from Klaipėda to Lithuania Major. Many Lithuanian workers, employees, and businessmen in the region were scared by the aggressive Nazi Anschluss and fled from the region in panic, mostly to Lithuania. Another segment of the population was subsequently also expelled from the annexed region to Lithuania Major. The Lithuanian Government and its officials were not prepared for the large influx of refugees. To provide additional support, the Lithuanian Red Cross and many social and voluntary organisations became engaged in the refugee accomodation, catering, protection, and dealing with other problems

The article explores positivism-postpositivism debate in social sciences that has been lasting already for many years. The author does not suppose this debate will end soon since it raises fundamental questions concerning the aims, tasks and methods of social sciences. Though representatives of these sciences differ significantly in views on these questions, the most of them and, in particular, evident majority of representatives of political science virtually holds positivist views. Such questions, which may be called conceptual, are essentially disputable, so they can not be resolved by any empirical research. When examining positivism-postpositivism debate the author singles out, paying tribute to tradition, three aspects of debate: (1) ontological, (2) epistemological, and (3) methodological. Yet he presents the arguments to support his claim that because of its antimetaphysical character positivism can have no ontology at all. Therefore an ontological dispute between positivists and postpositivists is simply impossible. Postpositivists, in discussing epistemological questions, would be inclined to reject positivist viewpoint that our statements and theories about social life can be true (though according to modern positivists, we can never know it for sure). They also would reject the positivist distinction between facts and values, which likewise can be considered as epistemological. But the most serious dispute that is taking place in social sciences concerns methodological questions. The author, in analyzing it, pays most attention to two most influential forms of postpositivism, namely to critical theory and postmodernism. Having discussed genealogy and deconstruction which, though with serious reservations, may be considered as postpositivist methods, the author claims that postpositivism lacks the main part of methodology, i.e. rules of accepting scientific statements and theories. And that is why postpositivism can not win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules.

The article explores positivism-postpositivism debate in social sciences that has been lasting already for many years. The author does not suppose this debate will end soon since it raises fundamental questions concerning the aims, tasks and methods of social sciences. Though representatives of these sciences differ significantly in views on these questions, the most of them and, in particular, evident majority of representatives of political science virtually holds positivist views. Such questions, which may be called conceptual, are essentially disputable, so they can not be resolved by any empirical research. When examining positivism-postpositivism debate the author singles out, paying tribute to tradition, three aspects of debate: (1) ontological, (2) epistemological, and (3) methodological. Yet he presents the arguments to support his claim that because of its antimetaphysical character positivism can have no ontology at all. Therefore an ontological dispute between positivists and postpositivists is simply impossible. Postpositivists, in discussing epistemological questions, would be inclined to reject positivist viewpoint that our statements and theories about social life can be true (though according to modern positivists, we can never know it for sure). They also would reject the positivist distinction between facts and values, which likewise can be considered as epistemological. But the most serious dispute that is taking place in social sciences concerns methodological questions. The author, in analyzing it, pays most attention to two most influential forms of postpositivism, namely to critical theory and postmodernism. Having discussed genealogy and deconstruction which, though with serious reservations, may be considered as postpositivist methods, the author claims that postpositivism lacks the main part of methodology, i.e. rules of accepting scientific statements and theories. And that is why postpositivism can not win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules.

The article explores positivism-postpositivism debate in social sciences that has been lasting already for many years. The author does not suppose this debate will end soon since it raises fundamental questions concerning the aims, tasks and methods of social sciences. Though representatives of these sciences differ significantly in views on these questions, the most of them and, in particular, evident majority of representatives of political science virtually holds positivist views. Such questions, which may be called conceptual, are essentially disputable, so they can not be resolved by any empirical research. When examining positivism-postpositivism debate the author singles out, paying tribute to tradition, three aspects of debate: (1) ontological, (2) epistemological, and (3) methodological. Yet he presents the arguments to support his claim that because of its antimetaphysical character positivism can have no ontology at all. Therefore an ontological dispute between positivists and postpositivists is simply impossible. Postpositivists, in discussing epistemological questions, would be inclined to reject positivist viewpoint that our statements and theories about social life can be true (though according to modern positivists, we can never know it for sure). They also would reject the positivist distinction between facts and values, which likewise can be considered as epistemological. But the most serious dispute that is taking place in social sciences concerns methodological questions. The author, in analyzing it, pays most attention to two most influential forms of postpositivism, namely to critical theory and postmodernism. Having discussed genealogy and deconstruction which, though with serious reservations, may be considered as postpositivist methods, the author claims that postpositivism lacks the main part of methodology, i.e. rules of accepting scientific statements and theories. And that is why postpositivism can not win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules.

The article explores positivism-postpositivism debate in social sciences that has been lasting already for many years. The author does not suppose this debate will end soon since it raises fundamental questions concerning the aims, tasks and methods of social sciences. Though representatives of these sciences differ significantly in views on these questions, the most of them and, in particular, evident majority of representatives of political science virtually holds positivist views. Such questions, which may be called conceptual, are essentially disputable, so they can not be resolved by any empirical research. When examining positivism-postpositivism debate the author singles out, paying tribute to tradition, three aspects of debate: (1) ontological, (2) epistemological, and (3) methodological. Yet he presents the arguments to support his claim that because of its antimetaphysical character positivism can have no ontology at all. Therefore an ontological dispute between positivists and postpositivists is simply impossible. Postpositivists, in discussing epistemological questions, would be inclined to reject positivist viewpoint that our statements and theories about social life can be true (though according to modern positivists, we can never know it for sure). They also would reject the positivist distinction between facts and values, which likewise can be considered as epistemological. But the most serious dispute that is taking place in social sciences concerns methodological questions. The author, in analyzing it, pays most attention to two most influential forms of postpositivism, namely to critical theory and postmodernism. Having discussed genealogy and deconstruction which, though with serious reservations, may be considered as postpositivist methods, the author claims that postpositivism lacks the main part of methodology, i.e. rules of accepting scientific statements and theories. And that is why postpositivism can not win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules.