Suchergebnisse

Recent years have seen a considerable increase in the amount of investment cases against both developing and developed countries. In many of those cases, investors attempted to challenge a number of sensitive and political decisions of States. This trend provoked a discussion of whether it is legitimate to limit a State's regulatory power, even if the measures taken impact on investors' rights and legal expectations. This paper highlights the importance of finding a reasonable and just balance in the protection of a State's sovereign power to regulate and an investor's legitimate expectations and rights against the unreasonable, unexpected, and discriminatory decisions of States. It is argued that the possibility and necessity of finding a common dominator in national legislation and International investment law exists. The aim of this article is to identify the main rules applicable to the limits of a State's regulatory changes impacting on investors' rights and legitimate expectations in investment law and under national legislation. Further, the article analyses whether it is possible to find a just and reasonable balance between the investors' legal expectations and the State's right to regulate by comparing the main differences and similarities between national and investment law and by answering the question of whether it would be possible to harmonise State liability rules on the issue, at least at the conceptual level.

Recent years have seen a considerable increase in the amount of investment cases against both developing and developed countries. In many of those cases, investors attempted to challenge a number of sensitive and political decisions of States. This trend provoked a discussion of whether it is legitimate to limit a State's regulatory power, even if the measures taken impact on investors' rights and legal expectations. This paper highlights the importance of finding a reasonable and just balance in the protection of a State's sovereign power to regulate and an investor's legitimate expectations and rights against the unreasonable, unexpected, and discriminatory decisions of States. It is argued that the possibility and necessity of finding a common dominator in national legislation and International investment law exists. The aim of this article is to identify the main rules applicable to the limits of a State's regulatory changes impacting on investors' rights and legitimate expectations in investment law and under national legislation. Further, the article analyses whether it is possible to find a just and reasonable balance between the investors' legal expectations and the State's right to regulate by comparing the main differences and similarities between national and investment law and by answering the question of whether it would be possible to harmonise State liability rules on the issue, at least at the conceptual level.

Recent years have seen a considerable increase in the amount of investment cases against both developing and developed countries. In many of those cases, investors attempted to challenge a number of sensitive and political decisions of States. This trend provoked a discussion of whether it is legitimate to limit a State's regulatory power, even if the measures taken impact on investors' rights and legal expectations. This paper highlights the importance of finding a reasonable and just balance in the protection of a State's sovereign power to regulate and an investor's legitimate expectations and rights against the unreasonable, unexpected, and discriminatory decisions of States. It is argued that the possibility and necessity of finding a common dominator in national legislation and International investment law exists. The aim of this article is to identify the main rules applicable to the limits of a State's regulatory changes impacting on investors' rights and legitimate expectations in investment law and under national legislation. Further, the article analyses whether it is possible to find a just and reasonable balance between the investors' legal expectations and the State's right to regulate by comparing the main differences and similarities between national and investment law and by answering the question of whether it would be possible to harmonise State liability rules on the issue, at least at the conceptual level.

Just as we never get a second chance to make a good first impression, we may equally be deprived of a unique chance to act both as witnesses and evaluators of the centennial after regaining the independence of the Republic of Lithuania if we fail to review and assess this period. Therefore, we have to seize the opportunity and reflect upon the twisting path of our history since regaining the independence of the state until the current situation. The centennial development of law cannot be disembodied from the story of state's development. One can treat law both as a pathfinder and as a legal guide of the state; however it can likewise be applied as an instrument to solely ensure proper functioning of the state. Creating an effective system of law is not a one-day project; it is the process requiring deliberation, constant effort and deep awareness, otherwise the system will be doomed to failure or malfunctioning. Every state or nation is believed to deserve such a legal system as the efforts that the state puts to ascertain and develop it. The centennial period since the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania can unmistakably be described as a unique one: on the one hand the state was faced with the challenges of restoration and creation in various areas of the state and the society; it later experienced the loss of independence and survived 50 years of occupation; it eventually restored an independent state and was repeatedly faced with fresh challenges of re-establishing a historically-literate, well-structured and well-functioning state-governance system in both national and international levels. On the other hand, the technological and communications progress intensified the recent hundred years to such an extent that it clearly outdistances any previous centennials. Advancement of information technologies intensifies our time, our law, while huge amounts of information and its immense spread accelerate the pace of our life and our history. New forms of social relations and new branches of law emerge all in need of proper legal regulation. The study "The Development of the Lithuanian Law within the Period of 1918-2018: the Centennial Experience and Prospects" is a result of joint research efforts of more than 50 outstanding lawyers representing different areas of law from Mykolas Romeris University, Vytautas Magnus University, and Vilnius University. The study, dedicated to the Centennial of Lithuanian statehood due in 2018, presents the results of scientific research on legal science and major branches of law, covering the period of 1918-beginning of 2018 (information presented in the study covers a period until end-2017); it reflects upon the centennial development of Lithuanian law, discusses its major characteristics, tendencies and preconditions of their formation; it examines its influence on the state and state authorities and envisages possible impact on the development of law in the future. The Lithuanian law of 1918-2018 is analysed from the perspective of three statehood periods. 1918-1940 is the period when the independence of the Republic of Lithuania was declared, the groundwork for the statehood was laid and an independent legal system was being established. 1940- 1990 denotes the period of occupation, when the authentic legal system of Lithuania was destroyed and the Soviet legal system was forcibly entrenched. The latter was based on socialist ideology and the superiority of governmental authority over the civil society. It is not easy to evaluate the span of 1990- 2018 as the impartial assessment of it is seriously hindered by the authors' partial attitude towards the existing surrounding phenomena. [.]

Just as we never get a second chance to make a good first impression, we may equally be deprived of a unique chance to act both as witnesses and evaluators of the centennial after regaining the independence of the Republic of Lithuania if we fail to review and assess this period. Therefore, we have to seize the opportunity and reflect upon the twisting path of our history since regaining the independence of the state until the current situation. The centennial development of law cannot be disembodied from the story of state's development. One can treat law both as a pathfinder and as a legal guide of the state; however it can likewise be applied as an instrument to solely ensure proper functioning of the state. Creating an effective system of law is not a one-day project; it is the process requiring deliberation, constant effort and deep awareness, otherwise the system will be doomed to failure or malfunctioning. Every state or nation is believed to deserve such a legal system as the efforts that the state puts to ascertain and develop it. The centennial period since the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania can unmistakably be described as a unique one: on the one hand the state was faced with the challenges of restoration and creation in various areas of the state and the society; it later experienced the loss of independence and survived 50 years of occupation; it eventually restored an independent state and was repeatedly faced with fresh challenges of re-establishing a historically-literate, well-structured and well-functioning state-governance system in both national and international levels. On the other hand, the technological and communications progress intensified the recent hundred years to such an extent that it clearly outdistances any previous centennials. Advancement of information technologies intensifies our time, our law, while huge amounts of information and its immense spread accelerate the pace of our life and our history. New forms of social relations and new branches of law emerge all in need of proper legal regulation. The study "The Development of the Lithuanian Law within the Period of 1918-2018: the Centennial Experience and Prospects" is a result of joint research efforts of more than 50 outstanding lawyers representing different areas of law from Mykolas Romeris University, Vytautas Magnus University, and Vilnius University. The study, dedicated to the Centennial of Lithuanian statehood due in 2018, presents the results of scientific research on legal science and major branches of law, covering the period of 1918-beginning of 2018 (information presented in the study covers a period until end-2017); it reflects upon the centennial development of Lithuanian law, discusses its major characteristics, tendencies and preconditions of their formation; it examines its influence on the state and state authorities and envisages possible impact on the development of law in the future. The Lithuanian law of 1918-2018 is analysed from the perspective of three statehood periods. 1918-1940 is the period when the independence of the Republic of Lithuania was declared, the groundwork for the statehood was laid and an independent legal system was being established. 1940- 1990 denotes the period of occupation, when the authentic legal system of Lithuania was destroyed and the Soviet legal system was forcibly entrenched. The latter was based on socialist ideology and the superiority of governmental authority over the civil society. It is not easy to evaluate the span of 1990- 2018 as the impartial assessment of it is seriously hindered by the authors' partial attitude towards the existing surrounding phenomena. [.]