Suchergebnisse

The principle of state neutrality and the principle of secularity of the state are established in the jurisprudence of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court. The principle of separateness of the state and the church is also indicated in the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania of 13 June 2000 "On certain provisions of the Law on Education". The paper deals with interpretation of this principle in the scholarly works of some authors. Taking into account the state neutrality concept discussed within the framework of political philosophy, this paper raises certain doubts with regard to the scholarly interpretation of the principle of separateness of the state and the church established in the constitutional jurisprudence. The author of the paper discusses a particular argument raised by some scholars as to the uniqueness of the constitutional principle of separateness of the state and the church. In this regard the author conducts a systemic analysis of the constitutional jurisprudence and its interpretation with regard to the principle of secularity of the state. Moreover, the concept of the state neutrality principle is indicated in the paper. Finally, the state neutrality principle is discussed in the context of a line of reasoning of the authors who claim that the principle of separateness of the state and the church conceptually differs from the principle of separation of the state and the church. In this regard, the author asserts that the approach claiming that co-operation of the state and the church is a feature of the Lithuanian Constitution in light of the constitutional principle of secularity of the state lacks coherence and implies certain risks on the constitutional system prescribing relations between the church and the state in Lithuania.

The principle of state neutrality and the principle of secularity of the state are established in the jurisprudence of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court. The principle of separateness of the state and the church is also indicated in the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania of 13 June 2000 "On certain provisions of the Law on Education". The paper deals with interpretation of this principle in the scholarly works of some authors. Taking into account the state neutrality concept discussed within the framework of political philosophy, this paper raises certain doubts with regard to the scholarly interpretation of the principle of separateness of the state and the church established in the constitutional jurisprudence. The author of the paper discusses a particular argument raised by some scholars as to the uniqueness of the constitutional principle of separateness of the state and the church. In this regard the author conducts a systemic analysis of the constitutional jurisprudence and its interpretation with regard to the principle of secularity of the state. Moreover, the concept of the state neutrality principle is indicated in the paper. Finally, the state neutrality principle is discussed in the context of a line of reasoning of the authors who claim that the principle of separateness of the state and the church conceptually differs from the principle of separation of the state and the church. In this regard, the author asserts that the approach claiming that co-operation of the state and the church is a feature of the Lithuanian Constitution in light of the constitutional principle of secularity of the state lacks coherence and implies certain risks on the constitutional system prescribing relations between the church and the state in Lithuania.

The article presents the theoretical framework that could be used in analyzing the opposition of state sovereignty and human rights in international relations. As the methodological tool is chosen the English School of international relations, which is known as a via media, a third way between realism and liberalism. The English School is generally divided into two major camps – pluralism and solidarism, distinguishable by their positions on the role of values in international society. The pluralistic variant of English School is closer to realism, and the solidarist variant – to liberalism. The main concept which represents the English School is the international society. According to the definition by H. Bull and A. Watson, international society is a "group of states (or, more generally, a group of independent political communities) which not merely form a system, in the sense that the behaviour of each is a necessary factor in the calculations of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognise their common interest in maintaining these arrangements". Pluralists and solidarists perceive the concept of international society differently. The pluralist concept of international society refers to the positivist tradition of international law. According to that tradition, international law is the law between states only and exclusively. The statement that only sovereign states can become members of the international society is of fundamental importance in the pluralist approach. The scope of pluralist international society is fairly minimal, centered on shared concerns about international order under anarchy, and thus largely confined to agreement about sovereignty, diplomacy, and non-intervention.[.].

The article presents the theoretical framework that could be used in analyzing the opposition of state sovereignty and human rights in international relations. As the methodological tool is chosen the English School of international relations, which is known as a via media, a third way between realism and liberalism. The English School is generally divided into two major camps – pluralism and solidarism, distinguishable by their positions on the role of values in international society. The pluralistic variant of English School is closer to realism, and the solidarist variant – to liberalism. The main concept which represents the English School is the international society. According to the definition by H. Bull and A. Watson, international society is a "group of states (or, more generally, a group of independent political communities) which not merely form a system, in the sense that the behaviour of each is a necessary factor in the calculations of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognise their common interest in maintaining these arrangements". Pluralists and solidarists perceive the concept of international society differently. The pluralist concept of international society refers to the positivist tradition of international law. According to that tradition, international law is the law between states only and exclusively. The statement that only sovereign states can become members of the international society is of fundamental importance in the pluralist approach. The scope of pluralist international society is fairly minimal, centered on shared concerns about international order under anarchy, and thus largely confined to agreement about sovereignty, diplomacy, and non-intervention.[.].

The article presents the theoretical framework that could be used in analyzing the opposition of state sovereignty and human rights in international relations. As the methodological tool is chosen the English School of international relations, which is known as a via media, a third way between realism and liberalism. The English School is generally divided into two major camps – pluralism and solidarism, distinguishable by their positions on the role of values in international society. The pluralistic variant of English School is closer to realism, and the solidarist variant – to liberalism. The main concept which represents the English School is the international society. According to the definition by H. Bull and A. Watson, international society is a "group of states (or, more generally, a group of independent political communities) which not merely form a system, in the sense that the behaviour of each is a necessary factor in the calculations of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognise their common interest in maintaining these arrangements". Pluralists and solidarists perceive the concept of international society differently. The pluralist concept of international society refers to the positivist tradition of international law. According to that tradition, international law is the law between states only and exclusively. The statement that only sovereign states can become members of the international society is of fundamental importance in the pluralist approach. The scope of pluralist international society is fairly minimal, centered on shared concerns about international order under anarchy, and thus largely confined to agreement about sovereignty, diplomacy, and non-intervention.[.].

The research identifies the nature, types and forms of companies in Ukraine in comparison with the legislation on companies in Lithuania and other EU Member States and studies the necessary changes to the legislation of Ukraine. In particular, the author:(1) discloses the history and essence of the company as a form for running a business;(2) identifies the typology of companies existing in the business market;(3) highlights the specificity of the Ukrainian and European companies' functioning in the different business forms. In the light of achieving the goals of the study, recommendations for further improvement of Ukrainian corporate legislation are elaborated to build an optimal model for the development of domestic corporate law and propose approaches to modify the corporate law regulation in a way of the adoption of a new legal act for determining the partnership's status, the abolishment of the outdated concepts and ambiguous provisions.

The research identifies the nature, types and forms of companies in Ukraine in comparison with the legislation on companies in Lithuania and other EU Member States and studies the necessary changes to the legislation of Ukraine. In particular, the author:(1) discloses the history and essence of the company as a form for running a business;(2) identifies the typology of companies existing in the business market;(3) highlights the specificity of the Ukrainian and European companies' functioning in the different business forms. In the light of achieving the goals of the study, recommendations for further improvement of Ukrainian corporate legislation are elaborated to build an optimal model for the development of domestic corporate law and propose approaches to modify the corporate law regulation in a way of the adoption of a new legal act for determining the partnership's status, the abolishment of the outdated concepts and ambiguous provisions.

Usually it is held that the greatest peril to media independence and the integrity of journalism is posed by the political power. However, particularly liberal media policy paved the way for a different kind of external influence and instrumentalization of the media in Lithuania: entering wedges have been found by private powers and market laws to influence media's content and the transformation of notions of journalistic professionalism. The media, having successfully avoided political parallelism is now facing a peril of market parallelism: both cases endanger media's independence from external influences. The work analyzes the effects of the neoliberal ethos and market parallelism on media and journalistic professionalism in Lithuania.

Usually it is held that the greatest peril to media independence and the integrity of journalism is posed by the political power. However, particularly liberal media policy paved the way for a different kind of external influence and instrumentalization of the media in Lithuania: entering wedges have been found by private powers and market laws to influence media's content and the transformation of notions of journalistic professionalism. The media, having successfully avoided political parallelism is now facing a peril of market parallelism: both cases endanger media's independence from external influences. The work analyzes the effects of the neoliberal ethos and market parallelism on media and journalistic professionalism in Lithuania.

Usually it is held that the greatest peril to media independence and the integrity of journalism is posed by the political power. However, particularly liberal media policy paved the way for a different kind of external influence and instrumentalization of the media in Lithuania: entering wedges have been found by private powers and market laws to influence media's content and the transformation of notions of journalistic professionalism. The media, having successfully avoided political parallelism is now facing a peril of market parallelism: both cases endanger media's independence from external influences. The work analyzes the effects of the neoliberal ethos and market parallelism on media and journalistic professionalism in Lithuania.

In the times of global war on terror there are no paid considerable attention for a state terror, even if this term is used more and more in political discourse defying a single states as being terroristic. Therefore the main research question is why in the era of global war on terror the international community are not fighting with a state terror, which undermines the same human lifes, rights and values as "terrorism" does? In this study, titled "State Terror in the Context of Global War on Terror: Case Study of US relations with Egypt and Uzbekistan", the author analyses the concept of state terror in academic, political and juridical level. The main goal of this study is to analyze, why in the context of global war on terror the states are divided into separate categories: some states become enemies, others avoid criticism, even if they can be treated as state terror systems. In order to carry out the tasks set, the study has been divided into six chapters: In the first chapter there was determined a problem of state terror conceptualization. It was concluded that there are three main reasons: conceptualization, emotional and lack of information or data about state terror. The second chapter analyzed a juridical definition of state terror. The analysis of UN conventions and other counter terrorism law data proved that there is no legal definition of state terror and therefore any preventive instruments of fighting against it become neutralized. The study has thus confirmed the hypothesis, that the lack of a legal definition of state terror presupposes a legitimization of the term. In the third chapter there was analyzed an academic definition of state terror. Traditionally, terror is divided in a terror "from below" (widely known as "terrorism") and terror "from above" (state terror, or terror which is implemented by legal state forces). In the academic point of view, this study might be useful as giving a conceptual state terror term. The conceptualization was made on a basic of political, juridical and academic discourse, defining main criteria for identifying a state terror. These criteria were used for defining a state terror of Egypt and Uzbekistan. The study assumes that the lack of above mentioned concept (especially on juridical level) presupposes a legitimization of Uzbekistan and Egypt state terror as analysis in fifth and sixth chapter concerning US relations with Egypt and Uzbekistan has proved. The study concludes that the lack of a legal definition of state terror gives a possibility for singles states to legalize and use its state terror. Therefore, the hypothesis that the main participating states in global war on terror (in this study case – US) doesn't fight against them because of the strategic, economic or other political interest as it was proved in analysis of US relations with Egypt and Uzbekistan, was confirmed.

In the times of global war on terror there are no paid considerable attention for a state terror, even if this term is used more and more in political discourse defying a single states as being terroristic. Therefore the main research question is why in the era of global war on terror the international community are not fighting with a state terror, which undermines the same human lifes, rights and values as "terrorism" does? In this study, titled "State Terror in the Context of Global War on Terror: Case Study of US relations with Egypt and Uzbekistan", the author analyses the concept of state terror in academic, political and juridical level. The main goal of this study is to analyze, why in the context of global war on terror the states are divided into separate categories: some states become enemies, others avoid criticism, even if they can be treated as state terror systems. In order to carry out the tasks set, the study has been divided into six chapters: In the first chapter there was determined a problem of state terror conceptualization. It was concluded that there are three main reasons: conceptualization, emotional and lack of information or data about state terror. The second chapter analyzed a juridical definition of state terror. The analysis of UN conventions and other counter terrorism law data proved that there is no legal definition of state terror and therefore any preventive instruments of fighting against it become neutralized. The study has thus confirmed the hypothesis, that the lack of a legal definition of state terror presupposes a legitimization of the term. In the third chapter there was analyzed an academic definition of state terror. Traditionally, terror is divided in a terror "from below" (widely known as "terrorism") and terror "from above" (state terror, or terror which is implemented by legal state forces). In the academic point of view, this study might be useful as giving a conceptual state terror term. The conceptualization was made on a basic of political, juridical and academic discourse, defining main criteria for identifying a state terror. These criteria were used for defining a state terror of Egypt and Uzbekistan. The study assumes that the lack of above mentioned concept (especially on juridical level) presupposes a legitimization of Uzbekistan and Egypt state terror as analysis in fifth and sixth chapter concerning US relations with Egypt and Uzbekistan has proved. The study concludes that the lack of a legal definition of state terror gives a possibility for singles states to legalize and use its state terror. Therefore, the hypothesis that the main participating states in global war on terror (in this study case – US) doesn't fight against them because of the strategic, economic or other political interest as it was proved in analysis of US relations with Egypt and Uzbekistan, was confirmed.

Lithuania just like other countries of Europe is a multinational country. It's been a long time this country is occupied by people of diverse culture, religion and customs. It especially can be noticed in the beginning of the 20th century after the First World War in Europe when the greatest empires of that time have collapsed. At that time when Lithuania was independent in 1923 there were over 2 million residents in the country according to the universal data compilation (excluding the city of Vilnius and Klaipėda) and 3,2 % of all population were polish people. Polish press that was issued between the World Wars can be firmly called the expression of polish national minority's attitude and opinion. The investigation of the polish press provides an opportunity to take a look at the country's inner political, economic and social evolution as well as the relationship between Lithuania and Poland the way polish nation saw all of it. We should emphasize in advance that this attitude has always been negative. The problem of Vilnius' territory at that time was one of the most significant questions of Lithuanian foreign policy. Polish press has always expressed a huge attention concerning Lithuanian and Polish mutual relationship and always was supporting the Polish side. Their opinion was not positive regarding the fact that Lithuania has denied the projects of P. Hymans. Lithuania has lost much more than it has won because of that – polish people thought. The territory of Vilnius, also known as the "Middle Lithuania" has been connected for a long time to Poland by the decision of Nation Union. Polish residents in Lithuania blamed Lithuanian nationalism because of the loss of the territory of Vilnius. They said there should be no surprise that the territory of Vilnius during the elections to the Parliament of Vilnius in 1922 January the 8th was connected to Poland as Lithuanian politicians after coming back from Kaunas to Vilnius in 1920 were using the speech of Muravjov and Novosilcev talking to the residents of Vilnius. Polish press was talking a lot about the destruction of neutral zone between two neighbor countries and was rising up the question concerning making the river Nemunas international. Since Lithuania had obligations to the Nation Union to make the river Nemunas international and still, was hesitating to solve this question, it led the polish residents in Lithuania to estimate it negatively. They claimed it would be a positive action to make the river Nemunas international as Lithuania was facing economic crisis. Regarding the evolution of inner politics of the country we can briefly mention that polish press was criticizing Lithuanian authority. First of all they emphasized that the rights of national minorities have always been restricted even though they are guaranteed by the constitution of the country. There was a huge stroke that rich polish landowners faced when farming law came to power. Polish landowners accepted it as the weapon being used against them. There was a huge apprehension concerning restriction of polish language at schools and the church. To conclude we can say that polish people were estimating negatively both Lithuanian inner policy and foreign policy.

Lithuania just like other countries of Europe is a multinational country. It's been a long time this country is occupied by people of diverse culture, religion and customs. It especially can be noticed in the beginning of the 20th century after the First World War in Europe when the greatest empires of that time have collapsed. At that time when Lithuania was independent in 1923 there were over 2 million residents in the country according to the universal data compilation (excluding the city of Vilnius and Klaipėda) and 3,2 % of all population were polish people. Polish press that was issued between the World Wars can be firmly called the expression of polish national minority's attitude and opinion. The investigation of the polish press provides an opportunity to take a look at the country's inner political, economic and social evolution as well as the relationship between Lithuania and Poland the way polish nation saw all of it. We should emphasize in advance that this attitude has always been negative. The problem of Vilnius' territory at that time was one of the most significant questions of Lithuanian foreign policy. Polish press has always expressed a huge attention concerning Lithuanian and Polish mutual relationship and always was supporting the Polish side. Their opinion was not positive regarding the fact that Lithuania has denied the projects of P. Hymans. Lithuania has lost much more than it has won because of that – polish people thought. The territory of Vilnius, also known as the "Middle Lithuania" has been connected for a long time to Poland by the decision of Nation Union. Polish residents in Lithuania blamed Lithuanian nationalism because of the loss of the territory of Vilnius. They said there should be no surprise that the territory of Vilnius during the elections to the Parliament of Vilnius in 1922 January the 8th was connected to Poland as Lithuanian politicians after coming back from Kaunas to Vilnius in 1920 were using the speech of Muravjov and Novosilcev talking to the residents of Vilnius. Polish press was talking a lot about the destruction of neutral zone between two neighbor countries and was rising up the question concerning making the river Nemunas international. Since Lithuania had obligations to the Nation Union to make the river Nemunas international and still, was hesitating to solve this question, it led the polish residents in Lithuania to estimate it negatively. They claimed it would be a positive action to make the river Nemunas international as Lithuania was facing economic crisis. Regarding the evolution of inner politics of the country we can briefly mention that polish press was criticizing Lithuanian authority. First of all they emphasized that the rights of national minorities have always been restricted even though they are guaranteed by the constitution of the country. There was a huge stroke that rich polish landowners faced when farming law came to power. Polish landowners accepted it as the weapon being used against them. There was a huge apprehension concerning restriction of polish language at schools and the church. To conclude we can say that polish people were estimating negatively both Lithuanian inner policy and foreign policy.

Lithuania just like other countries of Europe is a multinational country. It's been a long time this country is occupied by people of diverse culture, religion and customs. It especially can be noticed in the beginning of the 20th century after the First World War in Europe when the greatest empires of that time have collapsed. At that time when Lithuania was independent in 1923 there were over 2 million residents in the country according to the universal data compilation (excluding the city of Vilnius and Klaipėda) and 3,2 % of all population were polish people. Polish press that was issued between the World Wars can be firmly called the expression of polish national minority's attitude and opinion. The investigation of the polish press provides an opportunity to take a look at the country's inner political, economic and social evolution as well as the relationship between Lithuania and Poland the way polish nation saw all of it. We should emphasize in advance that this attitude has always been negative. The problem of Vilnius' territory at that time was one of the most significant questions of Lithuanian foreign policy. Polish press has always expressed a huge attention concerning Lithuanian and Polish mutual relationship and always was supporting the Polish side. Their opinion was not positive regarding the fact that Lithuania has denied the projects of P. Hymans. Lithuania has lost much more than it has won because of that – polish people thought. The territory of Vilnius, also known as the "Middle Lithuania" has been connected for a long time to Poland by the decision of Nation Union. Polish residents in Lithuania blamed Lithuanian nationalism because of the loss of the territory of Vilnius. They said there should be no surprise that the territory of Vilnius during the elections to the Parliament of Vilnius in 1922 January the 8th was connected to Poland as Lithuanian politicians after coming back from Kaunas to Vilnius in 1920 were using the speech of Muravjov and Novosilcev talking to the residents of Vilnius. Polish press was talking a lot about the destruction of neutral zone between two neighbor countries and was rising up the question concerning making the river Nemunas international. Since Lithuania had obligations to the Nation Union to make the river Nemunas international and still, was hesitating to solve this question, it led the polish residents in Lithuania to estimate it negatively. They claimed it would be a positive action to make the river Nemunas international as Lithuania was facing economic crisis. Regarding the evolution of inner politics of the country we can briefly mention that polish press was criticizing Lithuanian authority. First of all they emphasized that the rights of national minorities have always been restricted even though they are guaranteed by the constitution of the country. There was a huge stroke that rich polish landowners faced when farming law came to power. Polish landowners accepted it as the weapon being used against them. There was a huge apprehension concerning restriction of polish language at schools and the church. To conclude we can say that polish people were estimating negatively both Lithuanian inner policy and foreign policy.