Suchergebnisse

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

Summary Citizenship Plurality: Contemporary Trends Citizenship denotes the existence of a specific legal tie between individual and a state conferring mutual rights and duties. It is a matter of domestic jurisdiction of states, but the freedom of states to regulate their citizenship is restricted by rules of international law to protect fundamentals human rights and freedoms. States citizenship laws must be consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognized with regard to citizenship. Citizenship Plurality means that individual is the citizen of two or more different states at the same time. An individual may acquire more than one citizenship as a result of the conflicting citizenship laws of different states or of the conferment of citizenship by naturalization or any other manner, which does not result in the renunciation of a prior citizenship. For a long time considerable international and domestic effort has been directed toward avoiding or reducing these situations, because some of the problems may be affected by the lack of citizenship plurality in the area of obligations to military service, diplomatic protection, tax payments, election etc. Just nowadays these problems are no more threatened. Equalisation of rights between men and women, international migration, mixed marriages, globalization, EU integration and other factors are influencing legislation on tolerance toward citizenship plurality. More and more often the conferment of right and duties are related with criterion of habitual residence and not with possession of citizenship. The question of recognition of citizenship plurality in Lithuania became a matter of great relevance to our society after the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of November 13, 2006 on the compliance of the provisions of legal acts regulating the citizenship relations with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The ruling states that the legal regulation established in the Law on Citizenship (wording of 17 September 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) which was in effect at the time of consideration of this constitutional justice case, is in conflict with the Constitution. The essential problem was that under the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Constitution that with the exception of individual cases provided for by law, no one may be a citizen of both the Republic of Lithuania and another state at the same time, while the legal regulation continually expanded the legislative possibilities for citizens of the Republic of Lithuania also to hold citizenship of another state. Such legal regulation not only does not prevent from citizenship plurality but even encourages such tendency. Lithuanian citizenship legal regulation may be changed by amendments of Law on Citizenship, but it would be sufficient to provide individual cases of citizenship plurality. To fully permit citizenship plurality it is urgent need of referendum to change the Constitution.

Summary Citizenship Plurality: Contemporary Trends Citizenship denotes the existence of a specific legal tie between individual and a state conferring mutual rights and duties. It is a matter of domestic jurisdiction of states, but the freedom of states to regulate their citizenship is restricted by rules of international law to protect fundamentals human rights and freedoms. States citizenship laws must be consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognized with regard to citizenship. Citizenship Plurality means that individual is the citizen of two or more different states at the same time. An individual may acquire more than one citizenship as a result of the conflicting citizenship laws of different states or of the conferment of citizenship by naturalization or any other manner, which does not result in the renunciation of a prior citizenship. For a long time considerable international and domestic effort has been directed toward avoiding or reducing these situations, because some of the problems may be affected by the lack of citizenship plurality in the area of obligations to military service, diplomatic protection, tax payments, election etc. Just nowadays these problems are no more threatened. Equalisation of rights between men and women, international migration, mixed marriages, globalization, EU integration and other factors are influencing legislation on tolerance toward citizenship plurality. More and more often the conferment of right and duties are related with criterion of habitual residence and not with possession of citizenship. The question of recognition of citizenship plurality in Lithuania became a matter of great relevance to our society after the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of November 13, 2006 on the compliance of the provisions of legal acts regulating the citizenship relations with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The ruling states that the legal regulation established in the Law on Citizenship (wording of 17 September 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) which was in effect at the time of consideration of this constitutional justice case, is in conflict with the Constitution. The essential problem was that under the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Constitution that with the exception of individual cases provided for by law, no one may be a citizen of both the Republic of Lithuania and another state at the same time, while the legal regulation continually expanded the legislative possibilities for citizens of the Republic of Lithuania also to hold citizenship of another state. Such legal regulation not only does not prevent from citizenship plurality but even encourages such tendency. Lithuanian citizenship legal regulation may be changed by amendments of Law on Citizenship, but it would be sufficient to provide individual cases of citizenship plurality. To fully permit citizenship plurality it is urgent need of referendum to change the Constitution.

Summary Citizenship Plurality: Contemporary Trends Citizenship denotes the existence of a specific legal tie between individual and a state conferring mutual rights and duties. It is a matter of domestic jurisdiction of states, but the freedom of states to regulate their citizenship is restricted by rules of international law to protect fundamentals human rights and freedoms. States citizenship laws must be consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognized with regard to citizenship. Citizenship Plurality means that individual is the citizen of two or more different states at the same time. An individual may acquire more than one citizenship as a result of the conflicting citizenship laws of different states or of the conferment of citizenship by naturalization or any other manner, which does not result in the renunciation of a prior citizenship. For a long time considerable international and domestic effort has been directed toward avoiding or reducing these situations, because some of the problems may be affected by the lack of citizenship plurality in the area of obligations to military service, diplomatic protection, tax payments, election etc. Just nowadays these problems are no more threatened. Equalisation of rights between men and women, international migration, mixed marriages, globalization, EU integration and other factors are influencing legislation on tolerance toward citizenship plurality. More and more often the conferment of right and duties are related with criterion of habitual residence and not with possession of citizenship. The question of recognition of citizenship plurality in Lithuania became a matter of great relevance to our society after the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of November 13, 2006 on the compliance of the provisions of legal acts regulating the citizenship relations with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The ruling states that the legal regulation established in the Law on Citizenship (wording of 17 September 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) which was in effect at the time of consideration of this constitutional justice case, is in conflict with the Constitution. The essential problem was that under the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Constitution that with the exception of individual cases provided for by law, no one may be a citizen of both the Republic of Lithuania and another state at the same time, while the legal regulation continually expanded the legislative possibilities for citizens of the Republic of Lithuania also to hold citizenship of another state. Such legal regulation not only does not prevent from citizenship plurality but even encourages such tendency. Lithuanian citizenship legal regulation may be changed by amendments of Law on Citizenship, but it would be sufficient to provide individual cases of citizenship plurality. To fully permit citizenship plurality it is urgent need of referendum to change the Constitution.

Summary Citizenship Plurality: Contemporary Trends Citizenship denotes the existence of a specific legal tie between individual and a state conferring mutual rights and duties. It is a matter of domestic jurisdiction of states, but the freedom of states to regulate their citizenship is restricted by rules of international law to protect fundamentals human rights and freedoms. States citizenship laws must be consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognized with regard to citizenship. Citizenship Plurality means that individual is the citizen of two or more different states at the same time. An individual may acquire more than one citizenship as a result of the conflicting citizenship laws of different states or of the conferment of citizenship by naturalization or any other manner, which does not result in the renunciation of a prior citizenship. For a long time considerable international and domestic effort has been directed toward avoiding or reducing these situations, because some of the problems may be affected by the lack of citizenship plurality in the area of obligations to military service, diplomatic protection, tax payments, election etc. Just nowadays these problems are no more threatened. Equalisation of rights between men and women, international migration, mixed marriages, globalization, EU integration and other factors are influencing legislation on tolerance toward citizenship plurality. More and more often the conferment of right and duties are related with criterion of habitual residence and not with possession of citizenship. The question of recognition of citizenship plurality in Lithuania became a matter of great relevance to our society after the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of November 13, 2006 on the compliance of the provisions of legal acts regulating the citizenship relations with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The ruling states that the legal regulation established in the Law on Citizenship (wording of 17 September 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) which was in effect at the time of consideration of this constitutional justice case, is in conflict with the Constitution. The essential problem was that under the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Constitution that with the exception of individual cases provided for by law, no one may be a citizen of both the Republic of Lithuania and another state at the same time, while the legal regulation continually expanded the legislative possibilities for citizens of the Republic of Lithuania also to hold citizenship of another state. Such legal regulation not only does not prevent from citizenship plurality but even encourages such tendency. Lithuanian citizenship legal regulation may be changed by amendments of Law on Citizenship, but it would be sufficient to provide individual cases of citizenship plurality. To fully permit citizenship plurality it is urgent need of referendum to change the Constitution.

In this Master's thesis, the contemporary criminality in Lithuania in the years 2010-2019 is integrally investigated and revealed, the summarised criminological characteristic of the persons that commit criminal offences is submitted, the main factors that contribute to criminality are determined and analysed and suggestions are submitted that would permit the institutions to regularly assess the real situation of criminality, to determine the main problems and to improve the applicable preventive measures. In the first chapter of the thesis, the concept of contemporary criminality is revealed, the status, level, dynamics and structure of the criminality of the years 2010-2019 and of the separate criminal offences (based on the data of registered criminality and victimological research). In the second chapter of the thesis, the statistical data that define the registered persons that are suspected of (charged with) committing criminal offences is analysed. In the third part of the thesis, the main factors that contribute to contemporary criminality in Lithuania are identified. It had been determined in the thesis that, during the examined time period (the years 2010-2019), criminality in Lithuania is decreasing, however the decrease of the registered criminal offences is influenced not only by social, political, economic, organisational changes in the country, but also the changes of legislation.