Crimininology metaphors in Lithuanian public discourse during the Soviet period (1975–1989) and in recent years (2001–2015) were analysed and compared. The purpose of this research was to highlight changes in the level of conceptualization and metaphorical expressions and to identify changes in the concepts of crime, criminal and criminality in linguistic culture. It was found that two models of methaphors made up of two minor metaphors were used for criminal during those periods: A CRIMINAL IS NOT A HUMAN BEING (a criminal is an animal (beast, wolf, reptile) – a criminal is a creature (degenerate, creep, devil, freak, monster) and A CRIMINAL IS A CERTAIN PROFESSION (killer / butcher / hunter / fisher). Analysing criminology metaphors used in recent years the monster metaphor was identified, the levels of metaphorisation were compared and two metaphorical parallels a criminal is a hunter and a criminal is a fisher were identified. TO COMMIT A CRIME was metaphorized TO SATISFY PHYSIOLOGICAL NEEDS (a criminal is preying on his victim) or TO FULFIL DUTY (punish, persecute,,chase, fish). The last two metaphors were characteristic of current discourse. CRIME was structured as AN OBJECT (hard object) and as A NATURAL DISASTER (earthquake). The conceptual metaphor criminality is a disease appeared only lately because crime issues were avoided in the Soviet period. Thus, the comparison of conceptual crimonology metaphors in public discourse during two ideologically and politically different periods revealed that metaphorical expressions and the level of conceptualization changed insignificantly An explanantion of that is not a Soviet tradition but a negative attitude of society towards a criminal and a crime which does not change.
Crimininology metaphors in Lithuanian public discourse during the Soviet period (1975–1989) and in recent years (2001–2015) were analysed and compared. The purpose of this research was to highlight changes in the level of conceptualization and metaphorical expressions and to identify changes in the concepts of crime, criminal and criminality in linguistic culture. It was found that two models of methaphors made up of two minor metaphors were used for criminal during those periods: A CRIMINAL IS NOT A HUMAN BEING (a criminal is an animal (beast, wolf, reptile) – a criminal is a creature (degenerate, creep, devil, freak, monster) and A CRIMINAL IS A CERTAIN PROFESSION (killer / butcher / hunter / fisher). Analysing criminology metaphors used in recent years the monster metaphor was identified, the levels of metaphorisation were compared and two metaphorical parallels a criminal is a hunter and a criminal is a fisher were identified. TO COMMIT A CRIME was metaphorized TO SATISFY PHYSIOLOGICAL NEEDS (a criminal is preying on his victim) or TO FULFIL DUTY (punish, persecute,,chase, fish). The last two metaphors were characteristic of current discourse. CRIME was structured as AN OBJECT (hard object) and as A NATURAL DISASTER (earthquake). The conceptual metaphor criminality is a disease appeared only lately because crime issues were avoided in the Soviet period. Thus, the comparison of conceptual crimonology metaphors in public discourse during two ideologically and politically different periods revealed that metaphorical expressions and the level of conceptualization changed insignificantly An explanantion of that is not a Soviet tradition but a negative attitude of society towards a criminal and a crime which does not change.
The most relevant topic at the moment – the new Coronavirus and the influence it has bring to our economies, communities, health and all the other spheres. One of the most damaged sector – transport and tourism. This paper aim to analyse the changes in customer behaviour during COVID-19 pandemic, how does it change people plans for travelling at the moment and in a long term, also traveller's behaviour in organizing trips, selecting destination or an accommodation. The research was carried out using scientific literature analysis and a quantitative research was used for receiving a data about current changes in tourist behaviour which is extremely relevant at the moment. Tourism was one of the most growing industry, counting steady growth for 10 years in a row and reaching the record of 1.5 billion international tourists in year 2019 (UNWTO, 2020) and the forecast for the upcoming year was further growth of 4 % but now it is obvious that instead of a growth tourism industry will face sharp decline due to cancelled flights, closed hotels and restaurants, even borders of the many countries in EU, USA, Asia. Everything changed really rapidly as new Coronavirus fit China in the end of 2019 and soon spread in other countries and continents. This world is facing various risks every day from terror, wars, economy crises, nature disasters to biological virus mutations – all threats cause enormous influence to society and customer behaviour. Consumer behaviour – the decisions that people make to buy or not to buy a product or service, and the factors that influence their decisions (Mowen, 1987). Many scientists agree that consumer behaviour is highly affected by environment and any changes that happen in society. B.F. Skinner was focused not into the individual but into environment and the reaction of people into changes in environment. According to Jan Krajhanzl (2010) consumer behaviour is influenced by internal and external factors. One type of external factors are situational factors like: weather conditions, time, catastrophes, epidemics and other. No other economic sector is so connected with environment like tourism, on which it depends. There are few types of risks on tourism: 1. Nature: storms, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, tsunamis, floods, etc. 2. Technology: risks, caused by unlimited technological development. 3. Political: wars, conflicts, terror. 4. Biological: viruses, infectious diseases. (Robertson, Kean, Moore 2006) Those global challenges have power on most countries tourism sector: in regions where one or another risk if happening, number of tourist drop rapidly (Damulienė, 2011). Current global risk – COVID-19 virus, which caused worldwide pandemic. World Health Organization (WHO) characterized Coronavirus as pandemic on 19th of March, 2020. In a very short time this virus changed people life: many countries are in a lockdown, which leads to closed restaurants, shopping places, public events and many other spheres. One of the most effective way of avoiding virus is staying at home with no physical contact which leads to negative influence to individual's mental health (WHO 2020). The research of the paper was conducted in March – April, 2020. 277 people from Lithuania answered to online survey questions. Results were analysed with Excel. Profile of the respondents were people from 19 to 65 years, mostly 35-55 years old, active travellers, travelling abroad one and more times per year (81.8 %). Questions were divided into 3 blocks with 15 statements in each and respondents needed to evaluate statement in scale from "totally agree", "agree", "neutral", "disagree", "totally disagree". Results revealed that safety if the most important factor for choosing a destination for travelling (93.5 % agree and totally agree with statement). Also, most of the people agree (89.3 %) that they will travel only when they will be sure about safety due to COVID-19. Now 85 % of respondents cancelled or are planning to cancel their future trips due the virus. Despite the huge current influence of the virus, most of the respondents agree that they would like to travel if not the negative Coronavirus news, this means that the virus did not stop people from willing to travel. Summing up all information and research made it is obvious that Coronavirus have a huge influence on society and consumer behaviour in various ways and especially in tourism sector. Changing behaviour is forecasted for the future also: travellers will choose to travel to more remote destinations, avoid mass places, travel more individually and avoid group travelling. Huge attention will be on health and hygiene conditions in places of interest, accommodation and restaurants sector, also for other traveller's health situation
The most relevant topic at the moment – the new Coronavirus and the influence it has bring to our economies, communities, health and all the other spheres. One of the most damaged sector – transport and tourism. This paper aim to analyse the changes in customer behaviour during COVID-19 pandemic, how does it change people plans for travelling at the moment and in a long term, also traveller's behaviour in organizing trips, selecting destination or an accommodation. The research was carried out using scientific literature analysis and a quantitative research was used for receiving a data about current changes in tourist behaviour which is extremely relevant at the moment. Tourism was one of the most growing industry, counting steady growth for 10 years in a row and reaching the record of 1.5 billion international tourists in year 2019 (UNWTO, 2020) and the forecast for the upcoming year was further growth of 4 % but now it is obvious that instead of a growth tourism industry will face sharp decline due to cancelled flights, closed hotels and restaurants, even borders of the many countries in EU, USA, Asia. Everything changed really rapidly as new Coronavirus fit China in the end of 2019 and soon spread in other countries and continents. This world is facing various risks every day from terror, wars, economy crises, nature disasters to biological virus mutations – all threats cause enormous influence to society and customer behaviour. Consumer behaviour – the decisions that people make to buy or not to buy a product or service, and the factors that influence their decisions (Mowen, 1987). Many scientists agree that consumer behaviour is highly affected by environment and any changes that happen in society. B.F. Skinner was focused not into the individual but into environment and the reaction of people into changes in environment. According to Jan Krajhanzl (2010) consumer behaviour is influenced by internal and external factors. One type of external factors are situational factors like: weather conditions, time, catastrophes, epidemics and other. No other economic sector is so connected with environment like tourism, on which it depends. There are few types of risks on tourism: 1. Nature: storms, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, tsunamis, floods, etc. 2. Technology: risks, caused by unlimited technological development. 3. Political: wars, conflicts, terror. 4. Biological: viruses, infectious diseases. (Robertson, Kean, Moore 2006) Those global challenges have power on most countries tourism sector: in regions where one or another risk if happening, number of tourist drop rapidly (Damulienė, 2011). Current global risk – COVID-19 virus, which caused worldwide pandemic. World Health Organization (WHO) characterized Coronavirus as pandemic on 19th of March, 2020. In a very short time this virus changed people life: many countries are in a lockdown, which leads to closed restaurants, shopping places, public events and many other spheres. One of the most effective way of avoiding virus is staying at home with no physical contact which leads to negative influence to individual's mental health (WHO 2020). The research of the paper was conducted in March – April, 2020. 277 people from Lithuania answered to online survey questions. Results were analysed with Excel. Profile of the respondents were people from 19 to 65 years, mostly 35-55 years old, active travellers, travelling abroad one and more times per year (81.8 %). Questions were divided into 3 blocks with 15 statements in each and respondents needed to evaluate statement in scale from "totally agree", "agree", "neutral", "disagree", "totally disagree". Results revealed that safety if the most important factor for choosing a destination for travelling (93.5 % agree and totally agree with statement). Also, most of the people agree (89.3 %) that they will travel only when they will be sure about safety due to COVID-19. Now 85 % of respondents cancelled or are planning to cancel their future trips due the virus. Despite the huge current influence of the virus, most of the respondents agree that they would like to travel if not the negative Coronavirus news, this means that the virus did not stop people from willing to travel. Summing up all information and research made it is obvious that Coronavirus have a huge influence on society and consumer behaviour in various ways and especially in tourism sector. Changing behaviour is forecasted for the future also: travellers will choose to travel to more remote destinations, avoid mass places, travel more individually and avoid group travelling. Huge attention will be on health and hygiene conditions in places of interest, accommodation and restaurants sector, also for other traveller's health situation
Recently, the number of cases is rising because of the various hazardous materials contamination around the nature. Most often this occurs because of unexpected natural disasters. For example, due to a strong earthquake that triggered the tsunami, a huge disaster in Japan occurred (Fukushima nuclear power plant case). At that time, a large part of radioactive nuclear materials spread in the open ocean and this breakthrough that is widespread even now still cannot be stopped. It applies not only to the pollution of the ocean, but to all other different countries within outside territorial waters. The question is: Are the affected State has the right to compensation in this case? Then who should pay for damages? What is the legal regulation for such situations? International environmental law is mainly expressed in treaties and other international legal instruments, but it cannot be applied for the marine pollution with nuclear materials because there is no legal regulation in this field. Hereinafter, the problem of deficiency of legal regulation will be examined specifically in the area of oceans, sea borders, and territorial waters pollution by radioactive materials. And finally, there will be explored the issues to whether there is an obligation for a legal entity to compensate the damage to another state when according to the force majeure circumstances the radioactive nuclear materials spread and contaminate other state's outside territorial waters and ocean? The main goal of this thesis is to determine whether there is an obligation of a legal person to compensate the damages to another state within force majeure conditions radioactive nuclear materials contaminate other states outside territorial waters and the seas. Main tasks: First, analysis of the human right to a clean environment in international law, and also nuclear pollution consequences; Then there is, revelation of nuclear pollution features of international law, while reviewing the disposition of nuclear material aspects in the international and national levels; Thirdly, analysis of the relation of nuclear damage and pollution of the marine environment concepts; Fourthly, examination of civil liability in Public International Law; Fifthly, clearing out the responsible person in the event of contamination of territorial waters and oceans. The main hypothesis - there is no obligation for a legal entity to compensate the damage to another state when according to the force majeure circumstances the radioactive nuclear materials spread and contaminate other state's outside territorial waters and ocean. The human right to a clean environment in international and national laws in the analysis showed that according to the national level - the Lithuanian Constitution in Article 53, establishes environmental and public security for human health conditions and herein is determined by a person's right to breathe clean and fresh air, use uncontaminated natural resources. When examining the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, during 1972 United Nations conference held and various sources of scientific publications that are reasonably arguing that the right to a clean environment needs to be fully legally regulated for living a healthy life and a being in a healthy environment of necessity, because the occurrence of nuclear pollution is in danger to human health, their well-being in a contaminated environment. Herein will be also analyzed the specific features of the disposition of nuclear materials in international law, it became clear that each country determines its own legal regulation related to radioactive materials of their national legislation and hereinafter international law for the same problem is based on the relation with other countries and international cooperation in law infringement. It was found that the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) is the world's center of cooperation in the field of nuclear energy and its possession taken major legislation. It was found that the main issues dealing with marine pollution legislation are adopted by the United Nations Convention of the Law of The Sea. There is a lot of issues about environment and its conservation defined in this Convention, but it does not specify the marine radioactive pollution. According to the marine environment and radioactive pollutions concepts observed, there has been shown that the concept of nuclear marine pollution does not apply anywhere. Under the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, the concept of nuclear damage is defined better, it is obvious that only the direct damage to human life and property is being stated here. What is more, the question of civil liability associated with environmental pollution losses is still a problem due to the lack of a legal regulation in this field. In 1963 . Vienna Convention establishes an absolute liability of the operator for nuclear damage, but if the exemptions in this case like force majeure, civil liability does not apply to nuclear contamination of the operator. In the view of the land-based sources, the Convention of the Law of The Sea requires to establish pollution prevention measures including the internationally approved rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures. It was found in Vienna Convention that the operator shall not be liable for nuclear damage caused by a nuclear incident, except when the States, who is responsible for damage, laws may provide the contrary prediction - the operator shall not be liable for nuclear damage caused by a nuclear incident directly due to severe natural disasters. \"Operator\", in relation to a nuclear installation, means the person designated or recognized by the Installation State as the operator of that installation. Hence, the force majeure conditions resulting in nuclear contamination do not require a legal entity to compensate the losses and damages to another state.
