Suchergebnisse

Politics of the EU frequently use referendums to legitimise fundamental decisions. Naturally, attention is usually focused on those that end in a NO vote. Historically, governments have always had ways to circumvent such decisions by calling another referendum on a slightly reworded question, e.g. the Maastricht Treaty in Denmark or the Treaty of Nice and the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland. The qualitative comparative analysis showed that these pairs of referendums are distinct and comparable to study the result inversion phenomenon. Hence, the research aim was widened: employing the theoretical approaches of rational choice and new institutionalism, to explore the behaviour of actors participating in campaigns of European pairs of referendums within a changing structural environment. Paired referendums pose new challenges to actors of the institutional level (governments, parties and stakeholder groups). It was observed that governments tend to manipulate formal rules of referendums and aim to influence the process of second referendums. Next to the rational choice aided by the new institutionalism, the change in positions of YES and NO camps was registered by reconstructing constantly changing political discourses for each specific moment. This revealed that during second referendums and despite the participation of same actors, the voting is no longer on the same issue but on a differently presented and perceived treaty, i.e. the structural environment is essentially changed.

Politics of the EU frequently use referendums to legitimise fundamental decisions. Naturally, attention is usually focused on those that end in a NO vote. Historically, governments have always had ways to circumvent such decisions by calling another referendum on a slightly reworded question, e.g. the Maastricht Treaty in Denmark or the Treaty of Nice and the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland. The qualitative comparative analysis showed that these pairs of referendums are distinct and comparable to study the result inversion phenomenon. Hence, the research aim was widened: employing the theoretical approaches of rational choice and new institutionalism, to explore the behaviour of actors participating in campaigns of European pairs of referendums within a changing structural environment. Paired referendums pose new challenges to actors of the institutional level (governments, parties and stakeholder groups). It was observed that governments tend to manipulate formal rules of referendums and aim to influence the process of second referendums. Next to the rational choice aided by the new institutionalism, the change in positions of YES and NO camps was registered by reconstructing constantly changing political discourses for each specific moment. This revealed that during second referendums and despite the participation of same actors, the voting is no longer on the same issue but on a differently presented and perceived treaty, i.e. the structural environment is essentially changed.

Politics of the EU frequently use referendums to legitimise fundamental decisions. Naturally, attention is usually focused on those that end in a NO vote. Historically, governments have always had ways to circumvent such decisions by calling another referendum on a slightly reworded question, e.g. the Maastricht Treaty in Denmark or the Treaty of Nice and the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland. The qualitative comparative analysis showed that these pairs of referendums are distinct and comparable to study the result inversion phenomenon. Hence, the research aim was widened: employing the theoretical approaches of rational choice and new institutionalism, to explore the behaviour of actors participating in campaigns of European pairs of referendums within a changing structural environment. Paired referendums pose new challenges to actors of the institutional level (governments, parties and stakeholder groups). It was observed that governments tend to manipulate formal rules of referendums and aim to influence the process of second referendums. Next to the rational choice aided by the new institutionalism, the change in positions of YES and NO camps was registered by reconstructing constantly changing political discourses for each specific moment. This revealed that during second referendums and despite the participation of same actors, the voting is no longer on the same issue but on a differently presented and perceived treaty, i.e. the structural environment is essentially changed.

Politics of the EU frequently use referendums to legitimise fundamental decisions. Naturally, attention is usually focused on those that end in a NO vote. Historically, governments have always had ways to circumvent such decisions by calling another referendum on a slightly reworded question, e.g. the Maastricht Treaty in Denmark or the Treaty of Nice and the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland. The qualitative comparative analysis showed that these pairs of referendums are distinct and comparable to study the result inversion phenomenon. Hence, the research aim was widened: employing the theoretical approaches of rational choice and new institutionalism, to explore the behaviour of actors participating in campaigns of European pairs of referendums within a changing structural environment. Paired referendums pose new challenges to actors of the institutional level (governments, parties and stakeholder groups). It was observed that governments tend to manipulate formal rules of referendums and aim to influence the process of second referendums. Next to the rational choice aided by the new institutionalism, the change in positions of YES and NO camps was registered by reconstructing constantly changing political discourses for each specific moment. This revealed that during second referendums and despite the participation of same actors, the voting is no longer on the same issue but on a differently presented and perceived treaty, i.e. the structural environment is essentially changed.

Politics of the EU frequently use referendums to legitimise fundamental decisions. Naturally, attention is usually focused on those that end in a NO vote. Historically, governments have always had ways to circumvent such decisions by calling another referendum on a slightly reworded question, e.g. the Maastricht Treaty in Denmark or the Treaty of Nice and the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland. The qualitative comparative analysis showed that these pairs of referendums are distinct and comparable to study the result inversion phenomenon. Hence, the research aim was widened: employing the theoretical approaches of rational choice and new institutionalism, to explore the behaviour of actors participating in campaigns of European pairs of referendums within a changing structural environment. Paired referendums pose new challenges to actors of the institutional level (governments, parties and stakeholder groups). It was observed that governments tend to manipulate formal rules of referendums and aim to influence the process of second referendums. Next to the rational choice aided by the new institutionalism, the change in positions of YES and NO camps was registered by reconstructing constantly changing political discourses for each specific moment. This revealed that during second referendums and despite the participation of same actors, the voting is no longer on the same issue but on a differently presented and perceived treaty, i.e. the structural environment is essentially changed.

Politics of the EU frequently use referendums to legitimise fundamental decisions. Naturally, attention is usually focused on those that end in a NO vote. Historically, governments have always had ways to circumvent such decisions by calling another referendum on a slightly reworded question, e.g. the Maastricht Treaty in Denmark or the Treaty of Nice and the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland. The qualitative comparative analysis showed that these pairs of referendums are distinct and comparable to study the result inversion phenomenon. Hence, the research aim was widened: employing the theoretical approaches of rational choice and new institutionalism, to explore the behaviour of actors participating in campaigns of European pairs of referendums within a changing structural environment. Paired referendums pose new challenges to actors of the institutional level (governments, parties and stakeholder groups). It was observed that governments tend to manipulate formal rules of referendums and aim to influence the process of second referendums. Next to the rational choice aided by the new institutionalism, the change in positions of YES and NO camps was registered by reconstructing constantly changing political discourses for each specific moment. This revealed that during second referendums and despite the participation of same actors, the voting is no longer on the same issue but on a differently presented and perceived treaty, i.e. the structural environment is essentially changed.

In recent years the growth of direct democratic procedures in the world has become far more noticeable. Never before such a large number of people could vote for the actual issues since over the past decade. More frequently applied initiative law, general voting with a view to resolving essential problems and using mechanism of cancelation of the elected officials has fundamentally changed the political dynamics. Around the world representative democracy is being transformed and modernized. Thus the topic of the Master's thesis was chosen not randomly but to the more extensive context of the analysis of the referendum institute and aims to approach the experience of the referenda and assessing their prospects in Lithuania, Switzerland and California. The objective has been achieved by analyzing legal doctrine and legislation in terms of Lithuania and the experience of the selected states (Switzerland and California) organizing the referendums as well as their effects on representative democracy. The first part disputes the referendum in detail referring to it as the institute of direct democracy, concept and classification since the researchers' opinion concerning the terminology is different. The second part deals with the practice of referendum law in Lithuania and its assessment is presented. The third part analyzes the institutions of direct democracy in Switzerland and their assessment. The direct democracy in California is assessed in the fourth part while and arguments disapproving sceptics' opinion are presented in the fifth part.

In recent years the growth of direct democratic procedures in the world has become far more noticeable. Never before such a large number of people could vote for the actual issues since over the past decade. More frequently applied initiative law, general voting with a view to resolving essential problems and using mechanism of cancelation of the elected officials has fundamentally changed the political dynamics. Around the world representative democracy is being transformed and modernized. Thus the topic of the Master's thesis was chosen not randomly but to the more extensive context of the analysis of the referendum institute and aims to approach the experience of the referenda and assessing their prospects in Lithuania, Switzerland and California. The objective has been achieved by analyzing legal doctrine and legislation in terms of Lithuania and the experience of the selected states (Switzerland and California) organizing the referendums as well as their effects on representative democracy. The first part disputes the referendum in detail referring to it as the institute of direct democracy, concept and classification since the researchers' opinion concerning the terminology is different. The second part deals with the practice of referendum law in Lithuania and its assessment is presented. The third part analyzes the institutions of direct democracy in Switzerland and their assessment. The direct democracy in California is assessed in the fourth part while and arguments disapproving sceptics' opinion are presented in the fifth part.

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the whether the termination of a referendum initiative is valid if based of an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. The core questions, investigated in this thesis consists of whether the refusal to hold a referendum concerning a legal draft, which potentially does not meet the requirements arising from the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania constrain the citizens right to a referendum; can the Central Election Commission's and the Parliament's constitutional evaluation towards the citizens provided legal draft can be interpreted as some sort constitutional control. The arisen problem is examined in three parts of this thesis. The first parts presents background to this situation. On 2014 July 11'th the Constitutional Court of Lithuania adopted a resolution which the interpreted the additional powers to the Central Election Commission and the Parliament. This resolution established, that in order to prevent unconstitutional constitutional amendments to the Constitution, the Central Election Commission and the Parliament must be granted the jurisdiction to prevent such a referendum to take place, if it would be non-compliant with the fundamental provisions established in the Constitution or would lead to unconstitutional consequences. These powers themselves created an obligation, both to the Central Election Commission and the Parliament to check the contents of the submitted legal draft and to evaluate its compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Given the fact that a submitted legal draft is certain for constitutional checks not only in form, but also in terms of content, the question arises, what criteria should the Central Election Commission and the Parliament follow. For this reason, this part analyses what the fundamental constitutional values are enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and what kind of the safeguard mechanism is instilled. These criteria will provide a some sort of basis that could be determined in accordance with the legal draft. The second part deals with the situation where the Central Electoral Commission, within its jurisdiction, stated that a citizens' group submitted legal draft law does not comply with the requirements of the Constitution, thus shall not be put to vote in a referendum. For the same reason, the Parliament must refuse to hold a citizens' initiated referendum, even if such an initiative is at a request of 300 thousand citizens. Due to the fact that the requirement to call to provide 300 thousand signatures itself shows that the subject at hand is attributable to the major questions of the country. Parliament's refusal to hold such a referendum would not be an infringement of the sovereign powers held by the people. However, the question arises whether the refusal to call a referendum based on a legal draft, which potentially do not meet the requirements arising from the Constitution disproportionately restricts the right to call a referendum, which should by guaranteed by the Constitution. For this reason, this part will examine what are the real prospects to initiate and to call a referendum in Lithuania on behalf of the citizens, assessing how these perspectives have changed since the Constitutional Court adopted the mentioned resolution. This analysis will reveal possibility of a citizens' initiative and referendum, this analysis will determine whether the existing legal regulation does not create disproportionate difficulties in the implementation of the right to a referendum. The third part deals with the Lithuanian's Constitutional Court's exclusive right to interpret the concept of the Constitution; the analysis of the Central Electoral Commission's and the Parliament's content of powers and the constitutional practices of foreign countries. For this reason, this part will address the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania's prerogative to interpret the concept of the Constitution and why this exclusive right belongs to the Constitutional Court of Lithuania. This part will analyze whether the Central Electoral Commission and the Parliament right, to analyze the citizens provided legal draft in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania implements functions consisting a degree of constitutional control as well as the implementation of such a practice should be seen in relation to the recommendations of the Venice Commission. This analysis will answer the question of whether the current legal regulation creates preconditions for citizens' groups to be rejected the referendum provided by a bill based on an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. The analysis revealed that the only authority competent to assess the legal draft submitted for referendum, compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is the Lithuanian Constitutional Court, since only the Constitutional Court has the exclusive right to interpretation of constitutional rules, which can cause legal consequences. Given the fact that the interpretation of the Constitution is the Constitutional Court exclusive right and that only the official interpretation of the Constitution should lead would lead to legal consequences, it must be concluded that the possible non-compliance of the Constitution setting, based on an unofficial interpretation is not sufficient enough to refuse to hold a referendum. The Central Election Commission has not been provided with an opportunity to apply to the Constitutional Court questioning the submitted legal draft; a legal draft law, according to the Legal Code of Administrative Cases, is not subject of interpretation by the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, therefor it also not a subject of interpretation to the Constitutional Court. The Lithuanian Parliament adopted resolutions can possibly be subject of constitutional control, but that depends entirely on the will of the members of the Parliament. Evaluating these circumstances, it must be concluded that the Lithuania's current legal regulation of does not meet the recommendations of the Venice Commission. The absence of a clear possibility for a legal draft to be submitted for interpretation by the Constitutional Court, limits the right to an referendum initiative on behalf of the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania also preventing the referendum in accordance with unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. In accordance with these circumstances, it was found that both of the Parliament and the Central Election Commission's decision to refuse to register a referendum initiative or to hold a referendum on the basis, that the legal draft non-compliant with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is considered an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution that cannot be a sufficient to restrict the citizens constitutional right to a referendum.

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the whether the termination of a referendum initiative is valid if based of an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. The core questions, investigated in this thesis consists of whether the refusal to hold a referendum concerning a legal draft, which potentially does not meet the requirements arising from the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania constrain the citizens right to a referendum; can the Central Election Commission's and the Parliament's constitutional evaluation towards the citizens provided legal draft can be interpreted as some sort constitutional control. The arisen problem is examined in three parts of this thesis. The first parts presents background to this situation. On 2014 July 11'th the Constitutional Court of Lithuania adopted a resolution which the interpreted the additional powers to the Central Election Commission and the Parliament. This resolution established, that in order to prevent unconstitutional constitutional amendments to the Constitution, the Central Election Commission and the Parliament must be granted the jurisdiction to prevent such a referendum to take place, if it would be non-compliant with the fundamental provisions established in the Constitution or would lead to unconstitutional consequences. These powers themselves created an obligation, both to the Central Election Commission and the Parliament to check the contents of the submitted legal draft and to evaluate its compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Given the fact that a submitted legal draft is certain for constitutional checks not only in form, but also in terms of content, the question arises, what criteria should the Central Election Commission and the Parliament follow. For this reason, this part analyses what the fundamental constitutional values are enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and what kind of the safeguard mechanism is instilled. These criteria will provide a some sort of basis that could be determined in accordance with the legal draft. The second part deals with the situation where the Central Electoral Commission, within its jurisdiction, stated that a citizens' group submitted legal draft law does not comply with the requirements of the Constitution, thus shall not be put to vote in a referendum. For the same reason, the Parliament must refuse to hold a citizens' initiated referendum, even if such an initiative is at a request of 300 thousand citizens. Due to the fact that the requirement to call to provide 300 thousand signatures itself shows that the subject at hand is attributable to the major questions of the country. Parliament's refusal to hold such a referendum would not be an infringement of the sovereign powers held by the people. However, the question arises whether the refusal to call a referendum based on a legal draft, which potentially do not meet the requirements arising from the Constitution disproportionately restricts the right to call a referendum, which should by guaranteed by the Constitution. For this reason, this part will examine what are the real prospects to initiate and to call a referendum in Lithuania on behalf of the citizens, assessing how these perspectives have changed since the Constitutional Court adopted the mentioned resolution. This analysis will reveal possibility of a citizens' initiative and referendum, this analysis will determine whether the existing legal regulation does not create disproportionate difficulties in the implementation of the right to a referendum. The third part deals with the Lithuanian's Constitutional Court's exclusive right to interpret the concept of the Constitution; the analysis of the Central Electoral Commission's and the Parliament's content of powers and the constitutional practices of foreign countries. For this reason, this part will address the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania's prerogative to interpret the concept of the Constitution and why this exclusive right belongs to the Constitutional Court of Lithuania. This part will analyze whether the Central Electoral Commission and the Parliament right, to analyze the citizens provided legal draft in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania implements functions consisting a degree of constitutional control as well as the implementation of such a practice should be seen in relation to the recommendations of the Venice Commission. This analysis will answer the question of whether the current legal regulation creates preconditions for citizens' groups to be rejected the referendum provided by a bill based on an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. The analysis revealed that the only authority competent to assess the legal draft submitted for referendum, compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is the Lithuanian Constitutional Court, since only the Constitutional Court has the exclusive right to interpretation of constitutional rules, which can cause legal consequences. Given the fact that the interpretation of the Constitution is the Constitutional Court exclusive right and that only the official interpretation of the Constitution should lead would lead to legal consequences, it must be concluded that the possible non-compliance of the Constitution setting, based on an unofficial interpretation is not sufficient enough to refuse to hold a referendum. The Central Election Commission has not been provided with an opportunity to apply to the Constitutional Court questioning the submitted legal draft; a legal draft law, according to the Legal Code of Administrative Cases, is not subject of interpretation by the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, therefor it also not a subject of interpretation to the Constitutional Court. The Lithuanian Parliament adopted resolutions can possibly be subject of constitutional control, but that depends entirely on the will of the members of the Parliament. Evaluating these circumstances, it must be concluded that the Lithuania's current legal regulation of does not meet the recommendations of the Venice Commission. The absence of a clear possibility for a legal draft to be submitted for interpretation by the Constitutional Court, limits the right to an referendum initiative on behalf of the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania also preventing the referendum in accordance with unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. In accordance with these circumstances, it was found that both of the Parliament and the Central Election Commission's decision to refuse to register a referendum initiative or to hold a referendum on the basis, that the legal draft non-compliant with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is considered an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution that cannot be a sufficient to restrict the citizens constitutional right to a referendum.

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the whether the termination of a referendum initiative is valid if based of an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. The core questions, investigated in this thesis consists of whether the refusal to hold a referendum concerning a legal draft, which potentially does not meet the requirements arising from the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania constrain the citizens right to a referendum; can the Central Election Commission's and the Parliament's constitutional evaluation towards the citizens provided legal draft can be interpreted as some sort constitutional control. The arisen problem is examined in three parts of this thesis. The first parts presents background to this situation. On 2014 July 11'th the Constitutional Court of Lithuania adopted a resolution which the interpreted the additional powers to the Central Election Commission and the Parliament. This resolution established, that in order to prevent unconstitutional constitutional amendments to the Constitution, the Central Election Commission and the Parliament must be granted the jurisdiction to prevent such a referendum to take place, if it would be non-compliant with the fundamental provisions established in the Constitution or would lead to unconstitutional consequences. These powers themselves created an obligation, both to the Central Election Commission and the Parliament to check the contents of the submitted legal draft and to evaluate its compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Given the fact that a submitted legal draft is certain for constitutional checks not only in form, but also in terms of content, the question arises, what criteria should the Central Election Commission and the Parliament follow. For this reason, this part analyses what the fundamental constitutional values are enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and what kind of the safeguard mechanism is instilled. These criteria will provide a some sort of basis that could be determined in accordance with the legal draft. The second part deals with the situation where the Central Electoral Commission, within its jurisdiction, stated that a citizens' group submitted legal draft law does not comply with the requirements of the Constitution, thus shall not be put to vote in a referendum. For the same reason, the Parliament must refuse to hold a citizens' initiated referendum, even if such an initiative is at a request of 300 thousand citizens. Due to the fact that the requirement to call to provide 300 thousand signatures itself shows that the subject at hand is attributable to the major questions of the country. Parliament's refusal to hold such a referendum would not be an infringement of the sovereign powers held by the people. However, the question arises whether the refusal to call a referendum based on a legal draft, which potentially do not meet the requirements arising from the Constitution disproportionately restricts the right to call a referendum, which should by guaranteed by the Constitution. For this reason, this part will examine what are the real prospects to initiate and to call a referendum in Lithuania on behalf of the citizens, assessing how these perspectives have changed since the Constitutional Court adopted the mentioned resolution. This analysis will reveal possibility of a citizens' initiative and referendum, this analysis will determine whether the existing legal regulation does not create disproportionate difficulties in the implementation of the right to a referendum. The third part deals with the Lithuanian's Constitutional Court's exclusive right to interpret the concept of the Constitution; the analysis of the Central Electoral Commission's and the Parliament's content of powers and the constitutional practices of foreign countries. For this reason, this part will address the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania's prerogative to interpret the concept of the Constitution and why this exclusive right belongs to the Constitutional Court of Lithuania. This part will analyze whether the Central Electoral Commission and the Parliament right, to analyze the citizens provided legal draft in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania implements functions consisting a degree of constitutional control as well as the implementation of such a practice should be seen in relation to the recommendations of the Venice Commission. This analysis will answer the question of whether the current legal regulation creates preconditions for citizens' groups to be rejected the referendum provided by a bill based on an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. The analysis revealed that the only authority competent to assess the legal draft submitted for referendum, compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is the Lithuanian Constitutional Court, since only the Constitutional Court has the exclusive right to interpretation of constitutional rules, which can cause legal consequences. Given the fact that the interpretation of the Constitution is the Constitutional Court exclusive right and that only the official interpretation of the Constitution should lead would lead to legal consequences, it must be concluded that the possible non-compliance of the Constitution setting, based on an unofficial interpretation is not sufficient enough to refuse to hold a referendum. The Central Election Commission has not been provided with an opportunity to apply to the Constitutional Court questioning the submitted legal draft; a legal draft law, according to the Legal Code of Administrative Cases, is not subject of interpretation by the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, therefor it also not a subject of interpretation to the Constitutional Court. The Lithuanian Parliament adopted resolutions can possibly be subject of constitutional control, but that depends entirely on the will of the members of the Parliament. Evaluating these circumstances, it must be concluded that the Lithuania's current legal regulation of does not meet the recommendations of the Venice Commission. The absence of a clear possibility for a legal draft to be submitted for interpretation by the Constitutional Court, limits the right to an referendum initiative on behalf of the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania also preventing the referendum in accordance with unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. In accordance with these circumstances, it was found that both of the Parliament and the Central Election Commission's decision to refuse to register a referendum initiative or to hold a referendum on the basis, that the legal draft non-compliant with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is considered an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution that cannot be a sufficient to restrict the citizens constitutional right to a referendum.

Lithuania's referendum on the accession into the European Union was part of the so-called "domino strategy" of the fourth wave of EU enlargement, which aimed to influence the mindset of the inhabitants of the less euro-enthusiastic member states by placing the pressure of the anticipated high positive result from the more enthusiastic member states (Lithuania among them) on them. Typical trend of elites' manipulations can be observed in Lithuania, i.e. changing of the legal basis on the referendum prior to the EU accession referendum in order to facilitate positive outcome. These facilitating rules had been introduced step by step, bringing any discussions on these matters in a parliament during election campaigns of 2000 & 2002 to an end in order to escape escalation of the pro versus the anti-European cleavages within political system. Thus, a double hurdle (both turn-out & voting YES of 50 per cent of all eligible voters) existing since 1989 in referendum legislation was lowered introducing triple hurdle (turnout of 50 per cent & voting YES one third of all eligible voters but more than 50 per cent of participants) in 2002. Then, in 2003 it was facilitated once again introducing new double hurdle (turn-out 50 per cent of all eligible voters & voting YES by 50 per cent of participants). Further attempts to facilitate positive result were limited by two factors: first, a specific factor, an almost parallel initiative of referendum on the constitutional amendments (so-called "Uspaskikh referendum"), is to be taken into consideration. In addition, a general requirement that the citizens themselves decide on the issue of Lithuania's EU integration in a decisive & binding manner, i.e. a referendum, typical for other CEE countries as well as, was also important here. Finally, other settings laying ground for a positive result, though facilitated twice, were further reinforced by a two-day voting procedure. Together with an unexpected apathy of Hungarian voters in their referendum, these risky rules became a reason for dramatization & anxiety expecting proclaiming referendum as invalid due to insufficient voter turnout. An official information campaign of the Government on the EU accession started in 2000. Gradually it turned into a one-sided agitation campaign, let alone before the referendum date. Positive involvement of the institutions possessing high public confidence such as te mass media & Catholic Church, a well-established consensus of the major political parties on the EU accession, weak organization of the euro-skeptical movement all led to an absence of any substantial political competition. Finally, the advertising as such started dominating the campaign. Features of propaganda, sometimes coming very close to a violation of laws banning advertising during the voting days, could be observed here too. Different points of view should be endorsed in order to interpret the high positive result of the referendum in a sufficient manner. As regards the history of Lithuania's political system, it was the fourth successful referendum since the 90s. What was typical for all of them was that the citizens & the elites held a common position on the issue. Seen within the context of the latest internal political developments in Lithuania, it could be nevertheless equated to an exception first of all in view of electorate's positive motivation, less apathy & the lack of tangible protest features. Referendum proceeding & its results -- maximal active support for the YES statement among all countries of fourth wave of EU enlargement -- give a fresh & useful data for testing "elite-centric," "rational choice," "ideological-cultural" theories of euro-integration. 6 Lenteles. Adapted from the source document.

Around all over the world, at this moment, there is one main problem, while government organizations are organizing general elections or referendums. Problem is that citizens are very apathetic and their participation in elections and referendums are very low. Elections and referendums which are based on traditional election system, using paper ballots, are uncomfortable for a lot of citizens, which have election right, because it's not very comfortable or possible to reach voting poll's on an election day. In this case the participation of citizens is very low, because it's not always possible to visit polling stations when the distance to it is quiet big or citizen have no time to vote. This problem is very urgent in Lithuania to. One of the easiest ways to increase participation of citizens in country political processes is creation of electronical voting systems which can be used to cast citizen vote remotely or not. Because of opinion that e-voting systems will be more convenient for the voters and this will increase voters turnout on elections and referendums, governments of some countries are trying to create and begin to use those systems on their countries general elections and referendums. This paper work is representing the standards and main aspects of creation of the e-voting systems and main threats to electronical voting systems. It discusses about system attack methods and people which are interested in e-voting systems compromising. Also it analyzes the practice of using e-voting systems for elections and referendums in some world countries. One of the paper work aims was to analyze Lithuanian e-voting system conception and try to offer the e-voting system, which can be used in Lithuanian elections and referendums, model. The main aim of this work was to make a research which can help to understand, what Lithuanian society thinks about e-voting system creation and future plans to use it in Lithuanian elections and referendums and will it be possible, that e-voting system use in Lithuania will increase citizens participation in elections and referendums.