Border guard, control and surveillance are a relevant topic in every country. It should be mentioned, that when the country has borders with other countries, it has created the policy, legal and institutional basis for the control and surveillance of its border that secures social, political, legal, economical, cultural and scientific interests of the citizens of that country. There are two border concepts in the European Union – internal and external borders. The co-operation of the member states, based on the integrated border management concept, is oriented to the common attempt to control and secure the external border carrying out various joint operations and projects. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the guidelines of the cooperation of the EU member states in the field of external border guard and to evaluate the effectiveness of this cooperation. This paper consists of preface, where the relevance, problem, purpose, objectives are presented, three main parts, conclusions and appendixes. The analysis of the guidelines of cooperation of the EU member states in the field of external border surveillance and evaluation of the effectiveness of this cooperation is being carried out using the researches, Shengen acquis, the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Treaty of Rome, the Treaty of Lisbon, etc.
Border guard, control and surveillance are a relevant topic in every country. It should be mentioned, that when the country has borders with other countries, it has created the policy, legal and institutional basis for the control and surveillance of its border that secures social, political, legal, economical, cultural and scientific interests of the citizens of that country. There are two border concepts in the European Union – internal and external borders. The co-operation of the member states, based on the integrated border management concept, is oriented to the common attempt to control and secure the external border carrying out various joint operations and projects. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the guidelines of the cooperation of the EU member states in the field of external border guard and to evaluate the effectiveness of this cooperation. This paper consists of preface, where the relevance, problem, purpose, objectives are presented, three main parts, conclusions and appendixes. The analysis of the guidelines of cooperation of the EU member states in the field of external border surveillance and evaluation of the effectiveness of this cooperation is being carried out using the researches, Shengen acquis, the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Treaty of Rome, the Treaty of Lisbon, etc.
The paper argues that the distinction between the pre-political and the political in the form of the household and the state is essential to the understanding of Aristotle's communal projects. The analysis with the help of this distinction reveals the structure and principles of Aristotelian communal projects and removes tensions, which are rooted in different and frequently incompatible statements of Aristotle. In the course of the paper, it is showed that the household and the state can be defined as separate and yet interdependent communities and how these definitions affect the understanding of concrete constitutional communities.
The paper argues that the distinction between the pre-political and the political in the form of the household and the state is essential to the understanding of Aristotle's communal projects. The analysis with the help of this distinction reveals the structure and principles of Aristotelian communal projects and removes tensions, which are rooted in different and frequently incompatible statements of Aristotle. In the course of the paper, it is showed that the household and the state can be defined as separate and yet interdependent communities and how these definitions affect the understanding of concrete constitutional communities.
The paper argues that the distinction between the pre-political and the political in the form of the household and the state is essential to the understanding of Aristotle's communal projects. The analysis with the help of this distinction reveals the structure and principles of Aristotelian communal projects and removes tensions, which are rooted in different and frequently incompatible statements of Aristotle. In the course of the paper, it is showed that the household and the state can be defined as separate and yet interdependent communities and how these definitions affect the understanding of concrete constitutional communities.
The paper argues that the distinction between the pre-political and the political in the form of the household and the state is essential to the understanding of Aristotle's communal projects. The analysis with the help of this distinction reveals the structure and principles of Aristotelian communal projects and removes tensions, which are rooted in different and frequently incompatible statements of Aristotle. In the course of the paper, it is showed that the household and the state can be defined as separate and yet interdependent communities and how these definitions affect the understanding of concrete constitutional communities.
This work analyses the constitutional concept of the Seimas as representation of the Nation. Under the Constitution, only Members of the Seimas are representatives of the Nation and only the Seimas is the representation of the Nation. One of the most important features according to which a state institution is to be ascribed to the representation of the Nation is that it is a collegiate state institution, which is comprised from representatives of the Nation and which adopts decisions only after debates, only by majority of votes and by taking account of various opinions. Uncovering nation's concept of sovereignty as the only holder, continues Nation which by delegating part of its sovereignty is legitimizing the power of parliament to act on behalf of the Nation. Examined is the outcomes of parliamentary in Lithuania, disclosing the fact that might of started forming as late as times of Great Lithuanian Kingdom. Also discussed is in-between war period the Seimas as well as Highest Council of Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, why it can't be treated as true Lithuanian parliament. Considering Constitutional Court jurisprudence, analyzed is relationship between the Seimas and executive as well as judiciary powers. Disclosed is the status of member of the Seimas as representative of the Nation, the content of his mandate, legal ground of the capacity of its authority, parliament member right and responsibilities as well as the action assurance. Also analyzed is a constitutional regulation, which enables the Seimas to set up the structure and order of its work.
This work analyses the constitutional concept of the Seimas as representation of the Nation. Under the Constitution, only Members of the Seimas are representatives of the Nation and only the Seimas is the representation of the Nation. One of the most important features according to which a state institution is to be ascribed to the representation of the Nation is that it is a collegiate state institution, which is comprised from representatives of the Nation and which adopts decisions only after debates, only by majority of votes and by taking account of various opinions. Uncovering nation's concept of sovereignty as the only holder, continues Nation which by delegating part of its sovereignty is legitimizing the power of parliament to act on behalf of the Nation. Examined is the outcomes of parliamentary in Lithuania, disclosing the fact that might of started forming as late as times of Great Lithuanian Kingdom. Also discussed is in-between war period the Seimas as well as Highest Council of Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, why it can't be treated as true Lithuanian parliament. Considering Constitutional Court jurisprudence, analyzed is relationship between the Seimas and executive as well as judiciary powers. Disclosed is the status of member of the Seimas as representative of the Nation, the content of his mandate, legal ground of the capacity of its authority, parliament member right and responsibilities as well as the action assurance. Also analyzed is a constitutional regulation, which enables the Seimas to set up the structure and order of its work.
It seems that during the Interwar period the legal act on the working procedure of the interwar Lithuanian executive authorities was not adopted. If it was, it was not published in the Government Gazette, although the statutes of other institutions, such as the Institute of Lithuanian Studies, the National Economic Council, and the Secondary Music Schools, were published. During this period, several attempts were made to adopt such a legal act, called either the Statute of the Cabinet of Ministers or the Statute of the Administrative Order. The drafts of this legislation were produced in 1919, 1925–1927, and 1939. The most comprehensive was the draft of the Statute of the Administrative Order, initiated by the Council of State in 1939. The intention was that this document should regulate not only the composition, competences, and working arrangements of the Council of Ministers, but also the legal status of the Prime Minister, their relationship with the Head of the State, and the text of the oath of the Prime Minister and other ministers. It would also regulate social guarantees, including restrictions on ministerial activities and official responsibility, and the administrative structure of ministries. It was the first time that the procedure of receiving and examining complaints and requests in the ministries was regulated by the norms of the Statute. The failure to adopt such a document within two decades can be explained by the fact that at first the young state faced major challenges which had to be dealt with immediately, including the Territory of Vilnius, the Memel Territory, foreign policy, and state credits. Later it faced challenges such as the establishment of the authoritarian regime and the unclear division between state powers, and the fact that other acts related to the executive power – the Law on the Civil Service, the Law on the Administrative Court – were not adopted in the interwar period at all. This study was mainly based on documents kept in the Central State Archives of Lithuania.
It seems that during the Interwar period the legal act on the working procedure of the interwar Lithuanian executive authorities was not adopted. If it was, it was not published in the Government Gazette, although the statutes of other institutions, such as the Institute of Lithuanian Studies, the National Economic Council, and the Secondary Music Schools, were published. During this period, several attempts were made to adopt such a legal act, called either the Statute of the Cabinet of Ministers or the Statute of the Administrative Order. The drafts of this legislation were produced in 1919, 1925–1927, and 1939. The most comprehensive was the draft of the Statute of the Administrative Order, initiated by the Council of State in 1939. The intention was that this document should regulate not only the composition, competences, and working arrangements of the Council of Ministers, but also the legal status of the Prime Minister, their relationship with the Head of the State, and the text of the oath of the Prime Minister and other ministers. It would also regulate social guarantees, including restrictions on ministerial activities and official responsibility, and the administrative structure of ministries. It was the first time that the procedure of receiving and examining complaints and requests in the ministries was regulated by the norms of the Statute. The failure to adopt such a document within two decades can be explained by the fact that at first the young state faced major challenges which had to be dealt with immediately, including the Territory of Vilnius, the Memel Territory, foreign policy, and state credits. Later it faced challenges such as the establishment of the authoritarian regime and the unclear division between state powers, and the fact that other acts related to the executive power – the Law on the Civil Service, the Law on the Administrative Court – were not adopted in the interwar period at all. This study was mainly based on documents kept in the Central State Archives of Lithuania.
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.
SUMMARY Stirring international military activity has become one of the most important tasks of Lithuanian foreign policy implementation. Intensive international military collaboration and participation in peace keeping process are the main means to implement that task. The main aim of the paper is to detect geographical peculiarities of Lithuanian international military activity. It is defined that Lithuanian international military activity is reasoned not only politically, but also has a geographical validity. Bilateral and multilateral military collaboration of Lithuania clearly reveals it's priorities given to the most of the Baltic Sea region countries. Especially active cooperation in military range Lithuania holds with other Eastern Baltic countries – Latvia and Estonia. The main geographical factors of such collaboration peculiarity are: the Baltic Sea and the need of geopolitical balance. Moreover, according to Lithuania's increased activity in international peace making operations, it's very important to have a good military staff preparation system for such aims. Perhaps a combatant preparation is in a high level, but geographical preparation is insufficient. It becomes especially important when the country sends peacemakers to the geographically distant regions. Membership in NATO and other international organizations obligate Lithuania to be an active associate in peace keeping process. Lithuania was taking part in military operations that were prosecuted in four regions of Europe and Asia: The Balkans, Persian Gulf region, Caucasus and South and Central Asian region. The priority is given to the geographically closest region – The Balkans, where Lithuania have sent the biggest part of it's international peacemakers, that served in five countries of the region. Furthermore, consideration of Lithuanian activity in peace keeping process shows that the country gives priority to NATO, European Union and USA, which is the most important strategic partner of Lithuania, supervising military missions. Finally, Lithuania is participating in peace keeping operations not because of it's own national interests in the "hot" regions. It is more determined to the obligations to NATO and other international organisations and regarding to the position of strategic partners. Military and political benefit also remains as a very important factor of participating in the chosen peace keeping operations.
SUMMARY Stirring international military activity has become one of the most important tasks of Lithuanian foreign policy implementation. Intensive international military collaboration and participation in peace keeping process are the main means to implement that task. The main aim of the paper is to detect geographical peculiarities of Lithuanian international military activity. It is defined that Lithuanian international military activity is reasoned not only politically, but also has a geographical validity. Bilateral and multilateral military collaboration of Lithuania clearly reveals it's priorities given to the most of the Baltic Sea region countries. Especially active cooperation in military range Lithuania holds with other Eastern Baltic countries – Latvia and Estonia. The main geographical factors of such collaboration peculiarity are: the Baltic Sea and the need of geopolitical balance. Moreover, according to Lithuania's increased activity in international peace making operations, it's very important to have a good military staff preparation system for such aims. Perhaps a combatant preparation is in a high level, but geographical preparation is insufficient. It becomes especially important when the country sends peacemakers to the geographically distant regions. Membership in NATO and other international organizations obligate Lithuania to be an active associate in peace keeping process. Lithuania was taking part in military operations that were prosecuted in four regions of Europe and Asia: The Balkans, Persian Gulf region, Caucasus and South and Central Asian region. The priority is given to the geographically closest region – The Balkans, where Lithuania have sent the biggest part of it's international peacemakers, that served in five countries of the region. Furthermore, consideration of Lithuanian activity in peace keeping process shows that the country gives priority to NATO, European Union and USA, which is the most important strategic partner of Lithuania, supervising military missions. Finally, Lithuania is participating in peace keeping operations not because of it's own national interests in the "hot" regions. It is more determined to the obligations to NATO and other international organisations and regarding to the position of strategic partners. Military and political benefit also remains as a very important factor of participating in the chosen peace keeping operations.
