Search

Copyright of Problems / Problemos is the property of Vilnius University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The extent to which the legal doctrine addresses manifestations of constitutionalism has been constantly growing. However, the majority of research in constitutionalism focuses on the analysis of the power of the Constitution and the fundamental principles entrenched in it whereas ordinary branches of law, including civil procedure, affected by the constitutional law remains outside the scope of a deeper analysis. The author of the present paper is convinced that certain aspects of the impact of constitutional justice on such branches as, in particular, civil procedure deserve deeper interest. The modest scope of the paper precludes an extensive analysis of the role of the Constitution as a fundamental binding Act and today's abundant doctrine of Lithuania's Constitutional Court in civil procedure. Therefore, the present paper is confined to an analysis of individual aspects of direct application of the Constitution and the doctrine of the Constitutional Court. The article analyses the power of the Constitution and its impact on the civil procedure as an Act laying down the fundamental principles binding the legislator in adopting procedural instruments and principles to be followed by courts and as a remedy for violations of rights or a tool to address loopholes and collisions of law. Courts of general jurisdiction perform the control of legitimacy of legal Acts by checking their compliance with the Constitution in individual cases and by applying to the Constitutional Court for repeal of anticonstitutional norms or by applying the Constitution as an Act of direct effect to eliminate loopholes, interpret statutes and deal with collisions of legal norms. The author believes that the fact that the courts of general jurisdiction frequently raise questions of incompliance of legal Acts with the Constitution and decisively apply to the Constitutional Court evidences a high level of legal culture and legal consciousness of the judges. That fact may also serve as a precondition for the growth of confidence in the judiciary as judicial procedures may contain no uncertainties as to the constitutionality of the statutes to be followed in litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper aims at revealing the key legal and political factors that determined the organization and holding of the referendum on unconditional and urgent withdrawal of the former USSR army from the territory of the Republic of Lithuania and restitution of damage to Lithuania. It is established that the main factor was that the Supreme Council-Reconstituent Seimas of the Lithuanian Republic adopted provisions on the status of the occupation army and was constant in seeking to ensure the sovereignty of the state of Lithuania throughout its territory. The position of the nations, parliaments and governments of the Republics of Estonia and Latvia was yet another circumstance that the organizers of the referendum relied upon. Their position was aimed at ensuring that as a result of negotiations, the foreign military forces return to dislocation places in its own territory. Retrospective view on the phenomena and facts of the state's internal and foreign politics in 1991-1992 makes it impossible not to notice that negotiations with the USSR and later, with the Russian Federation, took place in a complicated political arena. While Lithuania was seeking dynamism in negotiations, the other party was finding various excuses to impede dynamic actions and thus to delay positive agreements. Taking due regard to the situation, it was believed that a decision adopted by the Nation would speed up the negotiations on foreign state's armed forces. The paper addresses the relations between the referendum and the constitutional process of drafting the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. At the same time as the referendum was initiated, the referendum of 23 May 1992 on the restoration of the institution of the President of the Republic of Lithuania by adopting certain laws was already announced. The suggestion to hold both of the referenda on one day, i.e., on the 23 of May, deepened political contrapositions on the directions of the constitutional development. The constitutional discourse also notes that the parliamentary polemics on the referendum were also one of the factors attributing to the adoption of the Constitutional act of 8 June 1992 on the refusal of the Lithuanian Republic to join the post-Soviet Eastern unions. This was established as a provision of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, that there may be no military bases or army units of Russia, the Commonwealth of Independent states, or its constituent states in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to investigate, from a comparative perspective, the policy of citizenship as a species of public policy with a view of both its objective content and of its interaction with other public policies. Our guiding assumption is that the basic principles of citizenship policy are highly stable and practically do not change over very long periods of time, and that those elements that do change serve other public policies; i. e., they perform an auxiliary function serving other policies. In this paper naturalization policy and policy with respect to dual/multiple citizenship are held to be the changing elements of citizenship policy as a species of public policy; and these elements can best serve, or be accommodated to, the pragmatic needs of society. It is these elements of citizenship policy that we delve into on the basis of a comparative case analysis of Hungary, Poland, and Lithuania. A statistical analysis of naturalization data shows that, viewed from the EU perspective, all three countries follow a strict condition-based conservative naturalization policy. With respect to the legal regulations concerning naturalization in Lithuania, Poland, and Hungary, Lithuania's policy can be judged to be one of the least open: compared with Poland and Hungary, it sets the longest residence-requirement and also requires passing exams on the Constitution and the state language. There is also a strict requirement of renouncing previously held nationality. Of the three countries investigated, Lithuania's naturalization policy is the very strictest, although during the past years Poland also evinced a tendency to tighten naturalization conditions (at least at the level of legal regulation) with respect to persons of non-Polish descent. Comparing Poland and Hungary with Lithuania discloses yet another significant difference in naturalization policy. Both Hungary and Poland implement a preferential naturalization policy toward their own ethnics, whereas Lithuania's policy and concept of naturalization is such that naturalization has almost no relation to the awarding of citizenship to ethnic Lithuanians. The latter can acquire it either by birth, or by having it reinstated. Of the three states Hungary recognizes dual/multiple citizenship most widely, although during the last years Poland too is moving towards and open and official recognition of dual/multiple citizenship for emigrants and immigrants. On the whole, Poland's national citizenship policy in the 21st century shows efforts at liberalization while at the same time conditions are created for persons of Polish descent to acquire citizenship preferentially. Citizenship policy in Poland and Hungary helps solve the problems of other public policies. Lithuania's citizenship policy from 2007 to 2009, contrary to that of Poland, became ever more closed. When legal disputes and arguments play a dominant and decisive role, national citizenship policy lays claim to a naturally important sphere of public policy (or at least of public law) while not contributing to, or helping in, the solution of other problems of public policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the process of interests' representation in the EU governance system at the subnational level. The evaluation of this process is based on the case study of preparation of European Constitution during the Convention on the Future of Europe and the following EU Intergovernmental conference (IGC). The article analyses how the representatives of the Committee of the Regions with status of observers in the Convention, and the representatives of subnational level institutions defined and defended their interests and aims that emerged from Maastricht 'regional agenda'. This paper also makes attempts to draw some conclusions: which of the theoretical approaches -- neofunctionalism, intergovermentalism, or multilevel governance is the most appropriate when examining the subnational level impact on EU management processes. The main findings of this article state that relative success of subnational level interests' representation during the process of preparation of European Constitution was determined by several factors. Firstly, the favourable political environment and the openness of EU Member States to the questiona at subnational level. Secondly, the representation at subnational level was clearly mobilised. And thirdly, we can identify the existence of subnational interests' representation leader. This role was clearly assumed by Committee of the Regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Socialinių Mokslų Studijos is the property of Mykolas Romeris University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

When Antanas Smetona dissolved the 3rd Seimas on April 12, 1927, the period of parliamentary democracy came to an end in Lithuania. This action was initiated by the Lithuanian National Union who came to power after the coup d'ětat of December 17, 1926. Their former allies, Christian Democrats who still remained in power after the dissolution of the Seimas, attempted to hold new elections to the Seimas. When the negotiations failed in spring and the Seimas was not convened, in the summer of the same year Christian Democrats recalled their representatives from the Government and formed opposition. One more attempt to reach consensus and agree upon the further government of the country as well as the formation of the coalition government was made by the National Union and Christian Democrats in the autumn of the same year. This conference did not yield tangible results; as a consequence, the Nationalist dictatorship was set up in the country under A. Smetona's leadership while Christian Democrats remained in opposition for almost 14 years. The records of these meetings and negotiations are being published for the first time. They reveal different attitudes by the representatives of these two parties towards parliamentary democracy, Lithuania's democratic Constitution of 1922 and the government of the country. The documents also present other subtle details unknown to the researchers of Lithuania's parliamentary traditions and the society of that period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]