The most significant moments of restoration of Lithuania’s statehood and its constitutional consolidation in the national legislation during the Atgimimas period (from the foundation of Sąjūdis on 3 June 1988) and the work of the Supreme Council of Lithuania (from February 1990 to October 1992) are discussed in this article. The author pays attention to the challenges of drafting the new Constitution – the main weapon in the political fight; the article declares the complexity of this process and mentions the (...) participating persons. The article analyses the process of adopting the fundamental legal acts, initiated by Sąjūdis, such as the Citizenship Law, the Political Parties Law, the Law on the Constitutional Court. The most important and relevant problems and aims of the Independent State’s first year legislation are discussed in the article. One of the first legal acts – the Regulation of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as considering about the functions of the officials and other staff of the Supreme Council, the functions of the Legal Department, the relations between the Supreme Council and its Legal Department are analysed. The article pays attention to the first steps of the Independent State, based on the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, adopted on 25 October 1992 by referendum. The restoration of the Presidential institution and the formation of the Constitutional Court is also discussed. The significant role of Professor dr. Juozas Žilys in drafting the most important legal acts, acting as preconditions for the restoration of statehood of our country and its constitutional consolidation is noted in the article. (shrink)

Today’s Lithuania is the historical-legal result of many processes, including the creation of the country in the thirteen century, ongoing life during five hundred years, two annexations resulting in the disappearance from the political map and two rebirths. The tradition of statehood and extended experience has greatly contributed to its survival and its ability to regain statehood in the light of the changed political, economic and social circumstances. Upon the climax of the First World War, the reinstatement of the statehood (...) of Lithuania has been influenced by favourable international situation, the popularity of the principle of nation’s free choice, and the decisive actions by the Lithuanian politicians. The relationship of the modern Lithuanian statehood with the historical state of Lithuania meant the continuity of this statehood, even though it was a multinational country. Without any other prospects upon the fall of other European empires, it has been replaced by the statehood based on national ethnicity. Together with the determination to manage the reinstated country of Lithuania according to the democratic principles, this was the main difference from the historical Lithuania. The state of Lithuania has managed to keep its own legal formal framework even though it has lost sovereignty upon annexation by the Soviet Union. The statehood has been reinstated once favourable circumstances came into place within the Union. The High Council of Lithuania has transformed from being a marionette structure forced upon by alien country into an instrument of parliamentary struggle for independence that has represented the second rebirth of the statehood of Lithuania. The formation of own law in both cases occurred by temporarily using current alien legislation that was not in conflict with the newly adopted constitutional legislation. The former has been gradually replaced by own legislation. (shrink)

This publication analyzes the issue of depersonalization in the field of constitutional substantiation of judicial resolutions, judgements, verdicts and rulings (hereinafter, judicial procedural decisions). Electronic databases are the primary source of information about judicial procedural resolutions for judges, reporters, as well as for the public-at-large. As for judicial practice, the data regarding parties of a case is depersonalised in these databases. Personal names are either replaced with initials, or a message “depersonalized data” is included. The constitutional substantiation for such a (...) ruling by a judicial council is sought by means of this publication. (shrink)

Along with the Strait of Malacca and the Singapore Straits, the Strait of Hormuz is arguably the most important bottleneck in international navigation because a large part of the global oil production needs to be shipped through this passage, which is only a few kilometers wide. In the context of the dispute about Iran’s nuclear program and new sanctions, Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz for international shipping, effectively cutting off many Western countries from important oil imports. (...) In this article, the legality of such action as well as the legality of the mere threat to close the Strait of Hormuz are investigated. In addition to the International Law of the Sea, general rules of international law and the international law of armed conflict are taken into consideration. Particular emphasis is put on the sovereignty of other states, which is infringed upon by such threats on the part of the Iranian leadership. First, the question has to be answered whether a passage through these waters would be transit passage through a Strait or normal passage through the coastal state’s territorial sea. The authors of the article conclude that the regime of transit passage applies qua lex specialis, as far as the part of the Strait of Hormuz, which is included in Iran’s territorial waters, is concerned. The next step is to ask the question whether preventing such a passage as well as threatening to prevent such a passage are permissible for Iran. In this context, the potential abuse of otherwise permitted traffic separation schemes is highlighted. Traffic separation schemes are of particular importance in narrow but highly frequented bodies of water, such as the Strait of Hormuz. In addition, the contemporary Iranian state practice has received some attention. One issue to be considered in more detail is the requirement that foreign warships receive authorization from the coastal state prior to entry into the territorial sea. This approach might be incompatible with the right to innocent passage under both the Law of the Sea Convention and customary international law, as there is no clear legal source, which provides for this requirement. Finally, the authors look at the question of the legality of the mere threat to close the Strait of Hormuz as opposed to actually closing the Strait. The sovereignty of other states may be affected to such an extent that such threats already amount to a violation of international law. In light of the historic precedents during the Iran-Iraq War, these threats should not be dismissed lightly. Iran would be well advised to refrain from such rhetoric. (shrink)

The Swiss Confederation is characterised by a long constitutional evolution that can be divided into several important periods: the Old Swiss Confederacy (13–14 C.), Helvetica (1798–1848), Mediation (1803–1814), Restoration (1815–1830), Regeneration (1830–1848) and development since 1874. It can be stated that Switzerland adopted a modern, democratic constitution early; this state is the oldest democratic republic in Europe. In 1874, many amendments to the effective Constitution were made and a lot of gaps in legal regulation came to light, which led to (...) the opinion that in order to remove those shortcomings, a few specific amendments were no longer sufficient; therefore, it was decided to make substantial changes to the Constitution. The new Constitution was approved by the people and the cantons in the referendum of 18 April 1999 and came into effect on 1 January 2000. The most significant features of this Constitution include the entrenchment of the principles of democracy, federalism, and of the state of law and social welfare. Pursuant to the principle of division of governmental powers, the governing of the state is carried out by the following federal institutions: the Federal Assembly, the Bundesrat and the Federal Court. (shrink)

This article reveals the implications that made the Lithuanian Council to step aside allowing the Temporary Government to continue the further process of restitution of Lithuania, immediately after becoming the central constitutional state institution. Prior to that, Lithuanian (State) Council had managed to declare the independence of Lithuania on the 16th of February 1918 under extremely difficult political circumstances and established the statehood on the 2nd of November of the same year. Under the will of the Vilnius conference of Lithuania (...) that took place in autumn of 1917, all Lithuanian political streams of these days have been represented in the Lithuanian Council. However, the Council itself has not managed to save the representative ability by agreeing with the resignation of its left element and by continuing the expansion and distance from the community of Lithuania. The Council has become an institution representing the right wing of the Lithuanian community which could not ensure any greater support. (shrink)