Kovo 11-oji: Lietuvos nepriklausomybės atkūrimas : (įžvalgos, projektai, dokumentai)

LTMonografijoje atskleidžiama, kaip buvo rengiamas 1990 m. kovo 11 d. aktas, kiti su Lietuvos nepriklausomybės atkūrimu susiję dokumentai, parodoma, kaip keitėsi jų projektai. Kovo 11-osios aktas nagrinėjamas ir tarptautinės teisės požiūriu. Tyrinėjamas 1990 m. Laikinasis Pagrindinis Įstatymas (Laikinoji Konstitucija), atskleidžiamos atkurtos nepriklausomos Lietuvos valstybės tarptautinio pripažinimo peripetijos. Monografijoje taip pat pasakojama apie aplinkybes, lėmusias, kad Lietuvos nepriklausomybė buvo atkurta būtent 1990 m. kovo 11-ąją, o ne kurią nors kitą dieną. Knygos prieduose pateikiami Kovo 11-osios akto ir kitų su nepriklausomybės atkūrimu susijusių dokumentų projektai, saugomi Lietuvos archyvuose. Knyga skirta istorikams, teisininkams, politologams, taip pat visiems besidomintiems, kaip 1990 m. kovo 11 d. buvo atkurta Lietuvos valstybės nepriklausomybė. [Anotacija knygoje]

ENThis book is devoted to the 11th of March, 1990, the most significant date for contemporary Lithuania, when independence of the country was restored. Other two Baltic States (Estonia and Latvia) followed Lithuania 17 months later. Relevant international legal issues. Although the restoration of independence of the Republic of Lithuania is a unilateral act under international law, it is based on the principles and norms of general international law. It is related to such institutes of international law as the prohibition of aggression, validity of treaties, prescription, state continuity, diplomatic representation, self-determination of peoples, recognition, responsibility of states. First, the restoration of Lithuania’s independence was grounded on the principle of continuity of the State of Lithuania. In turn, the State continuity was based on the general principle of law ex injuria jus non oritur, when applied with regard to the Soviet aggression of 1940 against Lithuania and the preceding conclusion of the Molotov – Ribbentrop Pact on the division of spheres of influence in Europe between the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Accordingly, the Soviet Union could not employ the Pact as a basis for any claims to Lithuania as well as it could not acquire any rights to Lithuania following the aggression. This was confirmed by the Western States’ consistent policy of non-recognition of the annexation of Lithuania (as well as of Estonia and Latvia). In his way the Stimson doctrine of 1932 on the duty not to recognise any consequences of aggression, including the treaties that are contrary to the prohibition of aggression, was confirmed and substantially enriched.That is why, the Molotov – Ribbentrop Pact, as the treaty that implied aggression, has to be treated as null and void. In the same way, the contribution to the development of the concept of aggression was made by confirming the practice of States and the Nuremberg Tribunal to treat as aggression also those cases where an injured State expresses its consent with an aggression. Such consent has to be regarded null and void; on the other hand, the territory seized by means of such an aggression has to be regarded as illegally occupied territory, to which the regime of military occupation should be applied. By the same token, one can also notice the universality of the Nuremberg principles, including their applicability in determining illegality of the acts committed by the Soviet Union, has been comfirmed. In this regard, it is worth to recall that in 2006 the European Court of Human Rights stated that “responsibility for crimes against humanity cannot be limited only to the nationals of certain countries and solely to acts committed within the specific time frame of the Second World War” and that the Nuremberg principles and their universality were perfectly known to the Soviet Union (e.g., decisions on admissibility in the Kolk and Kislyiy v. Estonia case and the Penart v. Estonia case). Second, the uninterrupted continuity of the State of Lithuania (as well as of Estonia and Latvia) means that the Baltic States have succeeded in preserving their statehood and international legal personality for the period of 50 years of their occupation, which was more than twice longer than the period of their independence of 1918-1940. This is an unprecedented phenomenon in history of international law and international relations.Therefore, it can be seen as the confirmation that prescription cannot be applied to such gravest breach of international law as an aggression, as well as to other serious breaches of imperative norms of international law. This conclusion follows inter alia from the 1968 Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, if applied mutatis mutandis to aggression. This also confirms an imperative character of the duty not to recognise legality of the situations created by such serious breaches of international law as well as a doubtful nature of existence of prescription in general international law. Third, one of the striking proves of uninterrupted continuity of the State of Lithuania (as well as of Estonia and Latvia) is uninterrupted activity of the Lithuanian diplomatic service abroad during the whole period of occupation (Estonia and Latvia have also maintained the uninterrupted diplomatic representation abroad). Diplomatic missions and consular posts of the Republic of Lithuania had been the only functioning State organs during the occupation. The Lithuanian diplomatic service of that time was unique because it had been functioning all the 50 years regardless the occupation of all the territory of the State and the absence of the State government that would govern and administer the diplomatic service. From the standpoint of diplomatic law, one can stress the uniqueness of the office of the chief of the Lithuanian diplomacy of that time, which might be also called the quasi-minister of foreign affairs. The chief of the Lithuanian diplomacy, on the one hand, had pursued the functions of a diplomatic agent, while, on the other hand, he had also conducted some functions characteristic to the minister of foreign affairs with regard to heading the diplomatic service and its administration. [...]. [From the publication]

• Istorija / History
• Politikos mokslai / Political sciences