[ad_1]
The jolt of personal responsibility is chosen based on the situation: you are asked to find a political solution when you have not yet proposed, and when you try to propose, you are asked to seek the lawyers’ agreement as if it could be found, or even request it to the Constitutional Court. And all this is done having both the right of legislative initiative and the right to go to the Constitutional Court with a request to interpret its ruling.
Are you saying that this behavior is reminiscent of hypocrisy? Don’t think of just one person here; in fact, we will find many people who behave similarly because the problem is not one or more years old. But perhaps a person from abroad will not allow you to behave differently.
The law cannot be interpreted dogmatically, literally and literally
On closer inspection, the legal side of the Supreme Council status issue – the Chairman of the Restorative Seimas doesn’t seem all that complicated. Of course, if we abandon scholasticism, the dogmas that are imposed on us in advance, as supposedly indisputable truths.
The best known of these is that the Constitutional Court allegedly ruled in 2002. June 19 It clarified in the ruling that at that time Lithuania had no head of state. Yes, a similar statement in this resolution is in fact that the institute of the head of state was not provided for in the Provisional Basic Law (then the Provisional Constitution).
However, this is a statement made without any analysis of the historical and legal situation at that time, as such analysis was not the purpose of that resolution; This statement was necessary only to establish that the position of For the office of President as Head of State. If the President of the Supreme Council – Seimas de Restauración has performed the functions of Head of State and can be considered Head of State, it is not analyzed in the Constitutional Court ruling. And it could hardly have been, because it was not necessary to resolve the case of the state pension, it was enough that the pension of the President of the Republic could be granted only to whoever was the President of the Republic according to the Constitution. .
More generally, it is clear to anyone that the law cannot be interpreted dogmatically, literally and literally. Therefore, the fact that the LP did not have the position of head of state does not mean that Lithuania did not have an official acting as head of state at that time, in other words, the president of the Supreme Council cannot be considered. the head of state, such position did not really exist).
Photo by Vidmantas Balkūnas / 15min / Professor Vytautas Landsbergis
Here, I will not specifically analyze the functions of the President of the Supreme Council established by the LPA, whose part is equal to that of the President of the Republic according to the current Constitution. After all, according to the constitution, the functions of the head of state (if any) are quite different, and certainly not all heads of state should have, say, a veto on laws passed by parliament.
It is better to briefly analyze what is universal: what the ex officio head of state does (according to the position he occupies without special authority) under international law. It is indisputable that under international law the head of state can express an official position on behalf of the state, conclude international agreements (mainly negotiate and sign them), appoint diplomatic representatives of the state and accredit diplomatic representatives of foreign countries. Almost all of these powers under the LPA were assigned to none other than the president of the AT.
In international relations, the President of the Supreme Council has made hundreds of official statements on behalf of the Republic of Lithuania, mainly addressed to other heads of state, negotiated and signed international agreements on behalf of the Republic of Lithuania (the most significant agreement with Russia, having accepted the credentials of the ambassadors of other states and signed the credentials of the ambassadors of Lithuania addressed to the heads of other states.
The question of status is a good test not only for the self-esteem of the Lithuanian state, but also for the independence of its politicians.
In what state was this done? Under international law (including the Vienna Conventions on International Contract Law and Diplomatic Relations), in addition to the Head of State, the Head of Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have similar powers. It is obvious that the president of the Supreme Council was certainly neither the head of government nor the minister of Foreign Affairs, so in international relations he was undoubtedly accepted as the head of state of Lithuania. This is the simplest known historical and legal fact.
No decision of the Constitutional Court can deny such a well-known historical and legal fact. In general, there can be no situation in which, according to international law, an official of a State of Lithuania is considered the head of that State, and according to national law, the same official cannot be considered the head of state. Otherwise, to whom did Lithuania declare its adherence to the norms of international law in the Law of March 11?
Vytautas Landsbergis personal album photo / Vytautas Landsbergis personal album photo
Such an absurd situation can only arise if logic is ignored and politically motivated ambitions are followed, the real situation at that time is not taken into account. It is obvious that in 1990-1992, the most important thing was to establish the restored independence of the Republic of Lithuania, and not to explicitly determine who is the head of state. However, it is equally clear to everyone who he really was and what the international community (certainly not the Presidium) considered the head of state of Lithuania. Therefore, there are no constitutional and legal obstacles for the Seimas to adopt a legal act by properly assessing the role and status of the Supreme Council, the President of the Restorative Seimas. The Constitution does not prohibit this.
Therefore, the question of the status of the Supreme Council, the president of the Seimas of the Restoration, is a good test not only for the self-esteem of the Lithuanian state, but also for the independence of its politicians. We will see who wins: common sense and an honest approach to a notorious historical and political fact, or the scholastic ambitions of certain jurists.
Teacher. Dainius Žalimas is former president of the Constitutional Court
[ad_2]
