Volume 14 (2021): Issue 2 (December 2021)

The article argues that states’ narratives about themselves and each other, shaped by the foreign policy decision-makers, create filters for the achievement of soft power goals. A state agent can shape narratives that can be rejected by the state’s target’s society because they would undermine dominating biographical and strategic narratives of the state target. The empirical analysis of the narratives of the president, minister of foreign affairs, and spokesperson of the MFA of Russia illustrates how Russia prevents itself from soft power expansion by “othering” Lithuania. At the same time, analysis of the narratives of presidents and the minister of the foreign affairs of Lithuania illustrates how they shield society from Russia’s narratives and, thus, soft power while searching for “sameness” with the Euro-Atlantic partners.

Recently amended legal regulations established the opportunity of application of advance directives for terminally ill patients in Lithuania. Provisionally, advance directives should enhance patient’s rights while making complex end of life decisions, however, implications for legal and moral responsibility to empower a patient’s autonomy are not clearly established yet. The article discusses the legal and ethical justification of implementation of advance directives and, in their absence, the surrogate decision making for the best interests of the patient and the best representation of the patient’s will. The reflections of recent empirical studies indicate the importance of a patient-centered approach that can provide the hints for harmonization of the national legal system, including a supportive decision-making culture, raising public awareness and confidence, more effective professional communication, and broader public involvement into end-of-life deliberations. Analysis of legal and ethical arguments imposes the conclusion that the specific question of respect of dignity in the end of life is not just a problem of health care management or the quality of health care services, but a fundamental challenge of human rights that should be discussed at the policy decision making level. Overall, we assume that application of advance directives should be elaborated in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the ideals of welfare society, and other national laws as well as public interests.

This article studies the Kosovo Government decision to restrict freedom of movement vis-á-vis freedom of gathering during the Covid-19 pandemic, a restriction which has directly affected religious freedoms and practices across multiple religions. The article also addresses the decision of the Constitutional Court, which ruled that the Government’s decision was unconstitutional. The article reflects on and contextualizes the behaviors of different religious communities in Kosovo, in light of these religious restrictions in the age of Covid-19.

Among the different instruments of collaborative governance, participatory budgeting (PB) is of particular interest in Poland. PB includes the residents who co-decide about local public expenditure. PB proponents suggest that it has the potential to democratize budgeting but others point to the ease with which organized groups sometimes capture the process to serve their interests. The analysis shows that due to the weak axiological grounds that result from the infringements of all nodal public values, e.g. human dignity, sustainability, citizen involvement, openness, secrecy, compromise, integrity, and robustness, PB in Poland has little potential to enhance accountability for the protection of the common good.

Many parents (over)share personal details regarding their children in social media without thinking that this can negatively affect the wellbeing of their child and put him/her at risk. Furthermore, parents forget that they are not owners of their children’s data but just the legal representatives of the child with an obligation to act only for the best interests of the child. A child’s right to privacy and the protection of his/her data is regulated in international, EU and national level, however, this is not enough to avoid malpractice of the data of a child. This article analyses social media dangers and whether parental actions result in privacy and online safety violations focusing on legal regulations and their interpretations in international, EU and national level exploring child’s right to privacy, consent of the child and the right to be forgotten.

As the processes of globalization become more intense, the legislation adopted by international institutions occupies an increasingly important place in national criminal law, including crimes related to corruption. However, the regulation of some acts of corruption, in the context of sustainable development, raises questions about its compliance with criminal law principles. This article examines the requirements of international law to criminalize a promise and offer to give or accept a bribe in national law, recognizing that criminalization of such actions as completed criminal offense potentially violates the principle of ultima ratio. The article demonstrates that there is no unequivocal conclusion from international law that states must provide for liability for all acts of bribery as a completed criminal act. In order to implement the principle of ultima ratio, criminal liability for acts consisting essentially in the preparation or attempt to pay a bribe should not be enshrined in the same paragraph as bribery, where the bribe is exchanged by hand.

This article assesses the permissibility of interference in private autonomy under the good faith principle when payment service providers unilaterally terminate contracts with consumers. The protection of the interests of such consumers is impeded by the formal application of legal rules and contractual terms, which ultimately contradicts public interests, including combating money laundering and terrorism financing. To overcome this conflict, the article proposes a doctrinal approach according to which the bank’s right to withdraw from the contract unilaterally should be limited by the systemic and teleological interpretation of regulating rules in combination with the general civil principle of good faith, which, by analogy with the original source of the problem, is called a good faith based approach. One of the general frameworks for implementing this approach is respect for freedom of contract, which is limited by the non-discussion presumption, modern civil law practice, and legal regulation of a consumer’s interests. According to research based on EU and Latvian law, legal doctrine, and case law, there are also valid reasons to intervene in private autonomy that should be recognized as legally acceptable for restoring justice and contractual equality in favor of consumers.