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

Abstract

This 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 he Soviet Union (e.g., decisions on admissibility in the Kolk and Kislyiy v. Estonia case and the Penart v. Estonia case) [...].