https://journals.lnb.lt/parliamentary-studies/issue/feed Parliamentary Studies 2021-07-20T11:16:14+00:00 Editorial Board of the National Library Journal / LNB žurnalo redakcinė kolegija parliamentarystudies@lnb.lt Open Journal Systems https://journals.lnb.lt/parliamentary-studies/article/view/735 Įvykių kalendorius 2021-07-20T11:08:52+00:00 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 https://journals.lnb.lt/parliamentary-studies/article/view/736 Bibliografinis sąrašas 2021-07-20T11:11:49+00:00 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 https://journals.lnb.lt/parliamentary-studies/article/view/737 Atmintinė „Parlamento studijų“ autoriams 2021-07-20T11:16:14+00:00 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 https://journals.lnb.lt/parliamentary-studies/article/view/725 The Parliament of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a Link in the Process of State Modernisation (1572–1587) 2021-07-20T06:50:36+00:00 Jūratė Kiaupienė jurate.kiaupiene@gmail.com <p>The article aims to show how the Parliament of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania restored independent activities within the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth after the union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland established in Lublin in 1569 and mobilised the political community to represent the interests of the Lithuanian state. It is emphasised that the first interregnum, which began after the death of the ruler Sigismund Augustus on 7 July 1572, caught the Sejm unprepared. As the process of choosing a new ruler began, various political interest groups were emerging and local conventions were being summoned in the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In Lithuania, magnates, who were well-known within the political community and had defended the independence of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the Union of Lublin in 1569, awarded themselves the right and duty to make political decisions. The Grand Duchy of Lithuanian’s Council of Lords, which had no legal standing but remained active in political life, became the central organ of the government in the Commonwealth. By exploiting the lack of a statutory structural procedure for joint parliamentary and political activities of the two constituent states of the Commonwealth, the Council embarked on independent activity which was not coordinated with Polish parliamentarians. Drawing on the analysis of the sources, the author substantiates the assumption that in 1572–1587, the Seimas, which was an independent parliamentary institution, extended the process of the modernisation of the Lithuanian state, which began in the first half of the 16th century, and became its political and ideological “soul”.</p> 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 https://journals.lnb.lt/parliamentary-studies/article/view/726 The Issue of the Sustainability of the Union of Lublin in the Face of the Centralisation of the State: Position of the Lithuanian Nobility (During the Period Between the Four-Year Sejm and the Grodno Sejm) 2021-07-20T07:06:43+00:00 Rūta Šmigelskytė-Stukienė smigelskyte.stukiene@gmail.com <p>The article reveals the position of the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania representing different trends of political thought toward the union with the Kingdom of Poland in the midst of the intensive processes of centralisation taking place in the state. The analysis focuses on the period of 1788–1793, which was marked by significant changes in the governance of the state: (1) the period of the Four-Year Sejm (1788–1792), which adopted the Constitution of 3 May 1791 and the Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations of 1791; (2) the activities of the General Confederation of the Two Nations of 1792–1793 having abolished the reforms enacted by the Four-Year Sejm; and (3) the period of the activity of the last Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was held in Grodno in 1793 and sought to return status quo to the relations between Poland and Lithuania. The article does not cover the ideas brought forward during the Uprising of 1794 and the division between Lithuanian and Polish military leaders, which came to the fore in its course.</p> <p>The analysis of historiography and the sources of the period under discussion leads to the conclusion that, in the final decades of the 18th century, the aspirations for the preservation of the Polish– Lithuanian union were shared by the entire Lithuanian nobility irrespective of political views. The adoption of the Constitution of 3 May 1791 was a significant concession of Lithuanian representatives made because of the complicated situation throughout the entire state. The result of this concession was the compromise reached on 20 October 1791. The Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations passed by the Sejm re-established the union of Lithuania and Poland. However, the founders of the Confederation of 1792, ignoring the Reciprocal Guarantee of the Two Nations, declared the restoration of Lithuanian– Polish relations established by the Union of Lublin and the return of the separation of all institutions of Lithuania. In practice, the confederates went even further: the institutions, which had been integrated since the establishment of the union, were separated. This policy reflected the programme of the conservative pro-Russian republicans of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Thanks to the efforts of the Republican Reformers representing the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a dualistic model of the state was established in the Grodno Sejm of 1793.</p> 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 https://journals.lnb.lt/parliamentary-studies/article/view/727 ‘A Tragedy’, But ‘Very Beneficial’: The Evaluation of the Lublin Union in the Latest Lithuanian Historiography 2021-07-20T07:23:11+00:00 Gintautas Sliesoriūnas sliesoriunasgintas@gmail.com <p>The article describes historiographic issues on which there is more or less general consensus in the newest Lithuanian historiography devoted to the issues of the union established in Lublin in 1569 as well as areas where new divergences in the evaluation by historians appear. When discussing the latter issue, in the first place, attention is paid to how the latest Lithuanian historiography describes the nature of the Polish–Lithuanian state founded in Lublin. Attempts are also made to draw attention to the fact that there is still a lack of purposeful scientific research that could convincingly justify the thesis, which is gaining popularity in the latest Lithuanian historiography and especially in public discourses and didactic texts, that the Union of Lublin of 1569 saved Lithuania from the inevitable annexation or “surrender to Moscow”, which would have been inevitable if this alliance had not been concluded. The article states that there is general agreement in Lithuanian historiography as regards the assessment that in 1569, when the Polish–Lithuanian union was emerged, a compromise was reached, as a result of which Lithuania retained its statehood. Although the sovereign powers of the Lithuanian State were confined within the framework of a joint state with Poland, they were not abolished. There is a consensus in historiography that the union established in Lublin in 1569 was of vital importance and contributed to the cultural rapprochement of the societies of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and that the Polish– Lithuanian state, which emerged as a result of the union, helped to unite the forces of Poland and Lithuania, which allowed them to successfully resist the expansionist policy of Russia, at least for some time. There remain persisting differences in the interpretation of the nature of the joint state of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the Polish– Lithuanian Commonwealth). Sometimes it is called a federation and on other occasions, a confederation or an intermediate term between federation and confederation is used. However, some historians consider that attempts to adapt these modern terms for describing the realities of the mid-sixteenth century should be avoided. The article says that, in the latest Lithuanian historiography and especially in public discourse and didactic texts, the popular thesis that, in 1569, Lithuania faced a dilemma with the alternatives to either create a state union with Poland or inevitably lose the war with Moscow and be annexed by the Moscow State or be forced to “surrender to Moscow” still requires additional research. The representation in the Lithuanian historiography of the situation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as extremely desperate may be overly exaggerated. In order to be able to present reliable conclusions about the real situation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania during the Livonian War, it is necessary to conduct a deeper study of the history of the war, the history of diplomacy as well as a comparative analysis of the military, financial and economic potential of the states having participated in this conflict.</p> 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 https://journals.lnb.lt/parliamentary-studies/article/view/728 The Meeting of the Nationalist American Lithuanian Seimas on 5–6 February 1944 and Its Significance 2021-07-20T08:45:52+00:00 Juozas Skirius juozas.skirius@lnb.lt <p>Despite the amount of available sources, the activity of Lithuanian nationalists in America during World War II has not been sufficiently explored. This community was particularly active in the USA during the war, especially in the field of propaganda spread by their political organisation “Union for Saving Lithuania”. The idea to organise a meeting of American Lithuanian Seimas was introduced when such signs as inactivity of the American Lithuanian Council and the fast-changing situation on the Eastern Front suggested that Lithuania was under threat of a second occupation by the Soviet Union. Therefore, the goal of the meeting was to get ready to fight for Lithuania’s independence as well as to unify Lithuanian nationalists and improve their image among Lithuanian Americans. The meeting took place on 5–6 February 1944 in New York City and, despite being more of a meeting between American nationalists, was considered a success by Lithuanian diplomats. The decisions made during this event had impact on the destiny of Lithuania and its citizens. The information regarding Lithuania’s situation, which was spread among the American society, contributed to the decision of the American authorities not to acknowledge the occupation of Lithuania. The meeting of the Seimas also consolidated the American Lithuanian nationalists, who started orienting their efforts towards political activities and the issue of Lithuania’s destiny rather than their own issues or disputes with other movements.</p> 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 https://journals.lnb.lt/parliamentary-studies/article/view/730 Untold History: Supreme Council Foreign Affairs Commission (Main Aspects of Activity) 2021-07-20T09:47:33+00:00 Asta Petraitytė-Briedienė asta.petraityte-briediene@vdu.lt <p>20 March 1990 saw the establishment of the Supreme Council Foreign Affairs Commission, which operated until 11 November 1992. It contained 18 members, and its first President was Emanuelis Zingeris. The Commission’s main goal was inter-parliamentary relations, recognition of Lithuania’s statehood and its return to the international community. The first year of the independence was particularly difficult since there was a lack of international relations, finances and diplomatic experience. With the help of expatriate Lithuanians as well as by establishing formal and informal contacts and offices, which were turned into embassies later on, the commissioners argued that Lithuania must become part of international politics. It was Lithuania’s “Wild West of diplomacy”</p> 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 https://journals.lnb.lt/parliamentary-studies/article/view/722 Welcoming the 30th Issue: We Collect “Everything that has Been Scattered over the Pages of Lithuania’s Parliamentarism during the Development of Its Statehood” 2021-07-20T06:30:37+00:00 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 https://journals.lnb.lt/parliamentary-studies/article/view/733 Antanas Šmulkštys: „Tai kryžkelė mano gyvenime“ 2021-07-20T10:13:48+00:00 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 https://journals.lnb.lt/parliamentary-studies/article/view/734 I-ji Kr.-Dem. Partijos Konferencija Vilniuje, 1918 m 2021-07-20T11:06:57+00:00 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 https://journals.lnb.lt/parliamentary-studies/article/view/731 Knyga, neabejotinai rasianti vietą ant kiekvieno teisininko (ir ne tik) darbo stalo 2021-07-20T10:03:41+00:00 Milda Vainiutė milda.v@mruni.eu 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 https://journals.lnb.lt/parliamentary-studies/article/view/732 Politinės partijos Lietuvoje 1918–1940 m. Dokumentų rinkinys 2021-07-20T10:10:03+00:00 Vilma Akmenytė-Ruzgienė vilma.ruzgiene@lrs.lt 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021 https://journals.lnb.lt/parliamentary-studies/article/view/724 Lietuvių konferencija 1917 m. rugsėjo 21 d. 2021-07-20T06:47:24+00:00 2021-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2021