| home archive search downloads subscription contacts |
 | |||||||||
BELARUSICAA German scholarly journal Osteuropa-Recht, in its September 2008 issue, published an article written by Kiryl Kascian, a Belarusian researcher of European law, who is pursuing his PhD thesis at the University of Bremen (Germany), entitled “Die Litauische Verfassung und die Auslegung des Begriffs “Volk” in historischer Perspektive” (Constitution of Lithuania and its Interpretation of “Nation” in a Historical Perspective, „Osteuropa-Recht“, 5/2008, pp. 290-297).Constitution of Lithuania and its Interpretation of Nation in a Historical Perspective A. Introduction From the very beginning of its independence proclaimed on February 16, 1918 the Lithuanian Republic has positioned itself as a direct heir of the medieval Grand Duchy of Lithuania (further GDL). This old state “from the fourteen to the mid-sixteen century figured prominently in the historical development of Eastern Europe”. The GDL included territories of present-day Belarus, Lithuania, Ukraine and some western parts of Russia. Its territory largely changed as a result of 1569 Union of Lublin when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was created. Ukrainian lands were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Polish Crown. Thus, from that time until 1795 – when the 3rd partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth took place – the GDL included lands of the contemporary Belarus and Lithuania. The capital of the GDL was the city of Vilna which is now officially known as Vilnius. Current scientists do not question the issue of legal continuity between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Republic of Lithuania (further LR). International scientific establishment adopted the Lithuanian vision of the issue. The aim of this article is to reveal weak points of the Lithuanian argumentation regarding the succession. B. Legal Background of the Lithuanian Statehood Concept The Declaration of Lithuanian independence adopted on February 16, 1918 was the turning point in the Lithuanian history. It proclaimed “restoration of an independent Lithuaniannation …with its capital in Vilnius”. This act aimed to secure legal continuity between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Republic of Lithuania. Lithuanians also continued to consider the GDL as a cradle of their statehood after they regained independence from the Soviet Union. The succession is secured by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. According to its Preamble’s recitals 1 and 2, it is the Lithuanian nation which “created the State of Lithuania many centuries ago” and which is “based its legal foundations on the [medieval] Lithuanian Statutes” Moreover, Article 17 of the Constitution underlines that ‘the capital of the State of Lithuania shall be the city of Vilnius, the long-standing historical capital of Lithuania’. All these statements are based on the “historical rights” according to which the present-day Lithuanian state represents itself as a legal successor of the GDL. The Lithuanian logic according to which “historical “rights” and historical allegiance shall define current allegiance” has already been depicted in 1929 by a Dutch lawyer Reijnier Flaes. While describing an interwar Polish-Lithuanian conflict on the Vilna Region, Flaes underlined that “the Lithuanian government stated that as the city of Vilna was the capital of the old Grand Duchy of Lithuania, it should become the core of the new [Lithuanian] state. … [T]his fact alone should be decisive”. The Lithuanian arguments on the legal continuity between the GDL and the LR seem very convincing. Any criticism of the Lithuanian approach could be successful only when based on the same principles as those used by the Lithuanian position. The points for the critic and their outcomes are presented in the following table: Table 1 Vision of the Statehood by the Lithuanian Nation GDL 1. LR (1918-1940) 2. LR (seit 1990) Question for critics: Does this state belong to the Lithuanian Nation? Answer: Questionable Yes Yes In fact, no one will doubt the fact that “[t]he State of Lithuania shall be created by the [Lithuanian] Nation” as stated by Article 2 of the Lithuanian Constitution when it applies to the current Republic of Lithuania or even to the interwar Lithuanian state. Thus, the only possibility to criticise the Lithuanian point of view is to address the basis of this statehood construction, i.e. the Lithuanian nature of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. C. GDL Heritage in the Foreign Policy of the LR Comparing to its Baltic counterparts – Estonia and Latvia – Lithuania has one very powerful advantage: historical statehood. We would focus on how the presumable continuity between the GDL and the LR is being used in current Lithuanian politics. A perfect description of it was made by a Lithuanian scholar Alvydas Nikžentaitis in his article with the very eloquent title “The “Imperial” Diplomacy of Lithuania” Nikžentaitis considers the Lithuanian accession to the EU as a turning point for the country’s diplomacy which “constitutes a qualitative change in the foreign policy”. Before May 1, 2004 the main goal was to seek membership in the EU and the NATO which forced Lithuania to focus on itself. After the accession to the EU “perhaps for the first time since the times of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Lithuania is seeking to become a regional state, and its foreign policy is acquiring the features of an “imperial policy””. That is why Lithuanian policy may be viewed as a continuation of the GDL priorities in context of regional realities. Strategic partnership of Lithuania with Estonia, Latvia and Poland after May 1, 2004 became an element of cooperation within the European Union. Development of the relations with Belarus and Ukraine, as well as with Moldova and the countries of South Caucasus are seen as priorities. Therefore, the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on Directions in Foreign Policy, May 1 2004 declares Lithuanian foreign policy goals as those aimed “to continue co-operation with the countries lying off the eastern border of the European Union, aiming at their rapprochement with the European Union, and to draw the three Transcaucasian republics - Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia into the European Union initiative of neighbourliness”. There is a consensus amongst the main political parties of Lithuania on these priorities which is fixed in the Agreement between Political Parties of the Republic of Lithuania on the Main Foreign Policy Goals and Objectives for 2004-2008 concluded on October 5 2004. According to this document one of the main goals of the Lithuanian foreign policy is “[t]o promote and expand regional co-operation and strengthen the position of Lithuania as a centre of interregional co-operation”. Thus, we may see that current Lithuanian foreign policy is strongly linked with the country’s location on the Eastern border of the EU. In its priorities in the EU neighbourhood policy Lithuania actively uses its deep knowledge of the region which is based on common Soviet past. Regarding the former GDL territories Lithuanians address the heritage of this medieval state. This factor became even more obvious after the accession of the country to the EU and the NATO. D. Concept of Nation, State and National State The Lithuanian vision of the statehood has the nation (Lithuanian: tauta) as its keystone. We would underline again that according to the Constitution of Lithuania it is the Lithuanian Nation which “created the State of Lithuania many centuries ago” and which is “based its legal foundations on the Lithuanian Statutes”. By these provisions the LR predicates that: ♣ the LR is a direct continuator of the GDL, ♣ the GDL like the LR is a Lithuaniannationalstate. There are different definitions of what is nation. We would use famous Joseph Stalin’s definition who considered nation as “a historically formed stable community of language, territory, economics and of a psychical individuality resulting from cultural values”To justify this choice we would refer to the Lithuanian language. As we mentioned the term of nation which appears in the Lithuanian language version of the Constitution is tauta. The definition of tauta according to the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language can be translated as: “a community of people, historically composed of various clans, which shares common territory, language, history, economic and cultural life” In order to put the research into the historical context we would refer to the definition of nation made by Miroslav Hroch who considers “the nation to be a large social group characterized by a combination of several kinds of relation (economic, territorial, political, religious, cultural, linguistic and so on) which arise on the one hand from the solution found to the fundamental antagonism between man and nature on a specific compact land-area, and on the other hand from the reflection of these relations in the consciousness of people.” Thus, all these three definitions are interchangeable. Accordingly, nation state is a state created by this nation where this nation plays a dominant role and therefore defines the nature of this state. Hence, the key words for our further analysis are: territory, language and cultural life (or values). It is also important to define the nation according to the GDL legislative tradition. The 1529 Statute in its preamble provides that its provisions are applicable to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Samogitia and other lands. Thus, in political terms “the state comprised three parts: “Lithuania”, … “Samogitia” and “Rus’[Ruthenia]”. It implies that the political nation of the GDL consisted from Lithuanian, Ruthenian and Samogitian nobility. E. Lithuanian Controversies Hroch states that Lithuania can be seen as “a characteristic case of divergence between the history of a political unit and the history of the ethnic group which gave it the name.” According to him it was“the nobility of the territory o the medieval Grand Duchy of Lithuania” that “professed” Lithuanian nationality. As we know, this nobility consisted of Lithuanians, Ruthenians and Samogitians. Thus, the term Lithuanian includes terms Ruthenian and Samogitian and equally refers to any noble from the GDL regardless of his ethnic origin. Thus, the first contradiction with the interpretation of the Lithuanian Nation as it is settled in the Lithuanian Constitution appears: the Lithuanian nation of the GDL is not equal to the Lithuanian nation of the LR. Hence, the territorial question arises: what is Lithuania and how does it correlate with Ruthenia and Samogitia? Karl von Loewe claims that Lithuania in its narrow sense included “the lands of Vilna and Troki (today officially Trakai).” According to him ethnically the State was divided into Lithuania which included “Vilna, Troki and Samogitia” and Ruthenia which consisted of “the annexed “lands” of the East Slavs now called Great Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians.” According to the author Vilna and Troki areas were ethnically Lithuanian and together with Samogitia they formed the ethnically Lithuanian core of the State. The question is why was Samogitia a separate entity, i.e. why did the state need two different ethnically Lithuanian entities on its territory? Another aspect concerns Ruthenian lands of the GDL. In order to justify the theory that it is the Lithuanian nation which “created the State of Lithuania many centuries ago” another theory of the annexation of the Slavic lands by ethnically Lithuanian princes is used. This theory is questionable but it is not the scope of this article to focus on this issue. We must underline a traditional approach which is revealed by the v. Loewe’s work: still overwhelmingly Pagan ethnic Lithuanians are seen as an already formed nation contrary to “the [Christian] Eastern Slavs now called Great Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians.” Thus, another question has to be raised: where were the borders between Lithuania and Ruthenia and between Lithuania and Samogitia? The territory of Samogitia finally became a part of the GDL only in 1411. In 1413 the autonomy of Samogitia was legalised by privilege of the Grand Duke Vytautas/Vitaŭt. Thus, “Samogitia became a self-governing district, which was later known as the Duchy of Samogitia”. In 1441 the Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir Jagiellon ensured the Samogitians privileges“which nowadays would mean sovereignty within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.” Samogitia remained a separate administrative unit with clearly defined borders throughout the existence of the GDL until 1795. In contrast with Samogitia with its fixed borders one can hardly say that about the border between Lithuania and Ruthenia. Hence, “during the second half of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth western parts of Belorussia and even the region of Minsk were referred as “Litva” [Lithuania].” Furthermore, especially in western parts of Belarusian linguistic area local peasants defined themselves as“litvins” [Lithuanians]” and this old ethnonym competed with the term “locals (Belarusian: tutejšy, Polish: tutejsi)” even during the interwar period. It implies that the term “Lithuanian” up to the beginning of the twentieth century equally applied to Baltic-speaking Lithuanians and Slavic-speaking Belarusians. Such an assumption means that in the historical perspective “all citizens of the Grand Duchy were named Litwa [here: Lithuanians, literally: Lithuania].” From all GDL citizens ethnic Lithuanians (in today’s meaning of this word) formed only “a small part of inhabitants” and were outnumbered and “dominated by majority of Belorussians and Ukrainians (often referred as Ruthenians)” However, since the Ukrainian lands of the GDL in 1569 were transferred into the jurisdiction of the Polish Crown one may speak about Belarusian ethnic majority in the GDL. Moreover, the dominance of the Slavic component in the GDL can be traced to the 14th century if not earlier. According to Snyder, “[e]ven before the Krewo Union of 1385 [with Poland], Lithuania was in religion and in language rather an Orthodox Slavic than a pagan Baltic community.” Thus, despite the presence of the Baltic Lithuanian element, Lithuania was not dominated by this group neither in political nor in ethnic sense and already in early 14th century “only Samogitia was ethnically Lithuanian.” In this connection it is necessary to illustrate the picture of the Lithuanian national awakening made by Miroslav Hroch. According to the birthplaces of Lithuanian patriots in the 2nd part of the 19th century, Samogitia (districts of Raseiniai, Šiauliai and Telšiai) was the place of origin for roughly 25 per cent of them. The core of Lithuania with “the lands of Vilna and Troki” (we include also Švenčionys (Święciany/Śvianciany) district) was the cradle of only 3 persons who constituted only 1.2 per cent of the Lithuanian patriots. None of them was born in the district of Vilna, one – in the district of Švenčionys, and two – in the district of Troki. Hence, almost all representatives of the Lithuanian national elite in the second half of the 19th century have not originated from the core of Lithuania. Thus, our second conclusion about the contradictions with the Lithuanian Constitution may be formed as: the territory of the Lithuanian nation is not equal to the territory of Lithuania in its narrow sense, i.e. only Samogitia was ethnically Baltic Lithuanian. Lithuania in its narrow sense was “rather an Orthodox Slavic” entity with Ruthenian (predominantly Belarusian) majority which dominated Lithuanian Baltic minority. Language issues and cultural life may be reviewed jointly. As the Constitution of Lithuania underlines that the Lithuanian nation “based [bases] its legal foundations on the Lithuanian Statutes” it is necessary to refer to these documents. According to v. Loewe the 1529 Lithuanian statute “was issued in a language peculiar to the Lithuanian chancery of that time. Nearly every East European nationality whose language uses the Cyrillic alphabet has at one time or another claimed this chancery language as the forerunner of its own.” Sedlar argues that “Eastern Slavs [of the GDL] speaking [spoke] some variety of the language now known as Old Russian.” Snyder is one of the researchers who call the official language “Chancery Slavonic”. It is necessary to admit that it is typical for the Lithuanian and western academicians to use different names of ethnic groups and languages. In legal terms it supplies a confused reader with false evidence. Another manifestation of this approach, as it can be found in Snyder’s book, is an attempt to represent the official language of the GDL as being similar to Latin and, hence, to separate it from the vernacular Ruthenian. It is obvious that any written standardised language is based on the dialects of a certain region. Moreover any written language cannot include all the peculiarities which derive from age, level of education, social status, religion or regional affiliation of its native speakers. Thus, the question is what kind of language was it. The 1566 Lithuanian Statute required that all court hearings and documentation should be conducted in the language which was called in the document Ruski (or Ruthenian, not Russian). It was reaffirmed by the 1588 Lithuanian Statute which was in force 1840. The same term Ruski for definition of his language was used by “a Byelorussian from Polock [Połack]” Francysk Skaryna who “publish[ed] translations of religious and secular classics, first in Prague and later in Vilnius. In Prague, he translated and published the Holy Bible in Byelorussian…”. According to Sliesoriūnas Ruthenian language of the Statute “can be, with certain reserves, defined as Old-Byelorussian”. In the view of the GDL Vice-Chancellor [as of 1588] Lew Sapieha the 1588 Statute was “written not in any foreign language but in our own…” (i.e. Ruthenian.” It means that the language of the GDL Statutes is nothing more than a literary form of vernacular Ruthenian which can be also defined as Old-Belarusian. In Muscovy this language “was called “Lithuanian” or “Belorussian” and “Muscovites scribes had to translate the Lithuanian statutes into the Moscow dialect to be of use in their court.” It implies that on one hand the language of the GDL was not Russian as it was not understandable by Muscovites (Russians) and on the other hand the regarding linguistic issue term “Belarusian” was equal to the term “Lithuanian.” “Lithuanian language had not been considered a language of politics for centuries.” Therefore, Lithuanians repeatedly emphasise “the unity of the Lithuanian language area over the political border of the GDL and Duchy of Prussia.” “Lithuanian grand Dukes had never published Lithuanian books” and “Lithuanian grammars and dictionaries had for a long time [until the 2nd half of the 18th century] been published exclusively in Prussia.” Despite the fact that since 1697 Polish “became the official language of the Grand Duchy”, Belarusian preserved “a lingua franca or Koine status till the end of the [Polish-Lithuanian] Commonwealth. Thus, we come to the third conclusion according to which it is possible to emphasise that in terms of cultural life and language the Lithuanian nation of the GDL is not equal to the Lithuanian nation of the LR. It was not the Baltic Lithuanian but Ruthenian-Belarusian language that was dominant in the GDL. The same provision applies to the political and cultural life of the State. What is more important, one can define two Lithuanian languages in the GDL: the Baltic Lithuanian with a rather marginal status and the Belarusian-Lithuanian which was the official language of the country. It implies that the provision of the Constitution of the Lithuania according to which it is the Lithuanian nation which “created the State of Lithuania many centuries ago” and which is “based its legal foundations on the [medieval] Lithuanian Statutes” is inconsistent in its current interpretation. In regard to the GDL the term Lithuanian nation shall be construed as an equal community of Baltic Lithuanian and Belarusian-Lithuanian nations. Similarly, the principle of the legal continuity towards GDL shall be applied to the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Lithuania equally. F. Conclusion The Lithuanian interpretation of the country’s statehood concept is laid down in the Constitution of the Lithuanian Republic. Applying the method of “historical rights” in its legal documents the modern Lithuanian state represents itself as the sole legal successor of the GDL . This view is accepted internationally both by politicians and academicians. The current Lithuanian foreign policy actively refers to the heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL). Practical evidence of this approach became even more visible after Lithuania’s accession to the EU and NATO. The core of the Lithuanian concept of legal continuity is the Lithuanian nation (tauta in Lithuanian) . The Constitution states that the Lithuanian nation “created the State of Lithuania many centuries ago” and has “based its legal foundations on the (medieval) Lithuanian Statutes.” It means that according to the Constitution the GDL and the modern Lithuanian Republic are regarded equally as Lithuanian nation-states. Both current and inter-war Lithuanian statehoods qualify for the concept, according to which “(T)he State of Lithuania shall be created by the (Lithuanian) Nation” as is provided by Article 2 of the Lithuanian Const itution. However, the Lithuanian argumentation concerning the the legal continuity from the GDL to the Lithuanian Republic has weak points, should the term Nation (tauta) be interpreted according to the definition of of this word in the Lithuanian language. This definition names territory, language and cultural life as determinant elements of any nation. We may conclude that the Lithuanian nation of the Lithuanian Republic is not equal to the Lithuanian nation of the GDL. • First, the latter consisted of Lithuanians, Ruthenians, and Samogitians. • Second, in territorial terms the Baltic Lithuanian nation is not equal to the area of Lithuania in its historical sense. It means that only Samogitia may be regarded as ethnically Baltic. Lithuania in its historical sense had a Ruthenian-Belarusian majority that dominated the Baltic minority. • Third, culturally and linguistically the Lithuanian nation of the GDL is not equal to the Lithuanian nation of the Lithuanian Republic. We may define two Lithuanian cultures existing in the GDL: the dominant Belarusian- Lithuanian of the ethnic majority , and the subordinated Baltic Lithuanian of the ethnic minority. Moreover, we may speak about the existence of two different Lithuanian languages in the GDL: Baltic Lithuanian with a rather marginal status, and the official Belarusian-Lithuanian. Hence, the vision of the Lithuanian nation , provided by the current Lithuanian Constitution, and referring to the GDL, is inconsistent. In this case, the term nation should refer equally to its Baltic Lithuanian and Belarusian Lithuanian components. Therefore, both the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Lithuania should be treated as equal successors of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: (1) Loewe, K. v. The Lithuanian Statute of 1529. (Brill,1976), p. IX (2) Gerutis, A. Lithuania 700 years, Manyland Books, 1969, p. 154-156. (3) English translation of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Available at the official site of the Seimas (Parliament) of the Republic of Lithuania: http://www3.lrs.lt/home/Konstitucija/Constitution.htm. (4) Ibid. (5) Flaes, R. Das Problem der Territorialkonflikte. Eine Untersuchung ueber ihre Grundlagen und Eigenschaften am Beispiele der Territorialgeschichte Polens. (Utrecht, Univ., jur. Fak., Diss., 1929), p. 269. (6) Ibid, pp. 268-269. (7) English translation of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania (note 3). (8) This article was published in Lithuanian Foreign Policy Review No. 74 (2004), pp. 41-47. Full text of the article is available at: http://www.lfpr.lt/uploads/File/2004-13%2014/Nikzentaitis.pdf. (9) Nikžentaitis, A. The “Imperial” Diplomacy of Lithuania // Lithuanian Foreign Policy Review No. 74 (2004), (note 8), p. 41. (10) Lithuania joined the NATO on March 29, 2004. (11) Nikžentaitis (note 8), p. 41. (12) Ibid. (13) Official English Translation of the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on Directions in Foreign Policy, May 1 2004. Available at the official site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania: http://www.urm.lt/popup2.php?nr=1&item_id=8500&_m_e_id=4&_menu_i_id=240. (14) English Translation of the Agreement between Political Parties of the Republic of Lithuania on the Main Foreign Policy Goals and Objectives for 2004-2008. Available at the official site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania: http://www.urm.lt/popup2.php?item_id=255. (15) Partsch, K.-J. Nations, Peoples in: Bernhardt R. (ed.) under the auspices of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law. Encyclopedia of public international law, vol. 3. (North-Holland, 1997), p. 511-515(512). (16) Lietuvių kalbos žodynas (Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language), vol. XV. (Mokslas, 1991), p. 1032. Lithuanian original text: “Tauta – įvairioms gentims telkiantis istoriškai susidariusi žmonių bendruomenė, turinti bendrą žemę, kalbą, istorią, ekonominį ir kultūrinį gyvenimą.” (17) Hroch, M. Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe: a Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups among the Smaller European Nations. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985), pp. 4-5. (18) Loewe (note 1), p.19. The author in the work uses words “Principality” instead of “Duchy” and “Rus’” instead of “Ruthenia”. (19) Ibid, p. 120. (20) Hroch(note 17) above, p. 86. (21) Ibid. (22) Loewe(note 1), p. 120. (23) Ibid. (24) The name of this Duke is given in Lithuanian and Belarusian versions respectively. (25) Samogitia at the Museums of Lithuania website: http://www.muziejai.lt/telsiai/samogitia.en.htm. (26) From the History of Samogitia (Žemaitija) at the Žemaitija website implemented by the Center of the Regional Cultural Initiatives: http://www.samogit.lt/ISTORIJA/istorija.en.htm. (27) Zaprudnik, J. Belorussia and the Belorussians. Pages 49-71 in Katz Z. (ed.), Handbook of Major Soviet Nationalities, Free Press, 1975, p. 50. (28) Niendorf, M. Das Großfürstentum Litauen: Studien zur Nationsbildung in der Frühen Neuzeit (1569 - 1795), Harrassowitz, 2006, p. 208. (29) Tereškinas, A. Imperfect Communities: Identity, Discourse and Nation in the Seventeenth-Century Grand Duchy of Lithuania, LLTI, 2005, p. 49. (30) Ibid, pp. 32, 47. (31) Snyder, T. The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569 – 1999, Yale Univ. Press, 2003, p. 17. (32) Sedlar, J.W. East Central Europe in the Middle ages, 1000 – 1500, Univ. of Washington Press, 1994, p. 25. (33) Hroch (note 17), pp. 93-94. (34)Loewe (note 1), p. 13. (35) Sedlar (note 31), p. 25. (36) See, for instance, Gerutis (note 2) or Kiaupa, Z. Kiaupienė, J, Kuncevicius, A. The history of Lithuania before 1795, Arlila 2000. The authors use different names Byelorussian, Russian, Western Russian when they refer to the same ethnic or linguistic issues. (37) Snyder (note 30), pp. 19-21. (38) The Second Statute of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Section 4, Article 1, Paragraph 4, quoted by: http://litopys.org.ua/statut2/st1566_05.htm. (39) Sliesoriūnas G. Conferment of the official status on the Polish language in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, pp. 38-40 (38) in: My Little Europe III periodical, available at: http://www.informacjaeuropejska.pl/pliki/MLE_III_EN.pdf. (40) Gerutis (note 2), p. 85. (41) Sliesoriūnas G. Conferment of the official status on the Polish language in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, note (38) above, p. 38. (42) Tereškinas (note 28), p. 36. (43) Snyder (note 30), p. 19. (44) Snyder (note 30), p. 32. (45) Niendorf(note 27), p. 102 . (46) Snyder (note 30), p. 32. (47)Niendorf (note 27), p. 103. (48)Niendorf (note 27), p. 103 Kiryl Kascian
|
|||||||||
| Rubriques |
Belarusian Culture
Belarusians Abroad
Contents
Economy
Editorial
Features
Chronicle of Events
Legacy of Chernobyl
Letters
Media Watch
News Briefs
- Culture & Society
- Freedom of Religion
- Independent Media
- Belarus & the World
- Human Rights
- Politics - Opposition
- Politics - Regime
Thoughts and Observations
| New Articles |
| In Belarus, a Slide Toward Eastern Aggression (23.01.2011) |
| No Business as Usual (23.01.2011) |
| Declaration by the Coordinating Committee of Belarusians of Canada (23.01.2011) |
| Wrong Carrot, Wrong Stick (23.01.2011) |
| The Center for Belarusian Studies (23.01.2011) |
| StatementBy the Office for a Democratic Belarus (Brussels) And the Belarusian Institute for Strategic Studies (23.01.2011) |
| A backfire in Belarus (23.01.2011) |
| STATEMENT (23.01.2011) |
| Belarus: That’s enough democracy (23.01.2011) |
| A Nasty Surprise in Belarus (23.01.2011) |
| Demonstration in London (23.01.2011) |
| Blood and Special Operations in Belarus Politics (23.01.2011) |
| Statement By the Rada of The Belarusian Democratic Republic in Exile 28th December 2010 (23.01.2011) |
| Opinion - The EU Has no Choice But to Continue Dialogue With Belarus (23.01.2011) |
| Belarus Police Arrest Opposition Leaders (23.01.2011) |
| Readers' Favorites |
| Belarusian Weapons Exports:A Possible Source of Laundered Funds? (15579) |
| The Exchange Rate Policy for Belarus (15449) |
| Kitabs, the Unique Phenomenon of the Belarusian Language in "Encyclopedia of the Belarusian language" (15435) |
| Belarusica at the AAASS Convention (14435) |
| Vaclav Havel - in Defense of Jakub Kolas Humanities Lyceum (14380) |
| Putin Doctrine: Immediate Threat to Belarus (13979) |
| Belarusian Currency: Problems and Perspectives (13845) |
| Is Lukashenka Winning Back Hearts and Minds? (13495) |
| DZIADY and Kurapaty Unite the Opposition (13145) |
| Belarus Represented in the World Book Fair (13142) |
| Minsk Wants Compensation from Moscow for Abandoning National Currency (13134) |
| Opposition Forms New Pro-European Alliance (12979) |
| The Sad State of Agriculture (12594) |
| EU Aid Misuse Fears (12116) |
| The Third Wave, or the regimes current tactics in dealing with independent NGOs (11703) |