Latvian-Russian Relations: Domestic and International Dimensions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Riga Municipality Annual Report 2003 Riga Municipality Annual Report 2003 Contents
Riga Municipality Annual Report 2003 Riga Municipality Annual Report 2003 Contents The Report of Riga City Council Chairman 4 The Report of Riga City Council Finance Department Director 5 Structure and Function of the Riga City Council 6 Riga City: Review and Development 7 History and Geographical Location 7 Inhabitants 8 Description of the Economy of the City 10 Education and Sport 11 Social Assistance and Services 12 Housing and Municipal Services, Environmental Protection 13 Culture 14 Transport and Communications 15 Health Care 16 Order and Security 16 Implementation of the City Development Plan and Community Consultation 17 Initiatives Promoting the Awareness of the Community and their Involvement in Public Debate 18 Participation in International Collaborative Projects 19 Initiatives to Improve Management of Municipal Organizations and Enterprises 20 The Economic Development of the City of Riga 22 Branch Industry Structure 22 City of Riga Financial and Budget Policy 25 Investment Profile 27 Property Profile 29 Riga Municipality Financial Report 32 Auditors Report 32 Condensed Annual Accounts 34 Cash Flow Statement 35 Income Statement (Basic Budget) 35 Income Statement (Special Purpose Budget) 36 Investment 37 Lending to Associated Enterprises 38 Receivables 38 Cash 38 Liabilities 39 Derivatives 39 Income Statement (Basic Budget) 39 Income Statement (Special Purpose Budget) 41 Income Statement on Donations and Endowments 42 Terms for the Composition of Annual Accounts 43 Budget Performance, year 2003 45 Riga Municipality Budget, year 2004 55 IISBN 97489-45-10 © Riga Municipality, 2004 This Annual Report contains photographs of Riga City Council initiatives. © Leons Balodis, Andris Krievi¿‰, IlmÇrs Znoti¿‰, Raitis Puri¿‰, Kristaps Kalns 2 Riga Municipality Annual Report 2003 The inhabitants of Riga are the City’s most important economic, social and cultural development potential. -
A Case Study of Riga Municipality Sigita Struberga and Aleksandra Kjakste*
SJPA National Minorities’ Inclusion and Representation in 22(1) Local Government Policy-Making in Latvia: A Case Study of Riga Municipality Sigita Struberga and Aleksandra Kjakste* Abstract Sigita Struberga The aim of this article is to assess the extent of cooperation between municipalities and University of Latvia Latvia’s Russian-speaking minority towards the goal of securing its inclusion in the local [email protected] governance of the nation. The research is split into two main parts. First, an analytical Aleksandra Kjakste framework is established using governance theories, with a particular focus on the criteria University of Latvia of fairness and competences. Second, an empirical framework analyses various determi- [email protected] nants on the basis of a case study of the Riga city municipality. The authors conclude that there is notable progress in the creation of formal frameworks fostering inclusiveness, in particular in public administration and legislation. However, several disadvantages are still observed when the attempts at inclusion encounter the two aforementioned criteria. As a result, the overall forms and initiatives towards cooperation fail to engender an environment that would foster new competencies or values for the general public or par- ticular stakeholders. Introduction Keywords: Public participation in administration is highly valued in contemporary demo- Russian-speaking minority Local government cratic societies (Cooper, Bryer & Meek, 2006; Yang & Pandey, 2011; Quick, Inclusion Bryson, Slotterback & Crosby 2013; Quick & Bryson, 2016), giving rise to Policy-making questions of how to best achieve a holistic representation of the various layers of Latvia society. For several decades, one of the greatest challenges in this context has stemmed from the increasing ethnic and linguistic diversity in European socie- ties (Eelbode, 2010; Bell, 2010). -
Latvia by Juris Dreifelds
Latvia by Juris Dreifelds Capital: Riga Population: 2.1 million GNI/capita, PPP: US$19,090 Source: The data above are drawn from the World Bank’sWorld Development Indicators 2013. Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Electoral Process 1.75 1.75 1.75 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 Civil Society 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 Independent Media 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 Governance* 2.25 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a National Democratic Governance n/a 2.25 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 Local Democratic Governance n/a 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 Judicial Framework and Independence 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 Corruption 3.50 3.50 3.25 3.00 3.00 3.25 3.25 3.50 3.25 3.00 Democracy Score 2.17 2.14 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.18 2.18 2.14 2.11 2.07 * Starting with the 2005 edition, Freedom House introduced separate analysis and ratings for national democratic governance and local democratic governance to provide readers with more detailed and nuanced analysis of these two important subjects. -
ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions. -
Latvia's 'Russian Left': Trapped Between Ethnic, Socialist, and Social-Democratic Identities
Cheskin, A., and March, L. (2016) Latvia’s ‘Russian left’: trapped between ethnic, socialist, and social-democratic identities. In: March, L. and Keith, D. (eds.) Europe's Radical Left: From Marginality to the Mainstream? Rowman & Littlefield: London, pp. 231-252. ISBN 9781783485352. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/133777/ Deposited on: 11 January 2017 Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk This is an author’s final draft. The article has been published as: Cheskin, A. & March, L. (2016) ‘Latvia’s ‘Russian left’: Trapped between ethnic, socialist, and social-democratic identities’ in, L. March & D. Keith (eds.) Europe’s radical left: From marginality to the mainstream? Rowman and Littlefield: London, pp. 231-252. Latvia’s ‘Russian left’: trapped between ethnic, socialist, and social- democratic identities Ammon Cheskin and Luke March Following the 2008 economic crisis, Latvia suffered the worst loss of output in the world, with GDP collapsing 25 percent.1 Yet Latvia’s radical left has shown no notable ideological or strategic response. Existing RLPs did not secure significant political gains from the crisis, nor have new challengers benefitted. Indeed, Latvia has been heralded as a ‘poster child’ for austerity as the right has continued to dominate government policy.2 This chapter explores this puzzle. Although the economic crisis was economically destructive, we argue that the political responses have been consistently ethnicised in Latvia. Additionally, the Latvian left has been equally challenged intellectually and strategically by the ethnically-framed Ukrainian crisis of 2014. -
GENERAL ELECTIONS in LATVIA 17Th September 2011
GENERAL ELECTIONS IN LATVIA 17th September 2011 European Elections monitor The opposition party, Harmony Centre, comes out ahead in from Corinne Deloy the general elections Translated by Helen Levy On 17th September a leftwing party came out ahead in the general elections in Latvia for the first time since 1991, the year in which the country recovered independence. Harmony Centre (SC) won 28.37% of the vote and 31 seats in parliament (+ 2 in comparison with the previous election on 2nd RESULTS October 2010). Harmony Centre took the lead over the Zatlers’s Reform Party (ZRP), a rightwing group founded by former President of the Republic (2007-2011) Valdis Zatlers, which won 20.82% of the vote and 22 seats and Unity (V), the party of outgoing Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis, which won 18.83% of the vote and 20 seats (- 13). The centre-right also emerges strengthened after these elections and should be able to form a government. National Alliance–All for Latvia, a new party that was formed after the merger of the Union for the Fatherland (TB/LNNK) and the far right party, All for Latvia (VL) is the other winner in this election. It has clearly gained ground coming fourth with 13.88% of the vote and 14 seats (+ 6), just ahead of the Greens and Farmers Union (ZSS), a member of the outgoing government coalition, which won 12.22% of the vote and 12 seats (- 9). The other parties, including the People’s Party (TP) led by businessman and former Prime Minister (1995-1997 and 1999-2000) Andris Skele Latvia’s First-Latvia’s Way (LPP-LC), led by Ainars Sle- sers did not manage to rise above the 5% threshold of votes cast, which are vital to be represented in the Saeima, the only chamber of Parliament. -
Macro Report Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 4: Macro Report
Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 1 Module 4: Macro Report Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 4: Macro Report Country: Latvia Date of Election: 17 September 2011 Prepared by: Jānis Ikstens Date of Preparation: 17 October 2017 NOTES TO COLLABORATORS There are eight sections (numbered A-H inclusive) in this report. Please ensure that you complete all the sections. The information provided in this report contributes to the macro data portion of the CSES, an important component of the CSES project. The information may be filled out by yourself, or by an expert or experts of your choice. Your efforts in providing these data are greatly appreciated. Any supplementary documents that you can provide (e.g.: electoral legislation, party manifestos, electoral commission reports, media reports, district data) are also appreciated, and may be made available on the CSES website. Answers should be as of the date of the election being studied. Where brackets [ ] appear, collaborators should answer by placing an “X” within the appropriate bracket or brackets. For example: [X] If more space is needed to answer any question, please lengthen the document as necessary. Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 2 Module 4: Macro Report A) DATA PERTINENT TO ELECTION AT WHICH MODULE WAS ADMINISTERED 1a. Type of Election: [X] Parliamentary/Legislative [ ] Parliamentary/Legislative and Presidential [ ] Presidential [ ] Other; please specify: __________ 1b. If the type of election in Question 1a included Parliamentary/Legislative, was the election for the Upper House, Lower House, or both? [ ] Upper House [ ] Lower House [ ] Both [X] Other; please specify: unicameral Parliament 2a. What was the party of the president prior to the most recent election, regardless of whether the election was presidential? Political alliance “Union of Greens and Farmers”. -
The Success and Failure of Ethnic Parties in New Democracies: Cross-National and Inter-Temporal Analysis on Post-Communist Europe
G-COE GLOPE II Working Paper Series The Success and Failure of Ethnic Parties in New Democracies: Cross-National and Inter-temporal Analysis on Post-communist Europe. Ryo NAKAI Working Paper No.27 If you have any comment or question on the working paper series, please contact each author. When making a copy or reproduction of the content, please contact us in advance to request permission. The source should explicitly be credited. GLOPE Ⅱ Web Site: http://globalcoe-glope2.jp/ The Success and Failure of Ethnic Parties in New Democracies: 1 Cross-National and Inter-temporal Analysis on Post-communist Europe Ryo NAKAI Research Associate & Ph.D. Candidate Student, School of Political Science and Economics 2 [email protected] Abstract Why do ethnic minority parties succeed or fail? In order to solve this puzzle, this article explores cross-national and inter-temporal differences in post-communist new democracies using statistical analysis and small-N case studies, and argues that policy factors and the rationality of ethnic minorities determine the success and failure of ethnic parties and account for the variance in their standings. As some studies have pointed out, ethnic minorities’ voting behaviour should be rational and strategic. This article represents a basic spatial model and argues that ethnic minorities react to other parties’ policy changes and to the capability of other parties to win seats. Statistical analysis verifies this hypothesis. In addition, I discuss the Baltic States–Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania--as case studies. Although these three countries share a similar history, experience with minority issues and a common institutional design, their party systems indicate significant differences. -
Elections in Latvia: Status Quo for Minorities Remains?
Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe Vol 9, No 1, 2010, 72-89 Original received: 08.12.2010 Copyright © ECMI 2010 This article is located at: http://www.ecmi.de/fileadmin/downloads/publications/JEMIE/2010/Latvia_Elections.pdf Elections in Latvia: status quo for minorities remains? Tatyana Bogushevitch and Aleksejs Dimitrovs * This article comments on the results of the recent parliamentary elections in Latvia and related implications for ethnic minorities. The authors examine in detail the pre-election programs, follow the developments before and after the elections, and come to the conclusion that the existing situation in the field of ethnic policy will remain in place for some time. Parliamentary elections took place in Latvia on 2 October 2010. Due to economic crisis and harsh austerity measures including severe public spending cuts, ethnic policy issues have not been very high on the agenda in the pre-election and post- election period, unlike in previous years. Nevertheless, in the country where more than 40% of the population are persons belonging to minorities 1, minority issues are inevitably a part of the national debate. After the elections, five alliances are represented in the Saeima (Parliament): centre-right ‘Unity’ (33 seats out of 100), social democratic ‘Concord Centre’ (29 seats), centre-right Union of Greens and Farmers (22 seats), right-wing nationalistic ‘All for Latvia’ – ‘For Fatherland and Freedom/LNNK’ (8 seats) and centrist ‘For a Good Latvia’ (8 seats). Out of the 100 members 15 (13 ethnic Russians, 1 Karelian * Dr Tatyana Bogushevitch is a graduate of the University of Latvia, Riga. -
Plūdu Riska Novērtēšanas Un Pārvaldības Nacionālā Programma 2008.-2015.Gadam
Approved by Cabinet Order No.830 20 December 2007 National Programme for the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks 2008 - 2015 Informative Part Riga 2007 Translation © 2013 Valsts valodas centrs (State Language Centre) Contents Abbreviations Used 3 Terms used in the Programme 3 I. Characterisation of the Situation 4 1. Assessment of the Territory of Latvia in Respect of Flood Risks 7 1.1. Types of Flood Risk Areas in the Territory of Latvia 7 1.2. Causes of Floods in Flood Risk Areas 8 1.3. Areas Being Flooded Due to Floods and Areas at Risk of Flooding 9 1.4. Specially Protected Nature Territories 12 1.5. Historical Consequences and Material Losses of Floods 12 2. Flood Risk Scenarios and Assessment Criteria Thereof 13 II. Link of the Programme to the Priorities and Supporting Policy Documents of the Government and Ministries 15 III. Objectives and Sub-objectives of the Programme 17 IV. Planned Results of the Programme Policy and Results of the Activity 17 V. The Result-based Indicators for the Achievement of Results of the Programme Policy and Results of Activity 18 VI. Main Tasks for the Achievement of Results of the Programme 18 VII Programme Funding 18 Annexes 1. Annex 1 River Basin Districts of Latvia 20 2. Annex 2 Flood Risk Areas in River Potamal Sections 21 3. Annex 3 Coastal Flood Risk and Coastal Erosion Risk Areas of the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Riga 25 4. Annex 4 Measures for the Assessment and Reduction of Flood Risks 26 Translation © 2013 Valsts valodas centrs (State Language Centre) 2 Abbreviations Used MoE – Ministry of Economics MoF – Ministry of Finance MoENV – Ministry of Environment MoA – Ministry of Agriculture EU – European Union HPS – Hydroelectric power station UNECE – United Nations Economic Commission for Europe a/g - agriculture mBs – metres in the Baltic system ha - hectare Terms Used in the Programme Flood – the covering by water of land not normally covered by water. -
Internal Politics and Views on Brexit
BRIEFING PAPER Number 8362, 2 May 2019 The EU27: Internal Politics By Stefano Fella, Vaughne Miller, Nigel Walker and Views on Brexit Contents: 1. Austria 2. Belgium 3. Bulgaria 4. Croatia 5. Cyprus 6. Czech Republic 7. Denmark 8. Estonia 9. Finland 10. France 11. Germany 12. Greece 13. Hungary 14. Ireland 15. Italy 16. Latvia 17. Lithuania 18. Luxembourg 19. Malta 20. Netherlands 21. Poland 22. Portugal 23. Romania 24. Slovakia 25. Slovenia 26. Spain 27. Sweden www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 The EU27: Internal Politics and Views on Brexit Contents Summary 6 1. Austria 13 1.1 Key Facts 13 1.2 Background 14 1.3 Current Government and Recent Political Developments 15 1.4 Views on Brexit 17 2. Belgium 25 2.1 Key Facts 25 2.2 Background 25 2.3 Current Government and recent political developments 26 2.4 Views on Brexit 28 3. Bulgaria 32 3.1 Key Facts 32 3.2 Background 32 3.3 Current Government and recent political developments 33 3.4 Views on Brexit 35 4. Croatia 37 4.1 Key Facts 37 4.2 Background 37 4.3 Current Government and recent political developments 38 4.4 Views on Brexit 39 5. Cyprus 42 5.1 Key Facts 42 5.2 Background 42 5.3 Current Government and recent political developments 43 5.4 Views on Brexit 45 6. Czech Republic 49 6.1 Key Facts 49 6.2 Background 49 6.3 Current Government and recent political developments 50 6.4 Views on Brexit 53 7. -
General Assembly Distr.: General 16 July 2021
United Nations A/HRC/48/15 General Assembly Distr.: General 16 July 2021 Original: English Human Rights Council Forty-eighth session 13 September–1 October 2021 Agenda item 6 Universal periodic review Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review* Latvia * The annex is being circulated without formal editing, in the language of submission only. GE.21-09347(E) A/HRC/48/15 Introduction 1. The Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, established in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, held its thirty-eighth session from 3 to 14 May 2021. The review of Latvia was held at the 13th meeting, on 11 May 2021. The delegation of Latvia was headed by the State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Andris Pelšs. At its 17th meeting, held on 14 May 2021, the Working Group adopted the report on Latvia. 2. On 12 January 2021, the Human Rights Council selected the following group of rapporteurs (troika) to facilitate the review of Latvia: Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Italy and Japan. 3. In accordance with paragraph 15 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 and paragraph 5 of the annex to Council resolution 16/21, the following documents were issued for the review of Latvia: (a) A national report submitted/written presentation made in accordance with paragraph 15 (a);1 (b) A compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b);2 (c) A summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c).3 4.