Jurisprudencija: Mokslo darbu žurnalas 20 (3):1213-1229 (2013)

The article analyses the regulation for premature termination of the Parliament in Latvia. The introductory part of the article provides a short characteristic of the Constitution of Latvia - the Satversme adopted in 1922, and outlines the basic principles of legal regulation of the Parliament, i.e. the Saeima. Further chapters of the article analyse historic development of the premature termination of the Parliament. On 15 February, 1922, when the Satversme was adopted, only one mechanism for the premature termination of the Parliament was established there: dissolution of the Saeima. However, relatively recently, in 2009, after a prolonged public discussion another mechanism for the premature termination of the activity of the Saeima was established, which was the recall.1 Both models of the termination of the activities of the Parliament are analysed in the article by specifying the principal differences between them. Along with the analysis of the provisions of the Constitution and theory, the practice of dissolution of the Saeima is characterised as well, because in 2011 the Parliament (the Saeima) was dissolved in a constitutional way for the first and so far the only time in the history of Latvia and extraordinary elections were held
Keywords parlamentas  dissolution of parliament  Konstitucija  parliament  recall of parliament  parlamentaro mandatas  parlamento įgaliojimų atšaukimas  parliamentary mandate  parlamento paleidimas  Seimas  the Saeima  the State President  prezidentas  the Constitution
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.13165/JUR-13-20-3-18
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,617
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Historical Analysis of Goldsworthy's Sovereignty of Parliament.Margaret Kelly - 2002 - Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 27:156-171.
Constitutional Status of the Parliament of the Swiss Confederation.Milda Vainiutė - 2009 - Jurisprudencija: Mokslo darbu žurnalas 115 (1):71-88.
Parliament and Good Governance: A Bangladeshi Perspective.Muhammad Mustafizur Rahaman - 2008 - Japanese Journal of Political Science 9 (1):39-62.
Sovereignty Re-Examined: The Courts, Parliament, and Statutes.N. W. Barber - 2000 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 20 (1):131-154.
Pepper V Hart; A Re-Examination.Johan Steyn - 2001 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 21 (1):59-72.
A New Parliament Reviews the General Teaching Council for Scotland.Douglas Weir - 2001 - British Journal of Educational Studies 49 (1):71 - 86.
European Private Company: Perspectives of Legal Regulation.Saulius Katuoka & Vaida Česnulevičiūtė - 2012 - Jurisprudencija: Mokslo darbu žurnalas 19 (1):159-178.


Added to PP index

Total views
2 ( #1,347,326 of 2,348,757 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #512,546 of 2,348,757 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes