Esteemed Madam Rector,
Academic staff of the Mykolas Romeris University,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I
I am deeply honoured by such a high recognition of my professional and academic achievements and delighted to receive the title of Doctor Honoris Causa from Mykolas Romeris University.
It is a true honour to join the academic community of your university. I gladly accept all responsibilities that come with this honorary title.
By receiving this title, I feel even more compelled to continue expanding and deepening the dialogue between the legal systems and communities of our countries. There is already a solid basis to build on.
Research and academic collaboration between Latvian and Lithuanian universities is close and strong. Universities are engaged in joint research activities, and we regularly see each other at international conferences.
Cooperation between constitutional courts and supreme courts of our countries is crucial for Latvia and Lithuania. Joint events and exchange of experience are a good way to identify common challenges and discuss best solutions.
We need to continue to support this cooperation and you can always count on my support and participation in any new initiative aimed at fostering judicial cooperation between our two countries.
II
Your university has been named after a legendary Lithuanian academic, Professor Mykolas Romeris. I see great symbolism in the honorary title being awarded to me right now, in early May, when Mykolas Romeris University celebrates the birthday of a man who inspired its name.
The life of Mykolas Romeris is a story of a great lawyer who met the highest expectations of his country and legal system with great energy. He was an exceptional scholar, practitioner and patriot of his country.
Professor Mykolas Romeris’ life and work is the ‘golden standard’ for all lawyers aspiring to fulfil their duty and serve their country. Without Mykolas Romeris and his contribution to the Lithuanian legal system would look very different.
I am absolutely confident that the bright ideas and efforts of exceptional legal minds support and bring legal systems to new levels. Their philosophies shape the fundamental elements of legal systems that are later used by generations of young lawyers.
Smaller legal systems, in particular, put additional pressure on legal professionals to have encyclopaedic knowledge and take part in almost all solutions to legal dilemmas that present themselves.
Juozas Žilys, Egidijus Jarašiūnas and Vytautas Sinkevičius, my colleagues from Mykolas Romeris University, are a vivid example of what that actually requires as they have been involved in drafting of Lithuanian Constitution and they have been involved in its application as judges of the Constitutional Court, thus contributing to development of the Lithuanian legal system on both sides.
III
Mykolas Romeris was a well-known and respected legal scholar in interwar Latvia. He has even received one of the highest state awards in Latvia, the Class II Order of the Three Stars. Yet knowledge about his academic achievements among Latvian legal scientists is mostly based on his publications in other languages. This is a significant problem that needs to be solved.
The legal systems of Latvia and Lithuania stand remarkably close together because the bond between our two Baltic nations is very strong. Yet, at the same time, we know relatively little about each other. Latvian and Lithuanian legal professionals are much more attuned to German, French, American or British legal paradigms than the legal system of a brotherly neighbouring nation.
This is a field that requires our close attention. We need to strengthen the dialogue between our legal systems and open these systems to each other much more. Latvia should become more aware of who Mykolas Romeris and other Lithuanian scholars are and what they have done, while Lithuanians should have an opportunity to learn more about key people in our legal system.
One such practical step would be the joint creation of an anthology of legal publications by Latvian and Lithuanian legal scholars, a source that would give scientists on both sides access to better understanding and dialogue based on these works.
Maybe Mykolas Romeris University is the perfect vehicle for that. I would certainly be happy to join this project once it is decided.
IV
Latvia and Lithuania both celebrate constitutional anniversaries this year.
Latvia is celebrating the 100 years since adoption of its only constitution, Satversme, on 15 February 1922. Whereas Lithuania is marking the centenary of its remarkable democratic constitution of 1 August 1922 and 30 years since adoption of its current constitution on 25 October 1922.
Here is an interesting fact. In the 1920s the Lithuanian constitution of 1 August 1922 was translated into Latvian and published in Latvia. ‘The best way to appreciate our own constitution is by studying the constitutions of other countries,’ says the introduction of the translated Lithuanian constitution.
I am happy to note that this tradition has found its way into our legal systems and both constitutions have been translated into Latvian and Lithuanian, respectively.
V
Both constitutional systems are part of Western legal traditions. They are both based on the same European constitutional values, such as democracy, fundamental human rights and rule of law (state governed by rule of law).
The constitutional traditions and principles of Latvia and Lithuania contribute to a common European constitutional heritage. They belong to the legal sources of the European Union that the Court of Justice of the European Union follows in its case law.
On 2 September 2021, Riga hosted the first conference of Courts of Justice of the European Union and member state national courts. This issue was one of its focuses. My opening address particularly emphasised the need to develop a more precise methodology for identification and application of common constitutional heritage.
Constitutional laws and constitutional traditions of Lithuania and Latvia undeniably contribute to development and strengthening of our common European legal space.
We have built strong democracies governed by rule of law that joined the European Union and NATO 18 years ago.
That is a good reason to celebrate and be proud. We have made impressive progress in terms of building a strong constitutional framework.
VI
Let me also underline that democracy and rule of law will always be ‘work in progress’. Work on making our country better and more advanced never ends.
I am confident that we can learn a lot from each other – both the good and that which should be avoided.
Let me give you an example of that. I have proposed an additional constitutional body for Latvia, the State Council, which would give legal policy advice to the Cabinet of Ministers and Saeima on better laws.
The idea of a State Council is currently being considered in Latvia, often referencing the French experience and models implemented in other European countries further away from Latvia.
However, as it turns out, Lithuania already had State Council between two wars and Mykolas Romeris was even one of its members. The Lithuanian State Council is a topic and an experience that deserves to be studied at a separate conference.
VII
Mykolas Romeris also had extensive international adjudication experience both as Lithuania’s national expert and judge ad hoc of the Permanent Court of International Justice.
Lithuanian cases reviewed by the Permanent Court of International Justice enhanced and contributed to international law between the two wars. The international law expertise and competencies of Mykolas Romeris played a vital part in this process.
This only goes to show that relatively small legal systems push their legal professionals to become experts in both dimensions of public law – the national constitutional and administrative law, and also international public law.
Mykolas Romeris applied his constitutional law and international public law talents with the most grace in one of his last great projects, in which he scrutinised the occupation of Lithuania to prove the illegitimacy of the Soviet Union’s acts.
He presented all relevant legal considerations - important findings that were later put to good use by the next generation of lawyers to justify the restoration of Lithuania’s national independence based on the state continuity doctrine.
Mykolas Romeris can be considered a founder of this tradition where Baltic lawyers are equally well-versed and competent on constitutional law and international public law.
I consider myself part of this tradition. A tradition now continuing in two major experts and former presidents of constitutional courts, Professor Ineta Ziemele and Professor Dainius Žalimas.
VIII
Yesterday Latvia celebrated its Independence Restoration Day. We renewed our independence on 4 May 1990 when the Declaration ‘On Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia’ was adopted.
Our people marched on the path to independence together by forming the Baltic way from Tallinn to Vilnius on 23 August 1989. This human chain has become a symbol of renewed freedom in Europe, alongside the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Pan-European Picnic.
In January 1991, Riga and Vilnius stood together to defend our renewed independence. Our people demonstrated our national aspirations, our desire to break free and live as sovereign democratic states governed by rule of law and European values.
But we should not think that this was the end to it.
Russian aggression against Ukraine, the on-going genocide, crimes against humanity and other war crimes are a stark reminder of the need to be ready to defend and fight for our state and freedom at all times. It is best done together, side-by-side.
It is the duty and moral obligation of the Baltic states to preserve the rules-based international order, restore justice and prevent the use of brutal force against the rule of law.
Tomorrow Vilnius will host an international conference on Russia’s liability and possible prosecution for the invasion of Ukraine. We can only commend our Lithuanian colleagues for this step. Russian aggression against Ukraine is also being investigated by the International Criminal Court and the UN International Court of Justice.
I agree with others who call for a special international tribunal to investigate the Russian aggression against Ukraine because the two courts that I have mentioned do not have the jurisdiction over this aggression. We must also do what is necessary to not only freeze the assets owned by Russian officials and oligarchs but also seize them. Seized assets can then be used to rebuild Ukraine.
As a lawyer and a politician, I am certain that justice and rule of law will always prevail over brute force.
Thank you!