Abstract
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are three countries that encompass diverse and creative constitutional solutions when it comes to the system of separation of powers and the constitutional engineering of the role of the president of the republic. Sharing the same Soviet history, these sovereign states continue to maintain high level of cooperation, but also develop their constitutional systems in different directions. While Lithuania adopted one form of the semi-presidential system, Estonia and Latvia on the other hand opted for parliamentary ones. Differences are especially prominent when it comes to particular presidential powers, e.g. presidential veto power, where constitutional solutions of these countries manifest attributes that are not only significantly different from one another, but also unique in a general comparative perspective and from the theoretical standpoint. Some of these powers also enable (or have the potential to do so) the presidents of Estonia, and especially Latvia to achieve much more prominent role in comparison to the one that is to be expected from the president in a parliamentary system. In this paper the author analyses key elements regarding presidential power in all three of the Baltic States, their constitutional foundation and framework, as well as real manifestation in political life, especially highlighting the sui generis constitutional solutions that the Baltic States exhibit in this matter.
Highlights
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are three countries that encompass diverse and creative constitutional solutions when it comes to the system of separation of powers and the constitutional engineering of the role of the president of the republic
The Constitution of Latvia stipulates that the President shall represent the State in international relations, appoint the diplomatic representatives of Latvia, receive diplomatic representatives of other states and implement the decisions of the Saeima concerning the ratification of international agreements (Art. 41)
As already mentioned within the introductory remarks, the Lithuanian system belongs to semi-presidential ones, but the presidential powers are relatively weak and comparable to those of Estonian and Latvian heads of state
Summary
The role of the president was one of the topics that caused most discussion and debate in the 1991–1992 Estonian Constitutional Assembly and in the Lithuanian legislature’s debates on the new constitution. The powers given by the Constitution to Estonian president may seem substantial, maybe even excessive concerning the fact that he/she is not being elected directly, but by the parliament (Riigikogu), or by the special electoral body that is being convened to elect the president if Riigikogu fails to do so (Art. 79). Most of these powers have significant limitations. Estonian constitutional system, including the role and position of the president remains stable and presents a solid example of good transitioning of a state from the former Eastern bloc
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
