The book review is dedicated to a work that tackles one of the trendiest concepts of recent times. The book concentrates on the conceptualization of the notion of hybrid war and its perception on both sides of the Atlantic. The declared goal of the book was to investigate how political forces have shaped conceptual thinking between the West and Russia and explain the reasons for mutual criminations. Combining quantitative and qualitative methods the author examined large amounts of literature and took an exploratory approach to dig into categorical data from both American and Russian thinkers' works then compared the conceptual usage of them.
Due to the scale, dynamics and structure of the influx of war refugees from Ukraine to Poland in the first weeks of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Polish state and society faced tasks beyond the world's previous experience in granting protection to foreigners. Nevertheless, an inclusive model of migrant's protection was quickly developed, combining formal and informal means of assistance from multiple state and non-state institutions and citizens into an effective way of dealing with the migrant's crisis. The following article contains an analysis of the formation process of the Ukraine war migrant's protection model in Poand and its characteristic features, as well as the political, social and cultural context of its implementation in the public and non-public aid system. The results showcase the particular value of citizen involvement in the process for the efficiency of the public assistance system. Additionally, potential opportunities to use the Polish experience in other countries offering protection to migrants are estimated, alongside a summary of strong and weak points of the Polish migrants reception system.
The article presents methodological theories, application of which, when adopting the political and legal research perspective, makes it possible to analyse the impact of comitology on the shape of law adopted in the European Union. The author assumes that in consideration of equally complex decision-making centers as comitology committees, whose structural element is their location between two levels – the Community and the national level, it is impossible to limit to only one research method. The purpose of the article is an attempt to demonstrate that the most reasonable approach to comitology research is to use institutional and legal analysis, which is based on theoretical assumptions combining political and legal sciences and to supplement it to explain phenomena occurring within the comitology committees by applying the assumptions of the theory PAT (Principal–Agent Theory), the Scharpf's theory of legitimacy of power, Wessels's fusion theory and analysis of empirical data. This approach is designed to enable the examination of normative acts, in which legal basis of functioning of the comitology institutions (i.e. the EU founding treaties, comitology regulations and judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union), as well as to highlight a number of issues relevant to the practical aspect of the functioning of comitology committees.
The Treaty of Trianon (hereinafter Trianon), the enormous losses of territory and co-ethnics, and the shaking of Hungary's status as a dominant power in the Carpathian Basin imputed a tragic understanding of contemporary Hungarian history on the Hungarian society, invoking the idea of a trauma lasting even today. Trianon's understanding became a divisive issue for political parties after 1989, highlighting the ever-deeper divisions between right and left-liberals, since 2010. Its "overcoming" is a flagship project of the government's politics of identity, with modest success so far. Thus, the 100th anniversary was a crucial moment as a test case for a self-professed nationalist, traditionalist, conservative political force for manifesting a comprehensive politics of memory. In the light of the newly built monument at the heart of Budapest, with the Hungarian names of all localities on the territory of pre-1918 Hungary inscribed on its wall, a cautious shifting back to territorial revisionism was expected. In this article, I will argue that even with such tendencies being, obviously, present, the official commemorations were crafted with a surprising message, that attempts to turn the canonical understanding of Trianon upside down and reframe it into a common catastrophe of Central Europe. Doing so places the consequences in the context of the decolonization of history, the present decline of empires, and the emergence of nation-states while combining it with important tropes of the traditional, anti-liberal and revisionist Trianon discourse. Nevertheless, the result is a transparently political message that is not only driven by easily visible actual political goals (V4 and Central European), but one that detaches the politics of memory from historical references and legacies and creates a set of shallow symbols for utter instrumentalization, to recombine at will, in a vulgarised sense of post-modernism.
