(such draft laws are submitted to by the President). In practice, however, citizens' legislative initiatives are related to politicians' rather than citizens' initiatives. Citizens' legislative initiative most often used to be employed not so much for the sake of promoting the idea of lawmaking but for making use of citizens' signatures for exerting political pressure on the Seimas ruling majority by opposition powers and communicating a certain message to the electorate. Out of seven initiatives, one brought some results. Exercising the right of petition at the Seimas is in fact an indirect legislative initiative. It diminishes the significance of the Constitutional right of 50.000 citizens' initiative. This right does not make any practical influence: so far only two laws have been passed on the basis of the problems addressed in petitions.
(such draft laws are submitted to by the President). In practice, however, citizens' legislative initiatives are related to politicians' rather than citizens' initiatives. Citizens' legislative initiative most often used to be employed not so much for the sake of promoting the idea of lawmaking but for making use of citizens' signatures for exerting political pressure on the Seimas ruling majority by opposition powers and communicating a certain message to the electorate. Out of seven initiatives, one brought some results. Exercising the right of petition at the Seimas is in fact an indirect legislative initiative. It diminishes the significance of the Constitutional right of 50.000 citizens' initiative. This right does not make any practical influence: so far only two laws have been passed on the basis of the problems addressed in petitions.
(such draft laws are submitted to by the President). In practice, however, citizens' legislative initiatives are related to politicians' rather than citizens' initiatives. Citizens' legislative initiative most often used to be employed not so much for the sake of promoting the idea of lawmaking but for making use of citizens' signatures for exerting political pressure on the Seimas ruling majority by opposition powers and communicating a certain message to the electorate. Out of seven initiatives, one brought some results. Exercising the right of petition at the Seimas is in fact an indirect legislative initiative. It diminishes the significance of the Constitutional right of 50.000 citizens' initiative. This right does not make any practical influence: so far only two laws have been passed on the basis of the problems addressed in petitions.
(such draft laws are submitted to by the President). In practice, however, citizens' legislative initiatives are related to politicians' rather than citizens' initiatives. Citizens' legislative initiative most often used to be employed not so much for the sake of promoting the idea of lawmaking but for making use of citizens' signatures for exerting political pressure on the Seimas ruling majority by opposition powers and communicating a certain message to the electorate. Out of seven initiatives, one brought some results. Exercising the right of petition at the Seimas is in fact an indirect legislative initiative. It diminishes the significance of the Constitutional right of 50.000 citizens' initiative. This right does not make any practical influence: so far only two laws have been passed on the basis of the problems addressed in petitions.
Over the last few decades, political philosophers have been formulating the identity of their discipline not merely in terms of their inner objective. An aggressive attack of political scientists contributed significantly towards the perception of the identity of political philosophy. The definition of the purpose of political philosophy became dependent on the existence of a strong external opponent. This was hardly the case with the political philosophers representing the former generations. They contributed towards development of political philosophy without thinking about guard against representatives of other sciences. During the last few decades, political philosophers have come up with the definition of the purpose of their discipline. But they do not adhere to it in their real philosophical investigations. This non-adherence is caused not by the lack of professional ethics, will power or by dissimulation. Political philosophy as a discipline is too broad and controversial to be enclosed in the framework of a single definition of purpose. The definition of the purpose formulated during several decades of debates with political scientists, is oriented towards the external rather than internal use.
Over the last few decades, political philosophers have been formulating the identity of their discipline not merely in terms of their inner objective. An aggressive attack of political scientists contributed significantly towards the perception of the identity of political philosophy. The definition of the purpose of political philosophy became dependent on the existence of a strong external opponent. This was hardly the case with the political philosophers representing the former generations. They contributed towards development of political philosophy without thinking about guard against representatives of other sciences. During the last few decades, political philosophers have come up with the definition of the purpose of their discipline. But they do not adhere to it in their real philosophical investigations. This non-adherence is caused not by the lack of professional ethics, will power or by dissimulation. Political philosophy as a discipline is too broad and controversial to be enclosed in the framework of a single definition of purpose. The definition of the purpose formulated during several decades of debates with political scientists, is oriented towards the external rather than internal use.
Over the last few decades, political philosophers have been formulating the identity of their discipline not merely in terms of their inner objective. An aggressive attack of political scientists contributed significantly towards the perception of the identity of political philosophy. The definition of the purpose of political philosophy became dependent on the existence of a strong external opponent. This was hardly the case with the political philosophers representing the former generations. They contributed towards development of political philosophy without thinking about guard against representatives of other sciences. During the last few decades, political philosophers have come up with the definition of the purpose of their discipline. But they do not adhere to it in their real philosophical investigations. This non-adherence is caused not by the lack of professional ethics, will power or by dissimulation. Political philosophy as a discipline is too broad and controversial to be enclosed in the framework of a single definition of purpose. The definition of the purpose formulated during several decades of debates with political scientists, is oriented towards the external rather than internal use.
Over the last few decades, political philosophers have been formulating the identity of their discipline not merely in terms of their inner objective. An aggressive attack of political scientists contributed significantly towards the perception of the identity of political philosophy. The definition of the purpose of political philosophy became dependent on the existence of a strong external opponent. This was hardly the case with the political philosophers representing the former generations. They contributed towards development of political philosophy without thinking about guard against representatives of other sciences. During the last few decades, political philosophers have come up with the definition of the purpose of their discipline. But they do not adhere to it in their real philosophical investigations. This non-adherence is caused not by the lack of professional ethics, will power or by dissimulation. Political philosophy as a discipline is too broad and controversial to be enclosed in the framework of a single definition of purpose. The definition of the purpose formulated during several decades of debates with political scientists, is oriented towards the external rather than internal use.
The article presents the author's definition of the political field in comparison with a few already existing. The author proposes an original definition of the political field as a relative political frontier, where we can follow the constant coming into collision of different groups of interests among political subjects struggling for political power as their main aim. The author describes a multi-ply conception of the political subject, involved in three- dimensional political field structure. The article offers theoretical analysis of possible distinguishing features in the process of construction of the political field in transforming societies, presents different techniques for calculating the ratings and the main indicators that are typical for studying the principal political field aspects. = В статье открывается авторское определение политического поля в сравнении с уже существующими немногочисленными дефинициями. Акцентируется внимание на том, что политическое поле, как таковое, представляет собой условные границы политического пространства государства, в рамках которого проходит постоянное столкновение и противостояние различных интересов политических субъектов, основной целью которых является борьба за власть. Раскрывается многослойное понятие субъекта, вовлеченного в трехмерную структуру поля. Предлагается теоретический анализ возможных особенностей формирования политического поля трансформирующихся государств, анализируются различные методики рейтинговых замеров и приводятся примеры основных показателей, характерных для изучения ключевых аспектов поля политики.
Regardless of the popular wisdom to make predictions in negotiations as if they always reflect the right according to the Bible -- that "to every one who has will more be given" -- this article starts with observation that weaker parties can & do sometimes successfully negotiate with stronger parties. Naturally this provokes questions: "Why can weak parties successfully negotiate with the stronger parties in asymmetric negotiations? How to explain this structural paradox?". The article argues that these questions would be old & answered if not for the long lasting tendency in the international relations discipline to analyze international negotiations from the point of view of the traditional power understanding, as well as systemic international relations theories. On another hand, difficulties objectively arise due to the fact that analysis of the structural paradox is connected to the problem of power -- one of the most complex & difficult to define categories of the social science. And although much has been done recently in the social science to improve our understanding of the concept of power, it is still unclear what is the best way to conceptualize it. Detaching the notion of power from resources, in this article power is associated to the structure of negotiation, comprising of number of parties, interests, resisting points & possible zone of agreements, thus leaving the concept of power open to much more detail & accurate analysis. Having said that the structural analysis does not renounce the importance of resources all in all since every negotiation begins with a certain distribution of actor characteristics that are given. However, important are only the issue related characteristics. Moreover, as the structural model of analysis demonstrates, power is not a constant. The structural characteristics can be "photographed" at the beginning but may change during the process. In addition, the structure may be manipulated that in turn indicates that power is also a matter of perception. Perception mediates objective negotiating structure, although reality imposes certain limits on the implication of perceptions. The structural model of analysis permits to make the following propositions about power. The lower value that a party to a negotiation assigns to its resistance point, the less power it will have, because: The more it will perceive a negotiated agreement primary in terms of the gains it offers over the non-agreement alternative as well as other factors that shape the resistance point; The more risk averse it will be to achieve those gains; The more willing it will be to make concessions. Conversely, the higher value that a party to a negotiation assigns to its resistance point, the more power it will have, because: The more it will perceive a negotiated agreement primary in terms of the loss it entails as compared to the non-agreement alternative and other factors that shape the resistance point; The more risk seeking it will be to avoid those losses; The more it will be to withhold concessions. Adapted from the source document.
