Search results

The project of world trade liberalization undertaken by the WTO is subject to heavy criticism from many different international actors. This paper suggests a way to analyze a problem of many widely differing subjects opposing a complex, ambitious & far-reaching project. First the conflict over the trade liberalization project is introduced, the most relevant subjects of international politics identified & selected subjects' most relevant interests & goals are discussed. The analysis then focuses on the common belief that the main divide over the trade liberalization project lies between WTO officials, developed countries, their pressure groups & multinational corporations on one side, & nongovernmental organizations & developing countries' representatives on the other. This hypothesis is tested according to definitions of stakeholders' interests, & a subsequent prediction of likely coalitions on each key issue. Finally, an alternative division is suggested. Adapted from the source document.

The main goal of the article is to analyze the basic problems regarding the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) negotiations between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. The negotiations so far have been controversial, and discussions about them have been inconclusive. In the first section of the article, the negotiations are set within the context of global politics and are especially examined in the context of new regionalism/inter-regionalism and international trade relations to clarify the motives behind the EPAs. Then the negotiation parties are introduced and a brief overview of the ACP economies follows, since they all have a considerable impact on the EPA discussions. Next, an analysis of possible positive and negative impacts of the EPAs on the development of ACP countries follows. Adapted from the source document.

Neoliberal institutionalism, developed by Robert Keohane, & liberal theory of international relations elaborated by Andrew Moravcsik, nowadays represent two grand International Relations (IR) theories drawing on liberalism as one of the main theoretical approaches in this discipline. However, Keohane conceived of neoliberal institutionalism as a synthesis of realism & liberalism & Moravcsik proceeds from a specific understanding of liberalism & defines liberalism by the criteria of empirical social science. This essay examines, therefore, whether neoliberal institutionalism & liberal theory indeed involve & assemble together the main ideas of liberalism. The perspective applied in the essay is based on the intellectual history of liberalism and, in this way, regards the assumptions about the most fundamental actor in international relations & about the evolution of international relations as the intellectual core of liberalism. According to liberalism, individuals & collective social actors constituted by individuals (social & bureaucratic groups) are the most fundamental actors in international relations & international relations undergo transformation, in the course of which cooperation gradually prevails over conflict. Neoliberal institutionalism considers the state to be the most fundamental actor in international relations & assumes that the nature of international relations transforms & they acquire a more cooperative character. Liberal theory claims that individuals & social groups are the most fundamental actors & that international relations undergo transformation that is marked by the growth of cooperation. Consequently, whereas neoliberal institutionalism involves the intellectual core of liberalism only to some extent, liberal theory implies that there is a grand theory that subsumes the main ideas of liberalism. Adapted from the source document.

Obálka -- Obsah -- Úvodem -- I. Hrozby a výzvy pro zajišťování bezpečnosti -- 1. Globalizace nejistoty (Jarmil Valášek, František Paulus) -- 2. Limity, dilemata a výzvy evropské bezpečnosti a obrany v čase nejistoty (Miloš Balabán) -- 3. Vnitřní bezpečnost v globalizovaném světě (Oldřich Krulík, Martin Linhart) -- II. Strategie, koncepce a regulace bezpečnostní politiky -- 4. Zákonodárná a výkonná moc: legitimita a legislativa bezpečnostního systému (František Vavera) -- 5. Bezpečnostní systém: optimalizace, nebo nová koncepce? (Antonín Rašek, Vladimír Krulík) -- 6. Schopnost prosazení bezpečnostní politiky: bez plánování není řízení? (Bohuslav Pernica) -- 7. Řízení bezpečnostní a obranné politiky: vítězství byrokracie? (Jan Ludvík) -- 8. Silová ministerstva: konkurence, nebo spolupráce? (Bohuslav Pernica) -- III. Zdrojové limity bezpečnostní politiky -- 9. Lidské zdroje: výzva demografického stárnutí (Martina Šimková) -- 10. Profesionálové: kvantita, kvalita a příprava (Bohuslav Pernica, Jaromír Zůna) -- 11. Profesionalizace ozbrojených sil České republiky: úspěch, nebo neúspěch? (Vladimír Karaffa) -- 12. Financování obrany a bezpečnosti: konec české cesty? (Bohuslav Pernica) -- 13. Občané v bezpečnostním systému: dobrovolnictví a občanská participace v prostoru mezi státem a trhem (Libor Stejskal) -- Závěr -- Summary -- Literatura -- Autorský kolektiv

The aim of this article is to analyse the efforts made by the OSCE to contribute to the political settlement of the Transdniestran conflict. As the OSCE is one of the mediators in this conflict, the article begins by considering theories of international mediation and explains the factors that influence the success or failure of mediation efforts. Following this theoretical part, the article continues with an analysis of these factors with respect to the conflict in Transdniestria. It deals with the nature of the Transdniestrian conflict and its causes, describes the parties involved, explains the historical background of the conflict, and analyses its international context, i.e. the role of third parties. The following chapter focuses on the nature of the mediator (i.e. the OSCE) and its mediation activities, and attempts to explain the OSCE's mediation efforts. The article concludes that the absence of a political settlement to the conflict results from a combination of factors that are both embedded in the nature of the conflict and in the nature of the mediator. Adapted from the source document.

The enforcement of obligations in international relations is not governed by a supranational authority; sanctions (economic, diplomatic, communication) represent one of the possible ways in which a state may put through its rights and interests. The group of economic sanctions is very wide, and it covers measures affecting trade or financial flows (e. g. boycotts, embargoes, prohibitions on investment, payments and capital movements, withdrawal of tariff preference). The text concerns multilateral sanctions regimes applied by the United Nations and the European Union. The paper describes procedures leading to the authorization of sanctions and the circumstances under which the restrictive measures are usually applied. In both cases, the main development and widest use of sanctions occurred in the 1990s. Current economic measures are set with regard to the basic needs of common people, and they should only target the responsible elites (smart sanctions). Adapted from the source document.