Search results

Les universitats europees tenen la responsabilitat i estan compromeses en la construcció de l'Europa i la Societat del Coneixement. La creació de l'espai europeu d'educació superior (EEES) suposa tenir en compte les iniciatives dels governs i implica desenvolupar processos de reorganització i transformació de la intervenció socioeducativa. L'experiència interuniversitària és la primera d'un procés d'innovació docent que hom pretén implementar en successius cursos . El principal objectiu era motivat per l'oportunitat d'experimentar una aplicació de social networking, adquirint competències de l'educador social en la construcció del coneixement a través de la discussió en xarxa, utilitzant estratègies socioconstructivistes. ; Las universidades europeas tienen la responsabilidad y están comprometidas en laconstrucción de la Europa y la Sociedad del Conocimiento. La creación del espacio europeo de educación superior (EEES) supone tener en cuenta las iniciativas de los gobiernos e implica desarrollar procesos de reorganización y transformación de la intervención socioeducativa. La experiencia inter-universitaria es la primera de un proceso de innovación docente que se pretende implementar en sucesivos cursos. El principal objetivo estaba motivado por la oportunidad de experimentar una aplicación de social networking, adquiriendo competencias del educador social en la construcción del conocimiento a través de la discusión en red, utilizando estrategias socioconstructivistas. ; European universities are responsible for, and committed to, making Europe a knowledge-based society. The creation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) involves taking into account initiatives from the government, and developing procedures for reorganising and transforming social-education methods. The inter-university experience is the first in an innovative teaching process that is to be implemented in succeeding academic years. The main aim is based on the opportunity to try out a social networking application by acquiring the skills of a social educator in building knowledge through on-line discussions, using social constructivism strategies.

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