Search results

The beginning of XXI century was marked by few events that had influence on international relations in the whole world. Terror attacks in the United States of America in September 11, 2001, were the first such high a big range attacks against the USA. It had shown that the USA – the most powerful state of the world – is vulnerable to more danger, than nuclear weapons alone. After September 11 the USA started war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and many states supported it. However, in spring 2003 the USA unilaterally, without international support, decided to use military power in Iraq, arguing that Iraq possessed potential threat – weapons of mass destruction. Unilateralism, and military and technological differences between the USA and its allies have brought to light a presumption that in the international system there is a single pole, a superpower (hyperpower), the United States of America. The existence of one pole only can have different consequences on international system and international security. The aim of this article was to determine specific features of the unipolar world, influence of polarity of international system upon international security, and specific threats to security that emerge only in unipolar international systems. Another aim was to try to predict the end of the unipolar system: what could be the next poles and when could it come to the end. After analysing a number of articles concerning this topic, few conclusions were drawn. Contemporary international system is unipolar and the single pole is the USA; the USA is superior in military, economic, geopolitical, and political spheres at the same time. Increasing military power and unilateralism of the USA may be treated as a threat to international security. Great powers are trying to balance unipolar power, however, the creation of balance to unipolar power is complicated for several reasons.[.].

The beginning of XXI century was marked by few events that had influence on international relations in the whole world. Terror attacks in the United States of America in September 11, 2001, were the first such high a big range attacks against the USA. It had shown that the USA – the most powerful state of the world – is vulnerable to more danger, than nuclear weapons alone. After September 11 the USA started war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and many states supported it. However, in spring 2003 the USA unilaterally, without international support, decided to use military power in Iraq, arguing that Iraq possessed potential threat – weapons of mass destruction. Unilateralism, and military and technological differences between the USA and its allies have brought to light a presumption that in the international system there is a single pole, a superpower (hyperpower), the United States of America. The existence of one pole only can have different consequences on international system and international security. The aim of this article was to determine specific features of the unipolar world, influence of polarity of international system upon international security, and specific threats to security that emerge only in unipolar international systems. Another aim was to try to predict the end of the unipolar system: what could be the next poles and when could it come to the end. After analysing a number of articles concerning this topic, few conclusions were drawn. Contemporary international system is unipolar and the single pole is the USA; the USA is superior in military, economic, geopolitical, and political spheres at the same time. Increasing military power and unilateralism of the USA may be treated as a threat to international security. Great powers are trying to balance unipolar power, however, the creation of balance to unipolar power is complicated for several reasons.[.].

The beginning of XXI century was marked by few events that had influence on international relations in the whole world. Terror attacks in the United States of America in September 11, 2001, were the first such high a big range attacks against the USA. It had shown that the USA – the most powerful state of the world – is vulnerable to more danger, than nuclear weapons alone. After September 11 the USA started war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and many states supported it. However, in spring 2003 the USA unilaterally, without international support, decided to use military power in Iraq, arguing that Iraq possessed potential threat – weapons of mass destruction. Unilateralism, and military and technological differences between the USA and its allies have brought to light a presumption that in the international system there is a single pole, a superpower (hyperpower), the United States of America. The existence of one pole only can have different consequences on international system and international security. The aim of this article was to determine specific features of the unipolar world, influence of polarity of international system upon international security, and specific threats to security that emerge only in unipolar international systems. Another aim was to try to predict the end of the unipolar system: what could be the next poles and when could it come to the end. After analysing a number of articles concerning this topic, few conclusions were drawn. Contemporary international system is unipolar and the single pole is the USA; the USA is superior in military, economic, geopolitical, and political spheres at the same time. Increasing military power and unilateralism of the USA may be treated as a threat to international security. Great powers are trying to balance unipolar power, however, the creation of balance to unipolar power is complicated for several reasons.[.].

The end of the Cold War showed the geostrategical transformation of the world. We could see how relations between great powers became more ethical. The main subject of the analysis is the ethical problems in realization of foreign policy. Nowadays ethical problems became more important when we see so many crises, wars, & attacks of terrorists in different places of all over the world. Especially after September 11,' 2001, international terrorism became the most threatening problem for all states. Thus, states of different geostrategy have to collaborate to reach international security. The article aims to discuss how to administrate international relations due to reach the consensus in more ethical-moral way between states with different geostrategy. The work consists of five parts, in which are discussed various aspects of ethical problems in realization of foreign policy. The analysis of different geostrategical models lets to envisage possibilities of the formation of more common global geostrategical model in the 21st century. Bargains between the greatest powers (G8) attest to the ethical reality of global policy. All states understand that security is a very important condition of reform & progress, which could be reached through the common efforts of all states. Adapted from the source document.

Security studies have survived a lot of transformations. Like any other social theory, security studies have gone through a number of consecutive development stages: the dominance of traditional theories (realism/neorealism), the rise of critical & discourse approaches as well as the attempts to modify the traditional theories & methodological frameworks & to search for the synthetic or universal theoretic models. Author reviews how the security studies developed in the last few decades. Further attention is devoted to the attempts of Barry Buzan to provide for a compromised frameworks for security analysis in his works People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era (1991), & Security: A New Framework for Analysis (1998). The first work was an attempt to sum up the most valuable inputs for a widening security agenda; it includes the new aspects of security (economic, political, social & ecological), acknowledging that a state can be one of the many other subjects in the security studies. The greatest value of this work is a model of sectorization of security studies -- analytical proposition to classify threats by sectors. The second framework for analysis seeks to preserve the use of the security sectors' concept. However B. Buzan, 0. Waever & J. de Wilde propose to include a discursive theory of securitization into the framework. Authors suggest that security is not an objective condition -- it is about presenting issues as existential threats that require emergency measures. Some critiques (eg. J. Eriksson) argue, theories of securitization & sectonzation are incompatible in methodological meaning. The author of this article gives some suggestions that a model of sectorization of security studies should be supplemented by a new sector -- the communication sector. This expansion of the model could help fill some gaps left in the B. Buzan model -- i.e. the way threats emerge, the reason why one threat is considered differently from the other one as well as why they enjoy a specific influence on the other security sectors. 3 Schemas. Adapted from the source document.

This is the summary of results from a full-scale research project, which has been carried out by the Strategic Research Center during the year 2003. The main objective of this project was to provide the general public with a deep analysis of the different aspects of Belarus realities and policies in the context of Baltic regional and European security. The research project was implemented by an international research team. Analysis of the Belarus political system was done by Virgilijus Pugačiauskas (Lithuania). The security sector of the Republic of Belarus was covered by Vyachalau Paznyak (Belarus). Analysis of the economic situation was done by Valery Dashkevich (Belarus). Ecological threats originating from Belarus were precisely explored by Eleonora Gvozdeva (Belarus). Sander Huis-man (the Netherlands) analysed Belarus realities in the context of the EU's new security and neighbourhood policies. And finally, the general assessment of Belarus as a regional security factor was completed by Gediminas Vitkus (Lithuania). The project came to an end at the beginning of 2004 with the follow-up publication in Lithuanian. In order to make the results of this project more known to the wider public, we are reprinting the comprehensive English summary of that publication.

This is the summary of results from a full-scale research project, which has been carried out by the Strategic Research Center during the year 2003. The main objective of this project was to provide the general public with a deep analysis of the different aspects of Belarus realities and policies in the context of Baltic regional and European security. The research project was implemented by an international research team. Analysis of the Belarus political system was done by Virgilijus Pugačiauskas (Lithuania). The security sector of the Republic of Belarus was covered by Vyachalau Paznyak (Belarus). Analysis of the economic situation was done by Valery Dashkevich (Belarus). Ecological threats originating from Belarus were precisely explored by Eleonora Gvozdeva (Belarus). Sander Huis-man (the Netherlands) analysed Belarus realities in the context of the EU's new security and neighbourhood policies. And finally, the general assessment of Belarus as a regional security factor was completed by Gediminas Vitkus (Lithuania). The project came to an end at the beginning of 2004 with the follow-up publication in Lithuanian. In order to make the results of this project more known to the wider public, we are reprinting the comprehensive English summary of that publication.

This is the summary of results from a full-scale research project, which has been carried out by the Strategic Research Center during the year 2003. The main objective of this project was to provide the general public with a deep analysis of the different aspects of Belarus realities and policies in the context of Baltic regional and European security. The research project was implemented by an international research team. Analysis of the Belarus political system was done by Virgilijus Pugačiauskas (Lithuania). The security sector of the Republic of Belarus was covered by Vyachalau Paznyak (Belarus). Analysis of the economic situation was done by Valery Dashkevich (Belarus). Ecological threats originating from Belarus were precisely explored by Eleonora Gvozdeva (Belarus). Sander Huis-man (the Netherlands) analysed Belarus realities in the context of the EU's new security and neighbourhood policies. And finally, the general assessment of Belarus as a regional security factor was completed by Gediminas Vitkus (Lithuania). The project came to an end at the beginning of 2004 with the follow-up publication in Lithuanian. In order to make the results of this project more known to the wider public, we are reprinting the comprehensive English summary of that publication.

This is the summary of results from a full-scale research project, which has been carried out by the Strategic Research Center during the year 2003. The main objective of this project was to provide the general public with a deep analysis of the different aspects of Belarus realities and policies in the context of Baltic regional and European security. The research project was implemented by an international research team. Analysis of the Belarus political system was done by Virgilijus Pugačiauskas (Lithuania). The security sector of the Republic of Belarus was covered by Vyachalau Paznyak (Belarus). Analysis of the economic situation was done by Valery Dashkevich (Belarus). Ecological threats originating from Belarus were precisely explored by Eleonora Gvozdeva (Belarus). Sander Huis-man (the Netherlands) analysed Belarus realities in the context of the EU's new security and neighbourhood policies. And finally, the general assessment of Belarus as a regional security factor was completed by Gediminas Vitkus (Lithuania). The project came to an end at the beginning of 2004 with the follow-up publication in Lithuanian. In order to make the results of this project more known to the wider public, we are reprinting the comprehensive English summary of that publication.

This is the summary of results from a full-scale research project, which has been carried out by the Strategic Research Center during the year 2003. The main objective of this project was to provide the general public with a deep analysis of the different aspects of Belarus realities and policies in the context of Baltic regional and European security. The research project was implemented by an international research team. Analysis of the Belarus political system was done by Virgilijus Pugačiauskas (Lithuania). The security sector of the Republic of Belarus was covered by Vyachalau Paznyak (Belarus). Analysis of the economic situation was done by Valery Dashkevich (Belarus). Ecological threats originating from Belarus were precisely explored by Eleonora Gvozdeva (Belarus). Sander Huis-man (the Netherlands) analysed Belarus realities in the context of the EU's new security and neighbourhood policies. And finally, the general assessment of Belarus as a regional security factor was completed by Gediminas Vitkus (Lithuania). The project came to an end at the beginning of 2004 with the follow-up publication in Lithuanian. In order to make the results of this project more known to the wider public, we are reprinting the comprehensive English summary of that publication.

This is the summary of results from a full-scale research project, which has been carried out by the Strategic Research Center during the year 2003. The main objective of this project was to provide the general public with a deep analysis of the different aspects of Belarus realities and policies in the context of Baltic regional and European security. The research project was implemented by an international research team. Analysis of the Belarus political system was done by Virgilijus Pugačiauskas (Lithuania). The security sector of the Republic of Belarus was covered by Vyachalau Paznyak (Belarus). Analysis of the economic situation was done by Valery Dashkevich (Belarus). Ecological threats originating from Belarus were precisely explored by Eleonora Gvozdeva (Belarus). Sander Huis-man (the Netherlands) analysed Belarus realities in the context of the EU's new security and neighbourhood policies. And finally, the general assessment of Belarus as a regional security factor was completed by Gediminas Vitkus (Lithuania). The project came to an end at the beginning of 2004 with the follow-up publication in Lithuanian. In order to make the results of this project more known to the wider public, we are reprinting the comprehensive English summary of that publication.

The controversial war in Iraq has revitalized the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union (EU), which has been stagnant since Maastricht Treaty and the failure in the Balkans. The development of the CFSP is accumulating acceleration: the EU will soon have not only a common market, common institutions and a single currency, but also a common constitution, minister of foreign affairs and even a common army. The leaders of the larger states are especially enthusiastic about a stronger CFSP as a counterweight to the US dominance in the international security affairs. The authors of this article contend that clearly articulated and globally projected CFSP will not be possible unless common European interests stemming from as common European identity and implemented by common supranational institutions will emerge. The impact of the CFSP on Lithuanian foreign and security policy will depend on the pace of European integration in this area and the strength of European identity within the political elite of Lithuania and the society itself. Will this impact be of a positive nature? It will depend on the way Europe will choose: creation of an independent defence structure as an alternative to NATO or development of a cohesive strategic partnership with the US and NATO. In any case, Lithuania will have to constantly seek for a subtle balance between her commitments to NATO, implications of the EU membership and the strategic partnership with the US. In this. [to full text]

The controversial war in Iraq has revitalized the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union (EU), which has been stagnant since Maastricht Treaty and the failure in the Balkans. The development of the CFSP is accumulating acceleration: the EU will soon have not only a common market, common institutions and a single currency, but also a common constitution, minister of foreign affairs and even a common army. The leaders of the larger states are especially enthusiastic about a stronger CFSP as a counterweight to the US dominance in the international security affairs. The authors of this article contend that clearly articulated and globally projected CFSP will not be possible unless common European interests stemming from as common European identity and implemented by common supranational institutions will emerge. The impact of the CFSP on Lithuanian foreign and security policy will depend on the pace of European integration in this area and the strength of European identity within the political elite of Lithuania and the society itself. Will this impact be of a positive nature? It will depend on the way Europe will choose: creation of an independent defence structure as an alternative to NATO or deve¬lopment of a cohesive strategic partnership with the US and NATO. In any case, Lithuania will have to constantly seek for a subtle balance between her commitments to NATO, implications of the EU membership and the strategic partnership with the US. In this. [to full text]