Search results

The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The author suggests to replace the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society". It is demonstrated that A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. The author also criticise H. Bull's concept of international society because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. Paper includes a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII-XV centuries. It focuses on the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. Adapted from the source document.

The article puts forward an answer to the following question: why is Iran, thirty years after the 1979 revolution, still at the center of world politics, & why is it, on top of that, a legitimate candidate for the status of one of global powers in the new, multi-polar international order. The author stresses that Iran has been the main obstacle to global ambitions of liberal democracy since 1989, & that it has developed a specific ideological & political system based on the idea of theocratic-republican dualism. Furthermore, after the end of the Cold War, it was convenient to the West to have Iran as the Antagonistic Other (and vice versa). The relative American failure in the war against Iraq (2003-) opened up for Iran the options of connecting on a wider basis with Russia, China, Venezuela & the countries of "Old Europe" (Germany & France). Since the relatively prosperous neighboring countries -- China & the four Asian tigers -- are also founded on dualistic principles, Iran did not have to be liberalized in the way that Eastern Europe was liberalized after the Cold War. As the author concludes, the election of Barack Obama for American president presents a new opportunity to normalize relations between Iran & the West, but the opportunity will be seized only if the USA is willing to accept the multi-polarity of international relations & to renounce the doctrine of liberal interventionism. Regardless of the outcome, however, there is still a very real danger of a conflict between Israel & Iran. Adapted from the source document.

Foreign policy & diplomatic skills played a key role in the survival & development of the Dubrovnik Republic for more than four & a half centuries. Throughout the period, the Dubrovnik Republic had foreign-policy sovereignty, which was manifest in the fact that it autonomously decided upon its relations with other states (including recognition of other states), signed international contracts, & established & maintained diplomatic & consular relations. Through timely awareness of the advantages of their geopolitical position & through their orientation towards the sea, the people of Dubrovnik entered into numerous international political & trade relations, both with countries in their continental background & with countries throughout, & beyond, the Mediterranean. They were able to assess & utilize such geopolitical & other relevant characteristics wisely & skillfully in the defense of their independence, sovereignty & economic growth, resorting almost exclusively to diplomatic means & diplomatic skill. The Dubrovnik foreign policy was based on the principle of remaining neutral in international conflicts & of stressing its position of the last Christian enclave in south-eastern Europe. As a small country with no military force, Dubrovnik managed to survive by seeking protection of powerful states, such as the Ugric-Croatian Kingdom, the Pope, the Spanish King and, finally, Turkey. In spite of the fact that first the Ugric-Croatian Kingdom, & then Turkey, provided it with "supreme protection," the Dubrovnik Republic succeeded in establishing & preserving for centuries all relevant components of state sovereignty. Adapted from the source document.

In the article, while analyzing Lithuanian foreign policy, specific attention is paid to the link between the national identity & foreign policy. This link could be the key in analyzing the question, if in truth Lithuanian foreign policy has reached a particular point, which could be named as international isolation or at least a tendency towards it, & if yes, -- then why The article proposes the following answers to these questions -- to abandon the complex of bandwagoning & to acquire more self-reliance as democratic national state. Corrections of domestic politics & democratic legalization of political trends in Lithuania is necessary. Herewith, it is noticed that it would be a big mistake to go to the extremes, eventually even trying to reconsider the feasibility of EU & NATO membership. Euro-Atlantic institutions remain the major guarantee of stability in Europe, including Lithuania. Adapted from the source document.

The article deals with the fundamentals of Lithuanian foreign policy. It is an attempt to evaluate its understructure, principles, advantages & shortcomings. The article proceeds to exploring a rather strenuous question: are the tensions between Lithuanian & Russia caused solely by the Russian misbehavior as Lithuanian politicians mostly claim or is the Lithuanian foreign policy also to blame. The crucial idea of the "new Lithuanian foreign policy," that of the center or leader of an unnamed & undefined region, presumably of the Eastern Europe or at least a part of it, is put under scrutiny. The author claims that (1) for a small country such a role is utterly unrealistic, (2) attempts to play that role have nothing to do with national interests the foreign policy has serve, (3) playing the chosen role complicates relations both with other EU countries & with Russia. The article ends with the conclusion that the foundation of the Lithuanian foreign policy must be its Western, not Eastern policy. Adapted from the source document.