Search results

A review essay on books by (1) George Lakoff & Mark Johnson, Metafory, kterymizijeme (Brno: Host, 2002); (2) Francis A. Beer & Christ'l De Landtsheer [Eds], Metaphorical World Politics (East Lansing: Michigan State U Press, 2004); (3) Andreas Musolff, Mirror Images of Europe. Metaphors in the Public Debate about Europe in Britain and Germany (Munchen: Iudicium, 2000); (4) Rainer Hulsse, Metaphern der EU-Erweiterung als Konstruktion europaischer Identitat (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2003); & Hans Verboven, Die Metapher als Ideologie: Eine kognitiv-semantische Analyse der Kriegsmetaphorik im Fruhwerk Ernst Jungers (Heidelberg: Universitatsverlag WINTER, 2003).

A comprehensive description of just causes for entering a war within the fundamental sources of early Confucian tradition represents the core of the article. The analysis seeks to underline the significant role of the just war theory in contemporary international politics. The article also highlights the rise of the economic, political and military power of China and emphasizes that the country has the potential to play an increasingly important role in world politics over the next few decades. Thus it is necessary to examine the way China is looking at issues of war and ethics. Since there has been evidence uncovered that Confucianism has started to gain influence in Chinese society again, it seems fully acceptable to analyse just war from a Confucian perspective. The main focus of the research is put on exploring works of the founders of Confucianism, particularly the texts of Confucius and Mencius. The analysis of these works uncovers that the main ethical principles of early Confucian teaching allow for various specific reasons for entering a war. Then in the conclusion there is a list of five different types of conflicts that can be assessed as justifiable under certain conditions in Confucian thought. Adapted from the source document.

This paper discusses the critiques forming the debate on the future of the two major global financial institutions -- the IMF & the WB. The author does not claim what the IMF & the WB really are, but reviews how they are seen by their critics. The article describes & summarizes the multifaceted critical discussion & proposes an elementary scheme formed by four basic positions. These are based on two variables: (1) moderation or radicalism of the critiques; (2) their affiliation with the right or the left side of the political spectrum. As a result, four basic critical positions emerge: right reformers, right radicals, left reformers, & left radicals. This paper characterizes each of them by overviewing the opinions of two representative participants of the discussion. 1 Diagram, 125 References. Adapted from the source document.

The article tries to evaluate the Europeanization research agenda from the point of view of a politics-sphere A basic precondition for understanding the character of the political systems in East-European countries after the Second World War is to define the key concepts, especially different types of non-democratic regimes. In other words, we must know what "totalitarianism", and "authoritarianism" means, and how we should approach studying these species. According to empirical and analytical methods, we consider them both as ways of governing, as types of political systems and not something else (e.g. ideology, a way of thinking, etc.). Eastern Europe after 1944, with some exceptions, was not totalitarian and is better described as quasi-totalitarian or authoritarian. However by the term "quasi-totalitarianism" we do not mean a subtype of "post-totalitarianism" (as Juan J. Linz does), but as a separate category of non-democratic regime. Of course it is necessary to take into account the differences existing among particular countries as well as differences "inside" these countries, meaning their unique historical development. This is evident in the case study portion of this article which describes the political system of Poland 1944-1989. Adapted from the source document.

The article addresses issues related to the growing importance of non-governmental organizations & social movements in world politics. The key question that the article deals with is whether there are structures of global political activism in the making? In other words, is a "global civil society" being constituted? If yes, how does this "global civil society" relate to local actors? Are global actors partners in the building of local activism? In addition, how do the actors of the "global civil society" relate to states? Do they transcend the confines of the state? In order to answer these questions, the article first describes the evolving debate around the issue of transnational relations. During the last decade this issue has become an important research problem in at least two social scientific disciplines -the theory of international relations & the theory of collective action. Moreover, the attention paid to transnational social movements & net-works of non-governmental organizations has influenced debates in certain fields of political theory where actors described as "global civil society" came to be perceived as the manifestation of reformist hopes associated with globally organized civic activism. This activism is believed to hold the promise of future global democratization. In sum, the issue of transnational relations & transnational political action is an interdisciplinary problem. The aim of this article is to answer the specified questions above. It reflects the most important aspects of the debate on transnational political action. The ambition of the article is to critically assess both empirically oriented approaches & normatively motivated explorations of the possibilities for global democratization through political involvement of transnational movements & non-governmental organizations. The paper maintains that the concept of "global civil society" is applicable for the description of political action "beyond borders" only under the condition that it is not understood as an alternative to the institutions of the modern state & that it is not used in an ideological way. References. Adapted from the source document.