Suchergebnisse

This article looks at the relationship between European integration and national foreign and security policy -specifically, how and to what extent the development of a European (EU) foreign and security policy leads to adaptation and change in national foreign and security policy. The theoretical point of departure is an interest in national changes in response to EU norms. It will be argued that national approaches tend to adapt to norms defined by an international community or institution to which they are closely linked; that this adaptation takes place over time, through a socialization process; and that it may also, in the end, lead to changes in national identity. This argument challenges the common assumption of international relations theory that national identities and/or interests are fixed and independent of structural factors like international norms and values. The empirical focus is on changes in French foreign and security policy since the early 1990s. How and to what extent has the dominant French national discourse on foreign and security policy changed since the early 1990s? And how are these changes related to the European integration process in general, and to the development of a European foreign and security dimension in particular?

The paper is dedicated to the role of the Black Sea region in the security policy of Romania. Approaches, patterns and results of this area of the foreign policy of Romania are studied since the period after the collapse of the USSR in 1991. The concepts and strategies of the national security and the strategies of national defense of Romania, adopted since 1994 are analysed. The key patterns and results of the security policy pursued by Romania in the Black Sea region are defined. The author concludes that this direction of Romania's policy is consistently based on the strategic partnership with the United States and solidarity with the approaches of the NATO and EU in the Black Sea region. The policy leads to the imbalance in the relations with the littoral states for which euro-atlanticism has not become an ideological basis for their foreign policy (Russia and Turkey). Amidst the absence of the search for a new model of relations with the littoral states, Romania's policy leads to the growth of the potential for confliction in the Black Sea region.

2017 saw an unusually high degree of coordination between the European Union (EU) and its Member States on external energy security policy. This is puzzling not only because it defies the expectations of critics who have long highlighted the failure of Member States to adopt coherent policies on the question of external energy security, but because individual Member States have strong incentives to adopt individualistic policies that undermine collective action in this policy area. This article seeks to answer two questions: how can coherence in EU external energy security policy be explained, and what does it suggest about the conditions under which the EU will be able to 'speak with one voice' in other contested external policy areas? In order to do so, I mine the existing literature for plausible explanations and identify and evaluate three separate narratives that rely on different causal mechanisms to explain greater coherence as a consequence of: (1) the gradual centralization of EU energy policy competence; (2) exogenous shocks to EU energy supply and; (3) institutional innovation under the Juncker Commission. I argue that none are independently sufficient to explain the phenomenon observed and present a novel 'synergetic account' that argues it was the unique interaction of each of the aforementioned factors that provided the conditions necessary for coherence, before concluding with a discussion of the implications of my findings for theory and policy.

Since 1979, foreign- and security-policy-making and implementation processes have gradually and substantially changed. New modes of operation that have consolidated under Hu Jintao, actually took shape under Jiang Zemin in the 1990s, and some, under Deng Xiaoping. While the military's role has diminished, that of diplomats, experts, and bureaucracies dealing with trade, international economic relations, energy, propaganda and education has increased. Decision making in this area has remained highly centralized and concentrated in the supreme leading bodies of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). However, China's globalization and decentralization, as well as the increasing complexity of its international interests, have intensified the need to better coordinate the activities of the various CCP and state organs involved in foreign and security policy; hence, the growing importance of the CCP leading small groups (foreign affairs, national security, Taiwan, etc.). But the rigidity of the current institutional pattern has so far foiled repeated attempts to establish a National Security Council. (JCCA/GIGA)

"Designed many years ago, NATO is obsolete", said Donald Trump in January 2017. Yet in August 2017, he said the US would be very protective of the Baltic region. In the US. National Security Strategy published in December 2017, the Trump administration said it would abide by "Article 5 of the Washington Treaty". This article aims to analyze the US security policy during the Trump presidency, with a particular focus on military security and NATO's role in it, and to assess its significance for the Baltic States. What are the guiding principles of Trump's military security policy? What is NATO's role in the Trump administration's security policy? Is the administration's policy regarding NATO coherent? Has the Trump administration's military security policy changed compared to traditional US military security policy? Does the Trump administration plan to maintain its commitment to defend the Baltic States? What does Trump's military security policy mean to the Baltic States? Based on the original study, the article discusses official positions of US officials (the President, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) expressed in strategic documents and political discourse, also analyzing initiatives taken by the administration based on compiled event data sets.

"Designed many years ago, NATO is obsolete", said Donald Trump in January 2017. Yet in August 2017, he said the US would be very protective of the Baltic region. In the US. National Security Strategy published in December 2017, the Trump administration said it would abide by "Article 5 of the Washington Treaty". This article aims to analyze the US security policy during the Trump presidency, with a particular focus on military security and NATO's role in it, and to assess its significance for the Baltic States. What are the guiding principles of Trump's military security policy? What is NATO's role in the Trump administration's security policy? Is the administration's policy regarding NATO coherent? Has the Trump administration's military security policy changed compared to traditional US military security policy? Does the Trump administration plan to maintain its commitment to defend the Baltic States? What does Trump's military security policy mean to the Baltic States? Based on the original study, the article discusses official positions of US officials (the President, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) expressed in strategic documents and political discourse, also analyzing initiatives taken by the administration based on compiled event data sets.

"Designed many years ago, NATO is obsolete", said Donald Trump in January 2017. Yet in August 2017, he said the US would be very protective of the Baltic region. In the US. National Security Strategy published in December 2017, the Trump administration said it would abide by "Article 5 of the Washington Treaty". This article aims to analyze the US security policy during the Trump presidency, with a particular focus on military security and NATO's role in it, and to assess its significance for the Baltic States. What are the guiding principles of Trump's military security policy? What is NATO's role in the Trump administration's security policy? Is the administration's policy regarding NATO coherent? Has the Trump administration's military security policy changed compared to traditional US military security policy? Does the Trump administration plan to maintain its commitment to defend the Baltic States? What does Trump's military security policy mean to the Baltic States? Based on the original study, the article discusses official positions of US officials (the President, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) expressed in strategic documents and political discourse, also analyzing initiatives taken by the administration based on compiled event data sets.

"Designed many years ago, NATO is obsolete", said Donald Trump in January 2017. Yet in August 2017, he said the US would be very protective of the Baltic region. In the US. National Security Strategy published in December 2017, the Trump administration said it would abide by "Article 5 of the Washington Treaty". This article aims to analyze the US security policy during the Trump presidency, with a particular focus on military security and NATO's role in it, and to assess its significance for the Baltic States. What are the guiding principles of Trump's military security policy? What is NATO's role in the Trump administration's security policy? Is the administration's policy regarding NATO coherent? Has the Trump administration's military security policy changed compared to traditional US military security policy? Does the Trump administration plan to maintain its commitment to defend the Baltic States? What does Trump's military security policy mean to the Baltic States? Based on the original study, the article discusses official positions of US officials (the President, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) expressed in strategic documents and political discourse, also analyzing initiatives taken by the administration based on compiled event data sets.

In the discussion on the EU migration policy, it is impossible to evade the issue of the relation between this policy and the EU foreign policy, including EU common foreign and security policy. The subject of this study are selected links between migration issues and the CFSP of the European Union. The presented considerations aim to determine at what levels and in what ways the EU's migration policy is taken into account in the space of the CFSP as a diplomatic and political (and subject to specific rules and procedures) substrate of the EU's external action. ; W dyskusji na temat unijnej polityki migracyjnej nie sposob abstrahować od kwestii jej relacji względem unijnej polityki zagranicznej, w tym wspolnej polityki zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa (WPZiB). Przedmiotem niniejszego opracowania są wybrane powiązania między kwestiami migracyjnymi a wspolną polityką zagraniczną i bezpieczeństwa Unii Europejskiej. Przedstawione rozważania zmierzają do ustalenia, na jakich płaszczyznach i w jaki sposob polityka migracyjna UE uwzględniana jest w przestrzeni WPZiB jako dyplomatyczno-politycznego i poddanego szczegolnym zasadom i procedurom substratu działań zewnętrznych Unii.