Suchergebnisse

После значительного прогресса в реализации интеграционных проектов на постсоветском пространстве с созданием Евразийской экономической комиссии руководители трех государств Белоруссии, Казахстана, России предлагают идти дальше в процессе интеграции и приступить к формированию Евразийского союза. Изучение предпосылок политической интеграции в регионе подталкивает исследователей к изучению парламентского вектора международного сближения. Исходя из необходимости широкой общественной поддержки любым интеграционным проектам, в данной статье делается упор на фундаментальные принципы парламентаризма, которые представляют собой основы демократии. В качестве ключевой модели становления международного парламента в статье рассматривается Европейский парламент, которому свойственны черты как национального парламента, так и международной межпарламентской организации. Проводя сравнительный анализ подобных структур на постсоветском пространстве, межпарламентские ассамблеи Содружества Независимых Государств, Евразийского экономического сообщества, Межпарламентская Ассамблея Организации Договора о коллективной безопасности, Парламентского собрания Союза Белоруссии и России, Парламентская ассамблея ГУАМ (Ассамблея Организации за демократию и экономическое развитие) авторы приходят к выводам, что наиболее развернутыми функциями обладает Межпарламентская ассамблея Евразийского экономического сообщества. Именно там проходят согласование бюджета, разработка Основ законодательства, проведение межпарламентских слушаний, формирование судейского корпуса. Кроме того, данная структура оказалась наиболее близка к формируемым наднациональным институтам в рамках Таможенного союза и Единого экономического пространства России, Белоруссии и Казахстана. Наработанный опыт межпарламентской дипломатии и вековые традиции парламентаризма способны стать основой формирования регионального наднационального Евразийского парламента ; After significant progress on integration projects in the former Soviet Union with the creation of the Eurasian Economic Commission, the heads of the three states of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia offer to go further in the integration process and to start forming a Eurasian Union. The study of the preconditions of political integration in the region encourages researchers to study the parliamentary vector international convergence. Based on the need for broad public support for any integration project, this paper focuses on the fundamental principles of parliamentarism, which are the foundations of democracy. As a key model of the formation of the International Parliament of the article discusses the European Parliament, of the peculiar features of the structure, as the national parliament, and international inter-parliamentary organization. A comparative analysis of similar structures in the post-Interparliamentary Assembly of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Eurasian Economic Community, the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the Collective Security Treaty, the Parliamentary Assembly of Belarus and Russia, the GUAM Parliamentary Assembly (Assembly of the Organization for Democracy and Economic Development — GUAM) The authors conclude that most functions has deployed the Interparliamentary Assembly of the Eurasian Economic Community. It is in this inter-parliamentary bodies are agreed budget, developing a legal framework, conducting parliamentary hearings, the formation of the judiciary. In addition, this structure was formed closest to the supranational institutions of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Accumulated experience of the interparliamentary diplomacy and centuries-old traditions of parliamentarianism can become a basis for the formation of the Eurasian regional supranational parliament.

From the perspective of twenty-first-century America, it seems natural to assume that no other nation has ever been able seriously to threaten the continental states with its navy or military. The assumption that US geography has always deterred such pressure, however, ignores the early Victorian era. In the 1830s and 1840s, one nation could and did pose a credible threat to the United States: Great Britain. As the world's supreme naval and financial power, Britain had the means to protect and advance its interests in the face of American belligerence. Ultimately, Britain's strength deterred the United States from turning the tensions of 1838-46 into war. True, by this time Britain could never invade and reconquer its former American colonies. But it was never in its interest to go to war with the US. Anglo-American commercial relations were quite profitable, and peace kept them so. Furthermore, the British preferred a divided America, fighting over slavery and states' rights, to one united against an external enemy. Britain's goal was peace, but the methods it used to avoid war with the US in this period did not look particularly peaceful. Especially under Foreign Minister Lord Palmerston, preserving the peace did not equate with yielding in diplomatic battles. Rather, a `strong stance' warned the US away from confrontations of a more lethal kind. Interestingly, the prospect of a British invasion through Canada played only a relatively small part in this deterrence. More important was the ability of the Royal Navy, with new gunnery and steam vessels, to strike at the populous and prosperous cities of the eastern and southern coasts of the US. Britain knew the possibilities for mayhem, as did the US government and some, at least, of the American public. Besides Britain's technical advantages, its funding and political support for the navy were second to none. While the US struggled in vain to finance new ships and fortifications, the British cabinet could rest assured that if the Royal Navy required more funding, it would get it. The British government counted on the navy's strength to intimidate the Americans in controversies over the Caroline and McLeod affairs, the Maine boundary and the Oregon territory. Palmerston's personal style of `gunboat diplomacy' may have encouraged this course, but he and his colleagues did worry that the political system of the United States might lead it to start a war neither side really wanted: the fevered American press and people might push the government to some act the British could not tolerate. Britain used the Royal Navy to signal the dire consequences of such an act and forced the American government to resist popular pressure. Geography in these cases was not enough to shield the US; Britain's strong stance preserved its existing interests and maintained peace.

Book reviewed in this article: GLAD, CONFIDENT MORNING, 1860–1900: The Oxford History of Australia, Volume 3 By Beverlcy Kingston. A DIFFICULT INFANT: Sydney before Macquarie Edited by Graeme Aplin. CAMDEN: Farm and Village Life in Early New South Wales By Alan Atkinson. THAT LAND OF EXILES: Scots in Australia By Eric Richards THE RUSSIANS AND AUSTRALIA. Volume 1 of Russia and the South pacific 1696–1840 By Glynn Barratt. ACTS OF PARLIAMENT: A narrative history of the Senate and House of Representatives By Gavin Souter. PARLIAMENT AND THE PRESS: The Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery By C. J. Lloyd. THE POPULATION OF AUSTRALIA By R. V. Jackson. NEW ZEALAND PREPARES FOR WAR: Defence Policy 119–1939. By W. David McIntyre. THE ENGLIS REFORMATION REVISED Edited by Christopher Haigh. ROBERT HARLEY: Speaker, Secretary of State, and Premier Minister By Brian W. Hill. LONDON NEWSPAPERS IN THE AGE OF WALPOLE: A Study of the Origins of the Modern English Press By Michael Harris. PRESS AND POLITICS IN PREREVOLUTIONARY FRANCE Edited by Jack R. Censer and Jeremy D. Popkin. BRITAIN AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR Edited by John Turner. THE LIFE AND OPINIONS OF MAXIMILIEN ROBERSPIERRE By Norman Hampson. NICHTANGRIFFSPAKTE: ENTWICKLUNG UND OPERATIVE NUTZUNG IN EUROPA 1922–1939 By Rolf Ahmann. FASCISM AND RESISTANCE IN PORTUGAL: Communists, Liberals and military Dissidents in the Opposition to Salazar, 1941–1974 By D. L. Raby. BORDER CROSSINGS: Studies in International History By Christpher Thorne. WIND OVER SAND: The Diplomacy of Franklin Roosevelt By Frederick W. Marks III. THE EAGLE AND THE LION: The Tragedy of American‐Iranian Relations By James A. Bill. BEGIN: An Anatomy of Leadership By Sasson Sofer. BLAMING THE VICTIMS: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question Edited by Edward Said & Christopher Hitchens. BEYOND THE BARRICADES: Popular resistance in South Africa in the 1980s Edited by Iris Hill & Alex Harris. FASCISM: A Reader's Guide Edited by Walter Loquer. THE SEXUAL CONTRACT Edited By Carole Pateman. MEECH LAKE AND CANADA: Perspectives from the West by Roger Gibbins POLICIES FOR PROSPERITY: Essays in a Keynesian Mode By James Tobin. CAPITALISM AND UNFREE LABOUR: Anomaly or Necessity? By Robert Miles. FOUNDATIONS OF RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMY Howard J. Sherman RIVALRY IN BUSINESS, SCIENCE, AMONG NATIONS. By Reuven Brenner. ARTICULATED AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT: Traditional and Capitalist Agriculture in Papuna New Guinea By Mike Donaldson and Kenneth Good. THE PRIVATE PROVISION OF PUBLIC WELFARE: State, Market and Community By Elim Papadak‐is and Peter Taylor‐Gooby Brighton THE JESUIT MIND. By A. Lynn Martin. CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE STATE Edited by John Keane. PATTERNS OF MORAL COMPLEXITY By Charles E. Larmore. FIRST PRINCIPLES PREPARATORY TO CONSTITUTIONAL CODE By Jeremy Bentham. BENTHAM By John Dinwiddy A FAREWELL TO MARX: An Outline and Appraisal of his Theories By David Conway. ALTHUSSER. The Detour of Theory By Gregory Elliot.

Gleichheit ist ein zentraler Grundwert in Demokratien – und gehört zugleich zum Wesenskern des Sozialismus. Was aber zeichnet sozialistische gleichheitsorientierte Politik in der Praxis aus, und worin unterscheidet sie sich von der in liberalen Demokratien?Diese Frage wird am Beispiel Kubas untersucht. Die Umsetzung des Gleichheitsideals in konkrete Politiken, also z.B. Gleichheitsgebote, Antidiskriminierungsrecht, Sozial- und Gesundheitssysteme etc. wird systematisch untersucht und so vergleichbar gemacht. Trotz vordergründiger Gemeinsamkeiten zeigen sich dabei gravierende Unterschiede zwischen Kuba und liberalen Systemen, denen Erklärungsansätze, die auf Staatswirtschaft und Wirtschaftskrise verweisen, nur unzureichend gerecht werden.Die Studie ermöglicht dagegen eine neue Perspektive auf das kubanische System und eine präzise Beschreibung der Unterschiede zwischen liberalen Systemen und dem kubanischen Sozialismus, die auf das Spannungsverhältnis von Freiheit und Gleichheit verweisen.

"Der "Gemeinsame umfassende Aktionsplan" (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA), auf den sich die E3/EU+3 und die Islamische Republik im Juli 2015 einigten, stieß in Iran auf geteiltes Echo: Während eine Mehrzahl in der Öffentlichkeit die Vereinbarung befürwortete, hielten die Gegnerinnen und Gegner der Nuklearverhandlungen an ihrer grundsätzlichen Ablehnung fest. Mit der Übereinkunft haben sich die moderaten außenpolitischen Kräfte des Landes gegen ihre Widersacher durchgesetzt. Der neue Fokus der Regierung wird derweil nicht auf politischer, sondern auf wirtschaftlicher Liberalisierung liegen. Zugleich dürften Präsident Rohanis Kontrahenten versuchen, ihre außenpolitische Niederlage innenpolitisch wieder wettzumachen. Leidtragende könnten vor allem politische Aktivistinnen und Aktivisten, Kulturschaffende und Bildungsträger/innen sein. Deutschland sollte seine Sonderrolle in der Joint Commission dazu nutzen, ein Scheitern der Übereinkunft zu verhindern und durch Bildungs- und Kulturkooperationen die gesellschaftspolitische Sphäre Irans zu stärken." (Autorenreferat)

Journal article related to a paper previously presented in the Cinema International Conference 2003, May 2003, Londres, United Kingdom, https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00158115 ; International audience ; Cinema was a major cultural issue in France of the 1950s, even if the film industry was in crisis. The number of films increased, but the audiences had been in decline from 1947–1952 when figures reached their lowest since the Liberation. The Blum–Byrnes agreements, signed in 1946, accentuated this decline. The quotas operating at the time (four weeks per quarter for French films and eight weeks for American films) meant that French films aimed to make a profit very rapidly in the first week of screening so as to make way for others. Popular French cinema emerged from this combination of attendance/overproduction/quotas. This combination pushed French producers toward thematic and aesthetic formulas aiming at rapid product placement so as to compete with American films. To remedy this situation, the French government passed a law in 1948 whose aim was to help re-energize the ailing French film industry with the help of public funds. With the principle of equality for the producers in mind, the redistribution of funds was based pro-rata on the box-office success of the previous film. This article demonstrates the links between this system and the growth of popular cinema. It is particularly because of the proliferation of popular films that critics and cinephiles mobilized in 1953 to obtain the creation of new fund to support 'quality'. The concept of quality in film was consequently defined during the 1950s as a function of the commercial success of popular cinema.

Journal article related to a paper previously presented in the Cinema International Conference 2003, May 2003, Londres, United Kingdom, https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00158115 ; International audience ; Cinema was a major cultural issue in France of the 1950s, even if the film industry was in crisis. The number of films increased, but the audiences had been in decline from 1947–1952 when figures reached their lowest since the Liberation. The Blum–Byrnes agreements, signed in 1946, accentuated this decline. The quotas operating at the time (four weeks per quarter for French films and eight weeks for American films) meant that French films aimed to make a profit very rapidly in the first week of screening so as to make way for others. Popular French cinema emerged from this combination of attendance/overproduction/quotas. This combination pushed French producers toward thematic and aesthetic formulas aiming at rapid product placement so as to compete with American films. To remedy this situation, the French government passed a law in 1948 whose aim was to help re-energize the ailing French film industry with the help of public funds. With the principle of equality for the producers in mind, the redistribution of funds was based pro-rata on the box-office success of the previous film. This article demonstrates the links between this system and the growth of popular cinema. It is particularly because of the proliferation of popular films that critics and cinephiles mobilized in 1953 to obtain the creation of new fund to support 'quality'. The concept of quality in film was consequently defined during the 1950s as a function of the commercial success of popular cinema.

Journal article related to a paper previously presented in the Cinema International Conference 2003, May 2003, Londres, United Kingdom, https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00158115 ; International audience ; Cinema was a major cultural issue in France of the 1950s, even if the film industry was in crisis. The number of films increased, but the audiences had been in decline from 1947–1952 when figures reached their lowest since the Liberation. The Blum–Byrnes agreements, signed in 1946, accentuated this decline. The quotas operating at the time (four weeks per quarter for French films and eight weeks for American films) meant that French films aimed to make a profit very rapidly in the first week of screening so as to make way for others. Popular French cinema emerged from this combination of attendance/overproduction/quotas. This combination pushed French producers toward thematic and aesthetic formulas aiming at rapid product placement so as to compete with American films. To remedy this situation, the French government passed a law in 1948 whose aim was to help re-energize the ailing French film industry with the help of public funds. With the principle of equality for the producers in mind, the redistribution of funds was based pro-rata on the box-office success of the previous film. This article demonstrates the links between this system and the growth of popular cinema. It is particularly because of the proliferation of popular films that critics and cinephiles mobilized in 1953 to obtain the creation of new fund to support 'quality'. The concept of quality in film was consequently defined during the 1950s as a function of the commercial success of popular cinema.

Journal article related to a paper previously presented in the Cinema International Conference 2003, May 2003, Londres, United Kingdom, https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00158115 ; International audience ; Cinema was a major cultural issue in France of the 1950s, even if the film industry was in crisis. The number of films increased, but the audiences had been in decline from 1947–1952 when figures reached their lowest since the Liberation. The Blum–Byrnes agreements, signed in 1946, accentuated this decline. The quotas operating at the time (four weeks per quarter for French films and eight weeks for American films) meant that French films aimed to make a profit very rapidly in the first week of screening so as to make way for others. Popular French cinema emerged from this combination of attendance/overproduction/quotas. This combination pushed French producers toward thematic and aesthetic formulas aiming at rapid product placement so as to compete with American films. To remedy this situation, the French government passed a law in 1948 whose aim was to help re-energize the ailing French film industry with the help of public funds. With the principle of equality for the producers in mind, the redistribution of funds was based pro-rata on the box-office success of the previous film. This article demonstrates the links between this system and the growth of popular cinema. It is particularly because of the proliferation of popular films that critics and cinephiles mobilized in 1953 to obtain the creation of new fund to support 'quality'. The concept of quality in film was consequently defined during the 1950s as a function of the commercial success of popular cinema.

A key driver of Liberia's re-emergence from utter destruction, between 2004 and 2008, was the willingness of international actors to accept the responsibility and risks associated with stabilization. This was accomplished by confronting these risks directly, even at the cost of temporarily filling institutional voids and sharing sovereignty with the Liberian transitional authorities. The main international diplomatic representations and aid agencies on the ground came to accept from their varying perspectives that peace in Liberia was fragile and that the Accra Comprehensive Peace Agreement (ACPA) of September 2003 was only the beginning of a protracted stabilization effort. The domestic market for consultants and goods did not exist, requiring the World Bank to innovate with new modes of delivering assistance. Thus, peace consolidation compelled international partners to simultaneously (i) prevent full state capture by corrupt elites in advance of elections and (ii) secure a peace dividend to vulnerable groups which could most directly threaten peace (young ex-combatants and refugees). Building on a solid UN-World Bank partnership, the international community found the internal consensus to address each of the two complementary peace consolidation challenges, adopting two highly innovative instruments: (i) an anti-corruption scheme labeled Governance and Economic Management Assistance Program (GEMAP), involving such robust measures as expatriate co-signing authority, and (ii) a short-term employment-generation scheme now known as roads-with- United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL), centered on a rare direct collaboration between the Bank and the engineering units of the UN's military peacekeeping force on the ground. This paper examines these two instruments more closely, in their successes and failures as well as from the perspective of temporary shared sovereignty and co-production.

The article considers with the formation and activities in Germany of Ukrainian embassies and consular offices in 1918-1923. Diplomatic institutions were represented in Berlin: the Ukrainian People's Republic of the Central Rada (Ambassador Alexander Sevryuk), the Ukrainian State (baron Fedor Shteyngel), the Ukrainian People's Republic Directory of the UNR (Mykola Porch, Roman Smal-Stotsky). His embassy was formed in Berlin and the Western Ukrainian National Republic (Yevhen Levytsky, Yaroslav Byberovych). But in view of the possible negative reaction of the Entente countries, the ZUNR (WUNR) embassy did not develop widly. Ukraine had its consular offices in Berlin and Munich. The article also mentions the activities of the Ukrainian consular establishment in Danzing (Gdansk), which was closely linked with Germany. The Ukrainian diplomatic structures in Germany were officially recognized by the German authorities and focused their efforts on seeking external support from Ukraine in the struggle against the enemies of its independence.The informational office of the embassy in Berlin tried to get the German press and the general public informed about the Ukrainian issue as much as possible and gathered the necessary information for the Ukrainian government. The Ukrainian embassy in Germany solved the actual foreign policy tasks not only in relations with the host country. Diplomats have imposed international contacts with embassies of other countries accredited in the capital of Germany. The activity of the Ukrainian diplomatic structures was aggravated by the hostile actions of the Bolshevik agents, insufficient financial support, and internal problems of a personal nature. In addition, the foreign policy capabilities of Germany were severely restricted by the Entente countries.The diplomats, together with the military-medical missions, took care of the captive Ukrainians - the soldiers of the former Russian army who were held in the German camps, and also cared for by those Ukrainians who remained in exile and worked or studied in this country. ; В статье рассматривается становление и деятельность в Германии украинских посольств и консульских учреждений в 1918-1923 гг. В Берлине были представлены дипломатические учреждения Украинской Народной Республики периода Центральной Рады (посол Александр Севрюк), Украинской Державы (барон Федор Штейнгель), Украинской Народной Республики времен Директории УНР (Николай Порш, Роман Смаль-Стоцкий). Свое посольство образовала в Берлине и Западно-Украинская Народная Республика (Евгений Левицкий, Ярослав Биберович). Но, учитывая возможную негативную реакцию стран Антанты, посольство ЗУНР не развило более широкую деятельность. Украина имела свои консульские учреждения в Берлине и Мюнхене. В статье упоминается также о деятельности украинского консульского учреждения в Данциге (Гданьске), который был тесно связан с Германией. Украинские дипломатические структуры в Германии были официально признаны немецкой властью и свои главные усилия направили на поиски внешней поддержки Украины в борьбе с врагами ее независимости. Дипломаты вместе с военно-санитарными миссиями осуществляли опеку над пленными украинцами - воинами бывшей российской армии, которые содержались в лагерях Германии, а также заботились о тех украинцах, которые остались в эмиграции и работали или учились в этой стране. ; У статті розглядається становлення та діяльність у Німеччині українських посольств та консульських установ у 1918-1923 рр. У Берліні були представлені дипломатичні установи Української Народної Республіки доби Центральної Ради (посол Олександр Севрюк), Української Держави (барон Федір Штейнґель), Української Народної Республіки доби Директорії УНР (Микола Порш, Роман Смаль-Стоцький). Своє посольство утворила в Берліні й Західно-Українська Народна Республіка (Євген Левицький, Ярослав Біберович). Але з огляду на можливу негативну реакцію країн Антанти посольство ЗУНР не розвинуло ширшої діяльності. Україна мала свої консульські установи в Берліні та Мюнхені. У статті згадується також про діяльність української консульської установи в Данцигу (Гданську), який був тісно пов'язаний з Німеччиною. Українські дипломатичні структури в Німеччині були офіційно визнані німецькою владою й свої головні зусилля спрямували на пошуки зовнішньої підтримки України в боротьбі з ворогами її незалежності. Дипломати разом із військово-санітарними місіями здійснювали опіку над полоненими українцями - вояками колишньої російської армії, які утримувалися в таборах Німеччини, також піклувалися про тих українців, які залишилися в еміграції й працювали чи навчалися в цій країні.

The article considers with the formation and activities in Germany of Ukrainian embassies and consular offices in 1918-1923. Diplomatic institutions were represented in Berlin: the Ukrainian People's Republic of the Central Rada (Ambassador Alexander Sevryuk), the Ukrainian State (baron Fedor Shteyngel), the Ukrainian People's Republic Directory of the UNR (Mykola Porch, Roman Smal-Stotsky). His embassy was formed in Berlin and the Western Ukrainian National Republic (Yevhen Levytsky, Yaroslav Byberovych). But in view of the possible negative reaction of the Entente countries, the ZUNR (WUNR) embassy did not develop widly. Ukraine had its consular offices in Berlin and Munich. The article also mentions the activities of the Ukrainian consular establishment in Danzing (Gdansk), which was closely linked with Germany. The Ukrainian diplomatic structures in Germany were officially recognized by the German authorities and focused their efforts on seeking external support from Ukraine in the struggle against the enemies of its independence.The informational office of the embassy in Berlin tried to get the German press and the general public informed about the Ukrainian issue as much as possible and gathered the necessary information for the Ukrainian government. The Ukrainian embassy in Germany solved the actual foreign policy tasks not only in relations with the host country. Diplomats have imposed international contacts with embassies of other countries accredited in the capital of Germany. The activity of the Ukrainian diplomatic structures was aggravated by the hostile actions of the Bolshevik agents, insufficient financial support, and internal problems of a personal nature. In addition, the foreign policy capabilities of Germany were severely restricted by the Entente countries.The diplomats, together with the military-medical missions, took care of the captive Ukrainians - the soldiers of the former Russian army who were held in the German camps, and also cared for by those Ukrainians who remained in exile and worked or studied in this country. ; В статье рассматривается становление и деятельность в Германии украинских посольств и консульских учреждений в 1918-1923 гг. В Берлине были представлены дипломатические учреждения Украинской Народной Республики периода Центральной Рады (посол Александр Севрюк), Украинской Державы (барон Федор Штейнгель), Украинской Народной Республики времен Директории УНР (Николай Порш, Роман Смаль-Стоцкий). Свое посольство образовала в Берлине и Западно-Украинская Народная Республика (Евгений Левицкий, Ярослав Биберович). Но, учитывая возможную негативную реакцию стран Антанты, посольство ЗУНР не развило более широкую деятельность. Украина имела свои консульские учреждения в Берлине и Мюнхене. В статье упоминается также о деятельности украинского консульского учреждения в Данциге (Гданьске), который был тесно связан с Германией. Украинские дипломатические структуры в Германии были официально признаны немецкой властью и свои главные усилия направили на поиски внешней поддержки Украины в борьбе с врагами ее независимости. Дипломаты вместе с военно-санитарными миссиями осуществляли опеку над пленными украинцами - воинами бывшей российской армии, которые содержались в лагерях Германии, а также заботились о тех украинцах, которые остались в эмиграции и работали или учились в этой стране. ; У статті розглядається становлення та діяльність у Німеччині українських посольств та консульських установ у 1918-1923 рр. У Берліні були представлені дипломатичні установи Української Народної Республіки доби Центральної Ради (посол Олександр Севрюк), Української Держави (барон Федір Штейнґель), Української Народної Республіки доби Директорії УНР (Микола Порш, Роман Смаль-Стоцький). Своє посольство утворила в Берліні й Західно-Українська Народна Республіка (Євген Левицький, Ярослав Біберович). Але з огляду на можливу негативну реакцію країн Антанти посольство ЗУНР не розвинуло ширшої діяльності. Україна мала свої консульські установи в Берліні та Мюнхені. У статті згадується також про діяльність української консульської установи в Данцигу (Гданську), який був тісно пов'язаний з Німеччиною. Українські дипломатичні структури в Німеччині були офіційно визнані німецькою владою й свої головні зусилля спрямували на пошуки зовнішньої підтримки України в боротьбі з ворогами її незалежності. Дипломати разом із військово-санітарними місіями здійснювали опіку над полоненими українцями - вояками колишньої російської армії, які утримувалися в таборах Німеччини, також піклувалися про тих українців, які залишилися в еміграції й працювали чи навчалися в цій країні.

The actual questions of environmental safety in the context of ideas of global evolutionism taking into account modern tendencies. The ecological situation in the country demonstrates the processes of deterioration and waste of natural resources, energy and habitat, as well as critical conditions in the quality of life of the population. Researchers in political ecology structure allocated direction: mechanism of environmental decision-making society and its political, economic and intellectual elites; the formation of a way of life, economic activity and culture, depending on the environment; the formation of its own environment by society; interaction of different societies solving the problem of access to natural resources and their transformation into a public resource; creation of systems of activity, their organization, infrastructure and hierarchy; the consequences of using performance systems; modern global geopolitical and ecological-political situation. Political scientists have tried to highlight and approve a new part of knowledge - political ecology - with its own laws, patterns and conclusions. The authors express the hope that the continuation of the development of the scientific theme of political ecology will allow in discussions and disputes to develop a scientific apparatus that allows us to obtain knowledge at what point in global history we are, what is permissible and unlawful for us to do, where we should go. All those conclusions that undoubtedly affect the life of both an individual and social systems. The article examines the problems that Latin American researchers are studying: how states face environmental problems, how they understand these problems and what decisions they make. Thus, a collision state and political systems to environmental issues, evaluation of possible management decisions and their consequences, the scientific analysis of the consequences of such decisions in the competition state systems is the subject of the political ecology research. The conceptual apparatus of political ecology includes the following positions: biosphere wars, wars for the division and redistribution of biosphere resources. Unlike economic wars, wars of the rich, who has something to share and who does not think about survival, biospheric wars are waged extremely cruelly - for the complete capture of biosphere resources and the total destruction of their previous users; resources of the biosphere: air, water, soil, forests, subsoil, biological resources of various natural zones, the minimum necessary biodiversity for the comfortable existence of man as a biological and social species in the biosphere of planet Earth and developed outer space; environmental diplomacy - ways and methods of achieving control over biosphere resources by diplomatic means that are optimal for the development of the state; bioresource management - a system for making management decisions regarding the use and conservation of biosphere resources; biosphere restructuring is a change in the species and landscape diversity of the biosphere due to human activity. Key words: ecology, management, biosphere, landscape diversity, environmental diplomacy, the environmental problems of the state, democracy. ; Розглянуті актуальні проблеми екологічної безпеки в контексті ідей глобального еволюціонізму за умови сучасних тенденцій екологічної політики. Латиноамериканськими дослідниками в структурі політичної екології виділено напрямки: механізм прийняття екологічних рішень суспільством і його політичними, економічними й інтелектуальними елітами; формування способу життя, економічної діяльності і культури в залежності від середовища; формування суспільством свого середовища; взаємодія різних суспільств, що вирішують проблеми доступу до природних ресурсів і перетворення їх у суспільний ресурс; створення систем діяльності, їхня організація, інфраструктура й ієрархія; наслідку застосування систем діяльності; сучасна глобальна геополітична й еколого-політична ситуація.Політологи виділили частину знань – політичну екологію зі своїми законами, закономірностями і висновками. Латиноамериканські дослідники виражають надію, що продовження розвитку наукової теми політичної екології в регіоні дозволить у дискусіях і суперечках виробити науковий апарат що дозволяє одержати знання, у якій точці глобальної історії ми знаходимося, що нам дозволено і недозволенно робити, куди варто йти. Усі висновки позначаються на житті, як окремої людини, так і соціальних систем. У статті розглядаються проблеми, що вивчають дослідники Латинської Америки: яким чином держави зіштовхуються з екологічними проблемами, як вони розуміють ці проблеми і які вони приймають рішення, до чого ці рішення приводять. Таким чином, зіткнення державних і політичних систем з екологічними проблемами, оцінка можливих управлінських рішень і їхніх наслідків, науковий аналіз наслідків таких рішень у конкурентній боротьбі державних систем є предметом дослідження політичної екології. Політична екологія – галузь знань про вироблення і прийняття державою оптимальних рішень в галузі раціонального і комплексного використання ресурсів біосфери і способів їх розподілу між державними системами. Понятійний апарат політичної екології містить у собі наступні позиції: біосферні війни, війни за розділ і переділ ресурсів біосфери. На відміну від економічних воєн, біосферні ведуться жорстоко – за повне захоплення біосферних ресурсів і тотальне знищення їхніх попередніх користувачів; ресурси біосфери: повітря, вода, ґрунти, ліси, надра, біологічні ресурси різних природних зон, мінімально необхідне біорізноманіття для комфортного існування людини, як біологічного і соціального виду в біосфері планети; екологічна дипломатія – способи і методи досягнення контролю над біосферними ресурсами дипломатичними засобами, оптимальними для розвитку держави; біоресурсне управління – система прийняття управлінських рішень стосовно користування і збереження ресурсів біосфери; біосферна перебудова – зміна видової і ландшафтної розмаїтості біосфери внаслідок діяльності людини.Ключові слова: екологія, управління, біосфера, ландшафтна розмаїтість, екологічна дипломатія, екологічні проблеми держави, демократія, глобализация, екологічна безпека