Suchergebnisse

Bałkany Zachodnie od lat zajmują istotne miejsce w polityce Unii Europejskiej, która postrzega ten region jako istotny z punktu widzenia bezpieczeństwa europejskiego. Jednym ze sposobów stabilizacji i umacniania pokoju w regionie jest jego zbliżenie ze strukturami unijnej współpracy. Proces ten jest determinowany różnorodnymi czynnikami natury politycznej, społecznej, gospodarczej, kulturowej. W artykule uwaga została skoncentrowana na analizie determinantów procesu zbliżenia Albanii z UE, określeniu perspektyw jej akcesji do Unii, oraz wyartykułowaniu korzyści płynących z poszerzenia UE o państwa Bałkanów Zachodnich. Dodatkowo zwraca się uwagę na możliwe implikacje akcesji Albanii z perspektywy bezpieczeństwa UE. ; The Western Balkans has for years been an important player in the policy of the European Union, which sees the region as an important region for European security. One way to stabilise and consolidate peace in the region is to bring it closer to EU cooperation structures. This process is determined by various political, social, economic and cultural factors. The article focuses on the analysis of the determinants of the process of bringing Albania closer to the EU, defining the prospects for its accession to the EU, and articulating the benefits of EU enlargement to include the countries of the Western Balkans. In addition, attention is drawn to the possible implications of Albania's accession from an EU security perspective.

Bałkany Zachodnie od lat zajmują istotne miejsce w polityce Unii Europejskiej, która postrzega ten region jako istotny z punktu widzenia bezpieczeństwa europejskiego. Jednym ze sposobów stabilizacji i umacniania pokoju w regionie jest jego zbliżenie ze strukturami unijnej współpracy. Proces ten jest determinowany różnorodnymi czynnikami natury politycznej, społecznej, gospodarczej, kulturowej. W artykule uwaga została skoncentrowana na analizie determinantów procesu zbliżenia Albanii z UE, określeniu perspektyw jej akcesji do Unii, oraz wyartykułowaniu korzyści płynących z poszerzenia UE o państwa Bałkanów Zachodnich. Dodatkowo zwraca się uwagę na możliwe implikacje akcesji Albanii z perspektywy bezpieczeństwa UE. ; The Western Balkans has for years been an important player in the policy of the European Union, which sees the region as an important region for European security. One way to stabilise and consolidate peace in the region is to bring it closer to EU cooperation structures. This process is determined by various political, social, economic and cultural factors. The article focuses on the analysis of the determinants of the process of bringing Albania closer to the EU, defining the prospects for its accession to the EU, and articulating the benefits of EU enlargement to include the countries of the Western Balkans. In addition, attention is drawn to the possible implications of Albania's accession from an EU security perspective.

The aim of this paper is a comparative analysis of legislative solutions and practical application of the direct democracy in Hungary and Albania after 1989. The legal changes that occurred during this period have guaranteed the citizens of both countries the tools to direct exercising the political power. Unfortunately, these tools have been almost immediately limited. The long-term political conflict, which effectively discouraged the public opinion to such activity, was responsible for this limitation in the case of Albania. Hungarians, on the other hand, have lost these rights as a result of unfortunate decisions of rulers, who were repeatedly changing the electoral law. The object of our attention will be especially institutional and legal differences determining the development (or regression) of the direct democracy in those countries. Main thesis of the article is the opinion that Hungary and Albania, regardless of their common experiences, represent two different models for adaptation of direct democracy solutions. ; Celem niniejszego artykułu jest odpowiedź na pytanie o miejsce instytucji referendum ogólnokrajowego w systemach politycznych Węgier i Albanii po transformacji ustrojowej 1989, zarówno w wymiarze legislacyjnym, jak i praktycznym. Zmiany prawne, które nastąpiły w tym okresie, zagwarantowały obywatelom obydwu państw narzędzia do bezpośredniego sprawowania władzy. Jednakże niemal natychmiast zmiany te były ograniczane. W przypadku Albanii zadecydował o tym wieloletni zamęt polityczny, który skutecznie zniechęcił społeczeństwo do aktywności referendalnej. Węgrom uprawnienia te stopniowo odbierały natomiast decyzje poszczególnych rządów zmieniających wielokrotnie ordynację wyborczą. Przedmiotem naszego zainteresowania będą różnice instytucjonalne i prawne determinujące stan demokracji bezpośredniej w obydwu państwach. Główna teza artykułu opiera się na opinii, że Węgry i Albania, niezależnie od ich wspólnych doświadczeń, reprezentują dwa różne modele adaptacji rozwiązań demokracji bezpośredniej.

The years 1903-1914 should be considered as the most interesting period in the activity of the great powers states in South-East Europe and Near East for a few reasons discussed below. In the final period of the formation of the antagonistic military-political alliances in Europe, the so called "Concert of Europe" mainly showed a great interest in maintaining the status quo and preventing any conflicts which could occupy their attention. These states also focused on Turkey and especially on its European dominion. As a result, they jointly conducted reforms in Macedonia or tried to prevent the outbreak of war between the High Porte and the Balkan allies in 1912. At the same time, the powers did not stop their endeavors to realize their own political or economic aims at the cost of Turkey (e.g. the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austro-Hungary in 1908, the occupation of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica by Italy in 1911). Their aim was to eliminate the influences and block the initiative of their competitors. ; The years 1903-1914 should be considered as the most interesting period in the activity of the great powers states in South-East Europe and Near East for a few reasons discussed below. In the final period of the formation of the antagonistic military-political alliances in Europe, the so called "Concert of Europe" mainly showed a great interest in maintaining the status quo and preventing any conflicts which could occupy their attention. These states also focused on Turkey and especially on its European dominion. As a result, they jointly conducted reforms in Macedonia or tried to prevent the outbreak of war between the High Porte and the Balkan allies in 1912. At the same time, the powers did not stop their endeavors to realize their own political or economic aims at the cost of Turkey (e.g. the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austro-Hungary in 1908, the occupation of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica by Italy in 1911). Their aim was to eliminate the influences and block the initiative of their competitors.

It is assumed that on 16 February 2001, Albanians started fighting for their rights in Macedonia with the use of force. On that day armed groups attacked Macedonian police stations in the village of Tanuševci near Tetov. The clashes of various intensity lasted until major amendments to Macedonian constitution were adopted in November 2001.In the first stage of fighting (until May 2001), the Macedonians attempted to disarm the Albanian rebels and destroy the weapons which they had accumulated. This proved difficult because of the support which the latter had in Kosovo and the Prešev Valley, and the guerrilla strategy that they had developed earlier in Kosovo and now adopted. What is more, the Macedonian military actions were slowed down by Americans with the intention of limiting the number of casualties. In April, EU members and the US managed to establish a wide coalition.The major political parties of the country, both governing and oppositional (Macedonian and Albanian) decided to start negotiations concerning the conditions of the future peace treaty - that is, concessions for Albanians living in Macedonia and awarding them more rights. At the same time, the US and members of the EU states opposed the introduction of martial law in the country in order to deal with Albanian rebels by force.The leaders of Albanian parties in Macedonia and the main leaders of the Albanian revolution signed the Prizren Agreement, which was to provide a new plain for the future peace negotiations. Boris Trajkovski, the President of Macedonia, largely agreed with US and UE politics, but for the Prime Minister, his environment and most prominent Macedonian intellectuals - with Georgi Efremov, the President of MANU - the only solution was the division of the Macedonian territory and exchange of their minority groups. The representatives of the EU and US opposed such actions and emphasised that preserving the territorial integrity of Macedonia was absolutely crucial. ; It is assumed that on 16 February 2001, Albanians started fighting for their rights in Macedonia with the use of force. On that day armed groups attacked Macedonian police stations in the village of Tanuševci near Tetov. The clashes of various intensity lasted until major amendments to Macedonian constitution were adopted in November 2001.In the first stage of fighting (until May 2001), the Macedonians attempted to disarm the Albanian rebels and destroy the weapons which they had accumulated. This proved difficult because of the support which the latter had in Kosovo and the Prešev Valley, and the guerrilla strategy that they had developed earlier in Kosovo and now adopted. What is more, the Macedonian military actions were slowed down by Americans with the intention of limiting the number of casualties. In April, EU members and the US managed to establish a wide coalition.The major political parties of the country, both governing and oppositional (Macedonian and Albanian) decided to start negotiations concerning the conditions of the future peace treaty - that is, concessions for Albanians living in Macedonia and awarding them more rights. At the same time, the US and members of the EU states opposed the introduction of martial law in the country in order to deal with Albanian rebels by force.The leaders of Albanian parties in Macedonia and the main leaders of the Albanian revolution signed the Prizren Agreement, which was to provide a new plain for the future peace negotiations. Boris Trajkovski, the President of Macedonia, largely agreed with US and UE politics, but for the Prime Minister, his environment and most prominent Macedonian intellectuals - with Georgi Efremov, the President of MANU - the only solution was the division of the Macedonian territory and exchange of their minority groups. The representatives of the EU and US opposed such actions and emphasised that preserving the territorial integrity of Macedonia was absolutely crucial.

The Greek Civil War of 1946-1949 divided the Greek society into allies of the monarchy and supporters of the Communist Party of the Greece-led Transitional Democratic Government of Free Greece. The military arm of the leftist center was the Democratic Army of Greece. Until some time, the communist forces were actively supported by the countries of the Eastern Bloc: Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Romania. However, the Stalin-Tito conflict, which intensified from 1948 onwards, contributed to the defeat of the Democratic Army of Greece, caused by the overwhelming military advantage of the monarchist forces. In mid-1949, a decision was made to evacuate partisan units and the civilian population that had been under their control to Albania. Also, Poland, a country that suffered greatly as a result of World War II, helped Greece. First, by providing food, military and medical equipment, and later by accepting over 13,000 children and adults, fighters and civilians from the areas covered by the war, all terribly tired of war and wandering. The group of migrants was organized from scratch, provided medical and social care, work, education, and access to culture. Migrations of people in search of shelter from conflicts, persecution, and poverty are not only a contemporary problem of the European Union. This article presents the reforms initiated by the government of the Polish People's Republic as a result of the escalation of the crisis in the Balkans. In Poland refugees from Greece found completely new living, civilization, cultural, geographical, and economic conditions. Gradually, they managed to settle in this foreign country. Today many of them are grateful to Poland for their help.

The aim of this paper is to check how the different "starting" level to the market economy in 1990 and a different pace of economic reform introduction affect the level of development and use of communication infrastructure in former European socialist countries in 1999. In their analysis, the Authors have used six variables, as well as multifeature and monofeature classifications, and ranking. Four groups of countries with differentiated level of communication development have been distinguished: Slovenia and Estonia (relatively well developed communication); Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and Bulgaria (distinguished by good accessibility to telephones); Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine (the most visible feature is a low number of telephone connections and a small number of hosts); Albania (with a very low level of communication development). As the result of ranking, the countries have been ordered from the countries that have the best conditions and abilities of their inhabitants' communication to the countries with the weakest conditions. The best situation in this respect is in the wealthy Slovenia, and Estonia that intensively co-operates with the Scandinavian countries. The second group comprises the remaining two of the wealthiest communities in the region: the Czech Republic and Hungary. The worst developed is communication in the countries that quite recently have been inflicted by acts of war, or their governments have not started fast economic reforms (Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Ukraine, Romania, Belarus, Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Albania). The medium developed countries compose the last group, including Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania. These all countries are the ones that potentially could belong to the first or the second group, with a high level of communication development, but during the last decade a mistake was made somewhere. In Poland, such a mistake is the inconsistent policy of consecutive governments that have not carried out the actual demonopolisation of the market of telephone services and access to Internet. ; Marcin Polom

In 2015, global public opinion was shaken by the migration crisis, as wave after wave of refugees from the Middle East, primarily from Syria, tried to get from Turkey and Greece to Western Europe via the so-called 'Balkan Route'. In time, the situation only seemed to be resolved. In the Balkan countries, there still are, according to estimates, tens of thousands of migrants who failed to get farther west, and more are constantly arriving. Meanwhile, since 2018, one can speak of a new, though a much smaller wave of immigrants who are trying to get from Greece to Croatia (and thus to the European Union), increasingly often bypassing Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina along the way. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to the phenomenon of the so-called 'New Balkan Route' and the problems it creates for the Balkans.

EU membership has been a compelling goal for the Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia), related to the bloc's stability, economic prosperity and higher standard of living. Each of these countries pursues its own process of EU accession while being also a part of the regional initiatives under the auspices of the EU. This paper provides an overview of the EU accession process of the Western Balkan countries, focusing on their individual achievements and challenges, as well as common features and problems. Also, the content andprospects of regional integration of the Western Balkans through the Regional Economic Area (REA) programme, along with the role of the EU in supporting the regional perspective are discussed. The parallel Western Balkans engagement in both processes supports arguments for the prioritisation of the individual countries' accession to the EU over Western Balkans regional integration, distinguishing also the challenges of both processes. The methodology for the elaboration of this paper includes methods of analysis and synthesis, based on extensive desk research of available materials.

The Second World War brought significant political changes to European monarchies. Immediately after the war, six kingdoms ceased to exist and became republics. This concerned Eastern European countries in the Soviet sphere of influence, as well as Italy, where Victor Emmanuel III had to pay for years of cooperation with the fascist regime. Before the outbreak of the war, at least three European monarchies had considerable power, holding the most important prerogatives in their hands: this was the case in Romania, Bulgaria and Albania. Such a political model failed to survive the war, as after 1945 the kings and princes of the Old Continent only "reigned, but did not rule" (only Louis II, Prince of Monaco kept a stronger position until the end of the 1950s). It used to happen during the war that in countries with an established parliamentary system the monarch played a greater role than during the years of peace (the most prominent example being Wilhelmina, the Queen of the Netherlands). The article also presents other issues important to the royal authority – the functioning of monarchs in exile, the threat to their lives, the exercise of sovereignty (usually only in a ceremonial capacity) over the armed forces, and abdications forced by the circumstances. ; Druga wojna światowa przyniosła europejskim monarchiom poważne zmiany ustrojowe. Bezpośrednio po wojnie sześć królestw przestało istnieć, stały się republikami. Dotyczyło to państw Europy Wschodniej, które znalazły się w radzieckiej strefie wpływów, a także Włoch, gdzie Wiktorowi Emanuelowi III przyszło zapłacić za lata współpracy z faszystami. Przed wybuchem wojny przynajmniej w trzech europejskich monarchiach władca posiadał istotną władzę, skupiając w swych rękach najważniejsze uprawnienia – tak było w Rumunii, Bułgarii i Albanii. Taki model ustrojowy nie przetrwał wojny, po 1945 r. królowie i książęta Starego Kontynentu jedynie "panowali, ale nie rządzili" (silniejszą pozycję do końca lat 50. zachował tylko panujący w Monako Ludwik II). W okresie wojny zdarzało się, że w państwach o ugruntowanym już systemie parlamentarnym władca odgrywał rolę większą niż w latach pokoju (najlepszym przykładem może być holenderska Wilhelmina). W artykule przedstawiono też inne zagadnienia ważne dla władzy królewskiej: funkcjonowanie monarchów na uchodźstwie, zagrożenie ich życia, wykonywanie – zazwyczaj jedynie reprezentacyjne – zwierzchnictwa nad siłami zbrojnymi, a także wymuszone okolicznościami abdykacje.

On balance the performance of the first Polish EU Council Presidency in the matter of the enlargement process of the European Union seems to be positive. The Polish Presidency effectively implemented the five main functions of a Presidency: the agenda-setting, brokerage, management, coordination and internal representation in the contacts with the governments of member states and the institutions of the European Union. The most important aspect was that it managed to implement almost all the operational objectives typically required for the enlargement process. Despite the objections and doubts expressed by the governments of many member states, conditioned mainly by the debt crisis of the Eurozone and the need for internal and external consolidation of the European Union, the Polish Presidency managed to maintain the concept of enlargement as an important element on the EU's agenda. On 5 December 2011, on the initiative of the Polish Presidency, the General Affairs Council agreed a new approach to the accession negotiations involving the earliest possible opening of the most contentious negotiation chapters, including fundamental rights and policies pertaining to the area of freedom, security and justice. Employing the agenda-setting function, the Polish Presidency was the co-author of the Group Presidency programme and the author of the country's Presidency programme and both documents provided the foundation for Poland's activity in the process of enlargement of the European Union. The most important achievements of the Polish Presidency resulting from the implementation of the brokerage, coordination and management functions concerned Croatia, Iceland, Serbia and Montenegro. The Polish government finalised the work on the text of the accession treaty with Croatia and brought about the signing of the treaty on 9 December 2011. It also accepted the agreements referring to the status of Croatia in the transition period; that is, until the treaty becomes fully effective. The Polish Presidency also gave a significant impetus to the accession negotiations with Iceland, by opening seven negotiation chapters and concluding six. The achievement of the Polish Presidency towards the endeavours of the countries of the Western Balkans to gain accession to the European Union was the opening of procedures leading to Serbia being granted candidate country status, although the formal decision was taken on 28 February 2012 by the General Affairs Council under the chairmanship of the Danish Presidency. In addition, the politically crucial enlargement conclusions of the General Affairs Council for Montenegro, on the basis of which the European Council announced that a decision would be taken on the commencement of accession negotiations in June 2012, were achieved during the Polish Presidency. Taking into account that some member states were critical of the steps taken to normalise relationships between Serbia and Kosovo, the balanced conclusions of the Council, in the part referring to Serbia, should also be taken as a success for the Polish Presidency. Although the Polish Presidency suffered a few failures it is worth emphasising that they resulted mainly from the attitude of other member states such as Greece or the negligence of the third party countries in the enlargement process – in the cases of Turkey, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo. The Polish government, like the others since 2009, failed to overcome the opposition of Greece to the commencement of accession negotiations with Macedonia, although other member states fully supported the concept. The Polish Presidency, like the Belgian and Hungarian Presidencies, was unable to open any new chapter in the accession negotiations with Turkey. However, the reasons were the lack of progress in the implementation of the process of reforms by the Turkish government, the still unsolved controversial issues with Cyprus, the growing assertiveness of Turkey in the foreign policy arena and the unfavourable attitude towards the accession of Turkey to the Union by some member states. Nonetheless, the Polish Presidency achieved an agreement with other member states for a positive agenda in the relations between the Union and Turkey, which led to a relatively balanced text relating to Turkey in the conclusions of the General Affairs Council on 5 December 2011. The reason for the lack of achievement in the enlargement process with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo was the limited progress in fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria made by these countries. Therefore, these countries still remain only as states which aspire to be members of the European Union. Balancing all the stated successes and failures it should be emphasised that the Polish Presidency gave new impetus to the enlargement process of the European Union. This was visible in the proposal by the Polish government and its acceptance by the General Affairs Council of a new methodology for conducting future accession negotiations, the significant advancement of the accession negotiations with Iceland, the opening of the procedure for granting candidate country status to Serbia and establishing the political requirements for the commencement of accession negotiations with Montenegro. In addition, the Polish government signed the accession treaty with Croatia and accepted the agreements regarding the country's status in its relationships with the European Union in the transition period until the accession treaty is fully implemented.

"Yearbook of Eastern Studies" has been established as a forum for the debate on the multifaceted nature of transformations in Central and Eastern Europe and Asia, with particular focus on the post-Soviet area. The conceptual content of the periodical was born thanks to the professors Zdzislaw J. Winnicki and Walenty Baluk, who edited the first three volumes, which were published formally as separate monographs, but already under the banner of "Wschodnioznawstwo". Since 2010, the Yearbook has the status of a scientific journal, and two years later it has been listed on the journals of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. In addition, the periodical is indexed in national and international databases such as Index Copernicus, Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, BazHum and Polska Bibliografia Naukowa. The scientific profile of the periodical, which has consistently been implemented since the beginning of the activity of "Yearbook of Eastern Studies", focuses on the field of social sciences, with particular emphasis on the science of politics and science of safety. Its great advantage is its internationalization, which manifests itself both in terms of composition of the scientific council, reviewers, and authors of texts published in the "Wschodnioznawstwo" in Polish, English and Russian languages. Up to now, researchers from Poland, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Czech Republic, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Macedonia, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine have published on the cards of the journal. ; Wydawany przez Zakład Badań Wschodnich od 2007 r. rocznik "Wschodnioznawstwo" powstał jako forum debaty nad wielowymiarowością przemian w regionie Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej oraz Azji, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem obszaru postradzieckiego. Koncepcja merytoryczna periodyku zrodziła się dzięki profesorom Zdzisławowi J. Winnickiemu oraz Walentemu Balukowi, którzy redagowali wspólnie pierwsze trzy tomy, wydane jeszcze z formalnego punktu widzenia jako odrębne monografie, ale już pod szyldem "Wschodnioznawstwa". Od 2010 r. rocznik posiada status czasopisma naukowego, a dwa lata później trafił na listę czasopism punktowanych Ministerstwa Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. Ponadto periodyk jest indeksowany w krajowych i międzynarodowych bazach, takich jak Index Copernicus, Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, BazHum czy Polska Bibliografia Naukowa. Profil naukowy periodyku, który konsekwentnie jest realizowany od początku działalności "Wschodnioznawstwa", koncentruje się wokół dziedziny nauk społecznych, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem nauk o polityce i nauk o bezpieczeństwie. Ogromnym atutem rocznika jest jego umiędzynarodowienie, które przejawia się zarówno w aspekcie składu rady naukowej, recenzentów, jak i autorów tekstów zamieszczanych na łamach "Wschodnioznawstwa" w językach polskim, angielskim i rosyjskim. Do tej pory na kartach periodyku publikowali naukowcy z Polski, Azerbejdżanu, Białorusi, Czech, Gruzji, Japonii, Kazachstanu, Łotwy, Macedonii, Niemiec, Rosji, Słowacji, Ukrainy i Węgier.