Suchergebnisse

Adapted from the source document.

Adapted from the source document.

This paper deals with the decade of the 2000s in Japan's public diplomacy, and tries to distinguish the newest trends, related to the changes in the post-Cold War world system. The aspect chosen for this comparison is one that concentrates on the aims of public diplomacy. "Aims" in the framework of this paper are understood as the structural segment of the classical definition of public diplomacy, which raises the main question of why public diplomacy is conducted (i.e. what are the main factors in the international community inspiring it), thus giving the basis for its legitimation per se. Regarding this, the paper proposes three main statements that are directly related to the changing aims of Japan's post-Cold War diplomacy in respect of earlier periods. It states that the government's attention to public diplomacy has been increasing since the 2000s; Japan's diplomacy tends to direct its resources towards 'softer' methods (co-optation); 'Traditional' content is complemented (or replaced?) by the 'popular' in Japan's public diplomacy. These changes are closely related to important changes in the majority of the world's countries, in which public diplomacy has developed from a quasi-secret policy related to the intelligence service and information warfare, into fashionable and openly declared activities aimed at increasing a country's attractiveness. This is inspired by increasing international competition, the importance of soft power, and noopolitik, the changing target. [to full text]

This paper deals with the decade of the 2000s in Japan's public diplomacy, and tries to distinguish the newest trends, related to the changes in the post-Cold War world system. The aspect chosen for this comparison is one that concentrates on the aims of public diplomacy. "Aims" in the framework of this paper are understood as the structural segment of the classical definition of public diplomacy, which raises the main question of why public diplomacy is conducted (i.e. what are the main factors in the international community inspiring it), thus giving the basis for its legitimation per se. Regarding this, the paper proposes three main statements that are directly related to the changing aims of Japan's post-Cold War diplomacy in respect of earlier periods. It states that the government's attention to public diplomacy has been increasing since the 2000s; Japan's diplomacy tends to direct its resources towards 'softer' methods (co-optation); 'Traditional' content is complemented (or replaced?) by the 'popular' in Japan's public diplomacy. These changes are closely related to important changes in the majority of the world's countries, in which public diplomacy has developed from a quasi-secret policy related to the intelligence service and information warfare, into fashionable and openly declared activities aimed at increasing a country's attractiveness. This is inspired by increasing international competition, the importance of soft power, and noopolitik, the changing target. [to full text]

This paper deals with the decade of the 2000s in Japan's public diplomacy, and tries to distinguish the newest trends, related to the changes in the post-Cold War world system. The aspect chosen for this comparison is one that concentrates on the aims of public diplomacy. "Aims" in the framework of this paper are understood as the structural segment of the classical definition of public diplomacy, which raises the main question of why public diplomacy is conducted (i.e. what are the main factors in the international community inspiring it), thus giving the basis for its legitimation per se. Regarding this, the paper proposes three main statements that are directly related to the changing aims of Japan's post-Cold War diplomacy in respect of earlier periods. It states that the government's attention to public diplomacy has been increasing since the 2000s; Japan's diplomacy tends to direct its resources towards 'softer' methods (co-optation); 'Traditional' content is complemented (or replaced?) by the 'popular' in Japan's public diplomacy. These changes are closely related to important changes in the majority of the world's countries, in which public diplomacy has developed from a quasi-secret policy related to the intelligence service and information warfare, into fashionable and openly declared activities aimed at increasing a country's attractiveness. This is inspired by increasing international competition, the importance of soft power, and noopolitik, the changing target. [to full text]

The first then still unofficial diplomatic contacts between Lithuania and the United States started in 1919. The United States recognized Lithuania de jure and de facto in 1922, and at the end of that same year Vytautas Valdemaras Čarneckis submitted letters of credence to the US State Department. This diplomatic post has functioned continuously ever since. When the Soviet Union occupied Lithuania in 1940, its diplomats serving abroad continued their work and did not abandon their diplomatic duties. Some were recognized by the states of the free democratic world (such as the United States, Great Britain, France, the Holy See). The exceptionality of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington was its activities during the Cold War, that is, in the shadow of major world political events and one super state. The very fact of the diplomats' recognition and thus activities means that the Republic of Lithuania that functioned in 1918–1940 was not forgotten and existed in the political thinking of some states until 1990 when Lithuania finally unshackled itself from the occupation of the Soviet Union.This history about the Lithuanian embassy in Washington consists of an introduction, five chapters and a conclusion, plus four appendices. Monographic texts, document collections and material from Lithuanian and American archives were used. The term "Cold War" is used here not in terms of historical dates "from" "to" that exist in historiography, but as a symbolic concept describing the entire period of activity of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington.That is because the struggle of Lithuania's diplomats to return their country to the political map of the world began in 1940 and ended in 1991. This was a time of "war after war". During the whole five decades the keystone of Lithuania's diplomats and all of Lithuania's case for freedom was the US-led un-recognition policy of Lithuania's occupation.[.]

The first then still unofficial diplomatic contacts between Lithuania and the United States started in 1919. The United States recognized Lithuania de jure and de facto in 1922, and at the end of that same year Vytautas Valdemaras Čarneckis submitted letters of credence to the US State Department. This diplomatic post has functioned continuously ever since. When the Soviet Union occupied Lithuania in 1940, its diplomats serving abroad continued their work and did not abandon their diplomatic duties. Some were recognized by the states of the free democratic world (such as the United States, Great Britain, France, the Holy See). The exceptionality of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington was its activities during the Cold War, that is, in the shadow of major world political events and one super state. The very fact of the diplomats' recognition and thus activities means that the Republic of Lithuania that functioned in 1918–1940 was not forgotten and existed in the political thinking of some states until 1990 when Lithuania finally unshackled itself from the occupation of the Soviet Union.This history about the Lithuanian embassy in Washington consists of an introduction, five chapters and a conclusion, plus four appendices. Monographic texts, document collections and material from Lithuanian and American archives were used. The term "Cold War" is used here not in terms of historical dates "from" "to" that exist in historiography, but as a symbolic concept describing the entire period of activity of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington.That is because the struggle of Lithuania's diplomats to return their country to the political map of the world began in 1940 and ended in 1991. This was a time of "war after war". During the whole five decades the keystone of Lithuania's diplomats and all of Lithuania's case for freedom was the US-led un-recognition policy of Lithuania's occupation.[.]

The first then still unofficial diplomatic contacts between Lithuania and the United States started in 1919. The United States recognized Lithuania de jure and de facto in 1922, and at the end of that same year Vytautas Valdemaras Čarneckis submitted letters of credence to the US State Department. This diplomatic post has functioned continuously ever since. When the Soviet Union occupied Lithuania in 1940, its diplomats serving abroad continued their work and did not abandon their diplomatic duties. Some were recognized by the states of the free democratic world (such as the United States, Great Britain, France, the Holy See). The exceptionality of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington was its activities during the Cold War, that is, in the shadow of major world political events and one super state. The very fact of the diplomats' recognition and thus activities means that the Republic of Lithuania that functioned in 1918–1940 was not forgotten and existed in the political thinking of some states until 1990 when Lithuania finally unshackled itself from the occupation of the Soviet Union.This history about the Lithuanian embassy in Washington consists of an introduction, five chapters and a conclusion, plus four appendices. Monographic texts, document collections and material from Lithuanian and American archives were used. The term "Cold War" is used here not in terms of historical dates "from" "to" that exist in historiography, but as a symbolic concept describing the entire period of activity of the Lithuanian embassy in Washington.That is because the struggle of Lithuania's diplomats to return their country to the political map of the world began in 1940 and ended in 1991. This was a time of "war after war". During the whole five decades the keystone of Lithuania's diplomats and all of Lithuania's case for freedom was the US-led un-recognition policy of Lithuania's occupation.[.]

From a historical perspective, it is important to note that Australia's foreign policy, as an autonomous and independent from the United Kingdom, began to take shape quite late. It was the Second World War when the weakening Great Britain remained unable to maintain the colonial government in many of its colonies and overseas territories. Australia used this situation to seek closer relations with the United States. Since the formation of the country's foreign policy beginning in Australia's foreign policy a U.S made the major impact. It is emphasized that Australia's foreign policy not only could not be seen without the U.S., but the country would mean the loss of Australia's main strategic partner and key defensive capacity. On the other hand, the U.S. is actively engaged, Australia to turn their satellite. De facto this country can be called the ambassador of the U.S. in Southeast Asia and Oceania. While Australia can be considered one of the region's leaders, however, Australia is a country characterized by an inferiority complex. This circumstance complicates the spread of its influence in the region and aims to become a strong "Medium Power". Australia's interest in the region cannot be denied, however, has seen its capacity levels to those of the world, which not only does not affect the development of the country, and provide questionable benefits to the Australian policies. It is noted that Australia since the start of cooperation with the United States actively participates in all of the U.S. wars. So we can predict that the next step would be to complete the Australian military's entrance into the U.S. armed forces, then the transfer of powers to the foreign policy of the Washington administration. It should be noted that such a step in Canberra is likely if it would be a real threat. Australia, through its humble U.S. policy and at the same time to the region's power in Asia and Oceania, has recently faced with the Chinese ambition to become a regional hegemony. While in China this step seems perfectly logical, but for Canberra administration, this situation is worrying. For this reason, Australian and the U.S. administrations in the near future may become even more intense, and Canberra may seek greater U.S. military presence in increasing the number of its territory. Subject of research was selected - "Forreign Policy of Australia: Development and Pecularity". The paper presents the foreign policy development, analyzed the problems of foreign policy in the region and globally. The paper aims to reveal the Australian foreign policy in the region's stability and its development. Seen not only in the past and the present, but also reveals the possible scenarios for the region. Australia's foreign policy can be identified as having specific characteristics and thus stands apart from other large and medium-sized countries. Adapting to the current situation it is actively reconfiguring its ongoing foreign policy. Australia's foreign policy is still making its development, and this formation already takes more than 40 years. This unique phenomenon is unique to Australian politics. Revealed the importance of Australia's foreign policy is its desire to dominate the Southern Hemisphere, South Africa, and East Asia. It should be noted that the twenty-first century. Australia's foreign policy focuses on one region - South-East Asia. Party is important to maintain peace and stability in Southeast Asia, because the region is important for Australia of their economic potential, and energy resources.

From a historical perspective, it is important to note that Australia's foreign policy, as an autonomous and independent from the United Kingdom, began to take shape quite late. It was the Second World War when the weakening Great Britain remained unable to maintain the colonial government in many of its colonies and overseas territories. Australia used this situation to seek closer relations with the United States. Since the formation of the country's foreign policy beginning in Australia's foreign policy a U.S made the major impact. It is emphasized that Australia's foreign policy not only could not be seen without the U.S., but the country would mean the loss of Australia's main strategic partner and key defensive capacity. On the other hand, the U.S. is actively engaged, Australia to turn their satellite. De facto this country can be called the ambassador of the U.S. in Southeast Asia and Oceania. While Australia can be considered one of the region's leaders, however, Australia is a country characterized by an inferiority complex. This circumstance complicates the spread of its influence in the region and aims to become a strong "Medium Power". Australia's interest in the region cannot be denied, however, has seen its capacity levels to those of the world, which not only does not affect the development of the country, and provide questionable benefits to the Australian policies. It is noted that Australia since the start of cooperation with the United States actively participates in all of the U.S. wars. So we can predict that the next step would be to complete the Australian military's entrance into the U.S. armed forces, then the transfer of powers to the foreign policy of the Washington administration. It should be noted that such a step in Canberra is likely if it would be a real threat. Australia, through its humble U.S. policy and at the same time to the region's power in Asia and Oceania, has recently faced with the Chinese ambition to become a regional hegemony. While in China this step seems perfectly logical, but for Canberra administration, this situation is worrying. For this reason, Australian and the U.S. administrations in the near future may become even more intense, and Canberra may seek greater U.S. military presence in increasing the number of its territory. Subject of research was selected - "Forreign Policy of Australia: Development and Pecularity". The paper presents the foreign policy development, analyzed the problems of foreign policy in the region and globally. The paper aims to reveal the Australian foreign policy in the region's stability and its development. Seen not only in the past and the present, but also reveals the possible scenarios for the region. Australia's foreign policy can be identified as having specific characteristics and thus stands apart from other large and medium-sized countries. Adapting to the current situation it is actively reconfiguring its ongoing foreign policy. Australia's foreign policy is still making its development, and this formation already takes more than 40 years. This unique phenomenon is unique to Australian politics. Revealed the importance of Australia's foreign policy is its desire to dominate the Southern Hemisphere, South Africa, and East Asia. It should be noted that the twenty-first century. Australia's foreign policy focuses on one region - South-East Asia. Party is important to maintain peace and stability in Southeast Asia, because the region is important for Australia of their economic potential, and energy resources.

From a historical perspective, it is important to note that Australia's foreign policy, as an autonomous and independent from the United Kingdom, began to take shape quite late. It was the Second World War when the weakening Great Britain remained unable to maintain the colonial government in many of its colonies and overseas territories. Australia used this situation to seek closer relations with the United States. Since the formation of the country's foreign policy beginning in Australia's foreign policy a U.S made the major impact. It is emphasized that Australia's foreign policy not only could not be seen without the U.S., but the country would mean the loss of Australia's main strategic partner and key defensive capacity. On the other hand, the U.S. is actively engaged, Australia to turn their satellite. De facto this country can be called the ambassador of the U.S. in Southeast Asia and Oceania. While Australia can be considered one of the region's leaders, however, Australia is a country characterized by an inferiority complex. This circumstance complicates the spread of its influence in the region and aims to become a strong "Medium Power". Australia's interest in the region cannot be denied, however, has seen its capacity levels to those of the world, which not only does not affect the development of the country, and provide questionable benefits to the Australian policies. It is noted that Australia since the start of cooperation with the United States actively participates in all of the U.S. wars. So we can predict that the next step would be to complete the Australian military's entrance into the U.S. armed forces, then the transfer of powers to the foreign policy of the Washington administration. It should be noted that such a step in Canberra is likely if it would be a real threat. Australia, through its humble U.S. policy and at the same time to the region's power in Asia and Oceania, has recently faced with the Chinese ambition to become a regional hegemony. While in China this step seems perfectly logical, but for Canberra administration, this situation is worrying. For this reason, Australian and the U.S. administrations in the near future may become even more intense, and Canberra may seek greater U.S. military presence in increasing the number of its territory. Subject of research was selected - "Forreign Policy of Australia: Development and Pecularity". The paper presents the foreign policy development, analyzed the problems of foreign policy in the region and globally. The paper aims to reveal the Australian foreign policy in the region's stability and its development. Seen not only in the past and the present, but also reveals the possible scenarios for the region. Australia's foreign policy can be identified as having specific characteristics and thus stands apart from other large and medium-sized countries. Adapting to the current situation it is actively reconfiguring its ongoing foreign policy. Australia's foreign policy is still making its development, and this formation already takes more than 40 years. This unique phenomenon is unique to Australian politics. Revealed the importance of Australia's foreign policy is its desire to dominate the Southern Hemisphere, South Africa, and East Asia. It should be noted that the twenty-first century. Australia's foreign policy focuses on one region - South-East Asia. Party is important to maintain peace and stability in Southeast Asia, because the region is important for Australia of their economic potential, and energy resources.

In the second part, misconceptions of realism after the Cold War are analysed. It is shown that the shifts in content of contemporary realist theories are path-dependent and rooted in "Waltz paradox". The paradox led to three different modes of realist enterprise: (i) conservative reaction; (ii) "middle way"; and (iii) radical reaction. These stages purport the gradually increasing deviation from the original descriptive principles of realism. Conservative reaction is based on a false assumption that states can follow rational winning strategies. Middle-way "realists" (mis)treat the political struggle for power only as an outgrowth of specific circumstances. More and more of them follow the liberal agenda, trying to find and neutralise the "irrational factors", and thereby secure the rational (universally acceptable) political outcomes. Finally, radical reaction means reconstruction of realism as an entirely prescriptive discourse and moral guidelines for peaceful accommodation and liberal political order. The implications of these theoretical changes are exemplitied by discussing standard "realistic" explanations of US foreign policy after the Cold War. It is shown that none of today's "realist" approaches is realistic enough to grasp the operation of the principles once known to realism. The findings of this research challenge the false truths about the relation between political realism, scientific IR enterprise and political practice.

In the second part, misconceptions of realism after the Cold War are analysed. It is shown that the shifts in content of contemporary realist theories are path-dependent and rooted in "Waltz paradox". The paradox led to three different modes of realist enterprise: (i) conservative reaction; (ii) "middle way"; and (iii) radical reaction. These stages purport the gradually increasing deviation from the original descriptive principles of realism. Conservative reaction is based on a false assumption that states can follow rational winning strategies. Middle-way "realists" (mis)treat the political struggle for power only as an outgrowth of specific circumstances. More and more of them follow the liberal agenda, trying to find and neutralise the "irrational factors", and thereby secure the rational (universally acceptable) political outcomes. Finally, radical reaction means reconstruction of realism as an entirely prescriptive discourse and moral guidelines for peaceful accommodation and liberal political order. The implications of these theoretical changes are exemplitied by discussing standard "realistic" explanations of US foreign policy after the Cold War. It is shown that none of today's "realist" approaches is realistic enough to grasp the operation of the principles once known to realism. The findings of this research challenge the false truths about the relation between political realism, scientific IR enterprise and political practice.

In the second part, misconceptions of realism after the Cold War are analysed. It is shown that the shifts in content of contemporary realist theories are path-dependent and rooted in "Waltz paradox". The paradox led to three different modes of realist enterprise: (i) conservative reaction; (ii) "middle way"; and (iii) radical reaction. These stages purport the gradually increasing deviation from the original descriptive principles of realism. Conservative reaction is based on a false assumption that states can follow rational winning strategies. Middle-way "realists" (mis)treat the political struggle for power only as an outgrowth of specific circumstances. More and more of them follow the liberal agenda, trying to find and neutralise the "irrational factors", and thereby secure the rational (universally acceptable) political outcomes. Finally, radical reaction means reconstruction of realism as an entirely prescriptive discourse and moral guidelines for peaceful accommodation and liberal political order. The implications of these theoretical changes are exemplitied by discussing standard "realistic" explanations of US foreign policy after the Cold War. It is shown that none of today's "realist" approaches is realistic enough to grasp the operation of the principles once known to realism. The findings of this research challenge the false truths about the relation between political realism, scientific IR enterprise and political practice.

In the second part, misconceptions of realism after the Cold War are analysed. It is shown that the shifts in content of contemporary realist theories are path-dependent and rooted in "Waltz paradox". The paradox led to three different modes of realist enterprise: (i) conservative reaction; (ii) "middle way"; and (iii) radical reaction. These stages purport the gradually increasing deviation from the original descriptive principles of realism. Conservative reaction is based on a false assumption that states can follow rational winning strategies. Middle-way "realists" (mis)treat the political struggle for power only as an outgrowth of specific circumstances. More and more of them follow the liberal agenda, trying to find and neutralise the "irrational factors", and thereby secure the rational (universally acceptable) political outcomes. Finally, radical reaction means reconstruction of realism as an entirely prescriptive discourse and moral guidelines for peaceful accommodation and liberal political order. The implications of these theoretical changes are exemplitied by discussing standard "realistic" explanations of US foreign policy after the Cold War. It is shown that none of today's "realist" approaches is realistic enough to grasp the operation of the principles once known to realism. The findings of this research challenge the false truths about the relation between political realism, scientific IR enterprise and political practice.