Suchergebnisse

The Treaty of Trianon (hereinafter Trianon), the enormous losses of territory and co-ethnics, and the shaking of Hungary's status as a dominant power in the Carpathian Basin imputed a tragic understanding of contemporary Hungarian history on the Hungarian society, invoking the idea of a trauma lasting even today. Trianon's understanding became a divisive issue for political parties after 1989, highlighting the ever-deeper divisions between right and left-liberals, since 2010. Its "overcoming" is a flagship project of the government's politics of identity, with modest success so far. Thus, the 100th anniversary was a crucial moment as a test case for a self-professed nationalist, traditionalist, conservative political force for manifesting a comprehensive politics of memory. In the light of the newly built monument at the heart of Budapest, with the Hungarian names of all localities on the territory of pre-1918 Hungary inscribed on its wall, a cautious shifting back to territorial revisionism was expected. In this article, I will argue that even with such tendencies being, obviously, present, the official commemorations were crafted with a surprising message, that attempts to turn the canonical understanding of Trianon upside down and reframe it into a common catastrophe of Central Europe. Doing so places the consequences in the context of the decolonization of history, the present decline of empires, and the emergence of nation-states while combining it with important tropes of the traditional, anti-liberal and revisionist Trianon discourse. Nevertheless, the result is a transparently political message that is not only driven by easily visible actual political goals (V4 and Central European), but one that detaches the politics of memory from historical references and legacies and creates a set of shallow symbols for utter instrumentalization, to recombine at will, in a vulgarised sense of post-modernism.

Analysis of Ukraine's foreign and security policy (both doctrinal and practical) leads to a conclusion about the lack of coherence of its objectives and the inconsistencies in their implementation. The lack of a formed strategic culture is one of the reasons. The aim of the article is an analysis of Ukraine's strategic culture, its conditions, characteristics and evolution. The key conditions of Ukraine's strategic cultural are history, geopolitics and Russian aggression in 2014. Among the features of its strategic culture are: postcolonial state syndrome, Russia's syndrome and disposition, split identity and inconsistency in action. Distrust is also an important feature of Ukraine's strategic culture. Until 2014, continuity can be observed among other things, not only in the characteristics and behaviors typical of the post-colonial state but also in Russia's syndrome and disposition. For more than 20 years, Ukrainian politics has also been consistently erratic, which has manifested itself in the goals set as their implementation. After 6 years of Russian aggression, there are signs of changes in strategic culture and foreign and security policy. However, it takes time to observe the trend and consolidation of certain features.

The scholarly attractiveness of the subject has been prejudged by the fact, that the United States of America was the first country in history which had constitutionalized the principle of division of governmental power. However, this principle has hitherto found rather a humble reflex in the literature. In Chapter I the author discusses the significance of the aforementioned principle in contemporary constitutionalism, dealing at the same time with some terminological questions. Chapter II concerns the general origin of the theory of separation of power from ancient times till the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Chapter III has been dedicated to the institutional background of the doctrine of division of governmental power of the "Founding Fathers", namely, to the governmental experiences stemming out of binding of the Articles of Confederacy, the colonial constitutional charters and the state constitutions. Chapter IV regards the ideological and social background of that doctrine. Chapter V affects the motivation of constitutionalization of the principle of division of power in the views of the Framers. In Chapter VI the author presents the very doctrine of division of power of the "Founding Fathers", especially its foundations concerning the coordination of governmental powers (i.e. Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court), their functions and competences, structure, procedure of creation as well as term. Chapter VII refers to the problem of guarantees of the division principle, both formal (checks and balance system) and material ones (James Madison's conception of pluralism and social distribution of power). Chapter VIII comprises some conclusions.

The article aims to look at Russian culture as a soft power through the prism of the large-scale invasion of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and to analyze the changes in its perception that have occurred as a result of these events. Russian culture, especially high culture, is known and appreciated in the world, which gives it the power of attraction and the possibility of exerting influence. At the same time, it is not only a source of prestige and a tool for promoting Russia, but also spreading Russian imperial myths that contributed to the invasion of Ukraine. Moreover, the operation of Russian cultural institutions outside the borders of the Russian Federation is strictly controlled by the authorities, and its popularization is treated as a "special operation". Russian culture imposed imperial optics on the perception of "near abroad", deprived Ukraine of the right to its history, identity and cultural heritage. Due to its colonial nature, it does not perceive the suffering of oppressed nations, and is therefore unable to prevent the tragedy of their destruction, as is the case with Ukraine and its culture. As a result of the initiated war, Russia has embezzled some of its soft power. However, there is no consensus among the international community regarding the imposition of sanctions on Russian culture. Ukrainian cultural activists accuse the international community of hypocrisy because, in defending Russian culture, it does not perceive the deliberate and systematic destruction of Ukrainian culture. Russian culture requires a reinterpretation and unmasking of the imperial optics, as consuming it indiscriminately poses a threat to the national security of the "near abroad" states.

Official Development Aid as an idea is an implement of assistance, a kind of redistribution of the global income on the governmental level. Nevertheless, it is also a source of influence and as a result peculiarly understood imperialism. The opposition between political vision and reality is the factor which backs up this thesis. Political plans and prospects of the EU aid policy, such as "The European Consensus of Development" or "The EU and Africa: Towards a Strategic Partnership", are concerned about supporting good governance and providing fair conditions of international trade. On the other hand, introducing this policy often, more or less, increases dependency of poor economies on the rich. It is also not eradicated from the European Union policy, for example in the case of the European Development Bank. However, EU development aid, coming to 49 billions euro, could be named munificent when compared to the United States. U.S. Official Development Aid amounts to only 0,19% of GDP, when the obligations confirmed by the government in a few declarations, among which is the Millennium Declaration of the United Nations, are about 0,7% of GDP. Secondly it is commonly shaped as an interrelated aid, which augment dependency of the recipient country. International institutions established in Bretton Woods, like International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group, have also a huge impact on the way of development of poor countries. There are a lot of groups of interest whose opinions are clear – above-mentioned institutions are the U.S. instruments of imperialism. It is caused by American predominance in these institutions and the line of policy which it supports. In the XXI century imperial aspirations are also present in recently developing countries – like China or Brazil. Changing roles in the system of international relations are now coming, creating a diffusion between clubs of rich North and poor, developing South. Leaders of development from developing countries are trying to build a strong position in relations with recipients of ODA. It is easier for them than for the West, mostly because of the lack of bad, colonial past relations. Their imperialism is not linked with history whatsoever, making their role of foreign relations easier to build up. Despite these cases of using development assistance in order to build up an imperium, there are a lot of non-governmental institutions whose perception of aid is beyond politics and burdens of imperialism. Best example of that is Grameen Bank – an institution founded by M. yunus, a Noble Prize winner. Its way of helping people is mainly intended to being unprofitable. There are a lot of ideas about how to describe development aid – more like a charity or kind of imperialism. Some aspects of business are desirable in ODA, partly because of increasing efficiency. It is economically proved that the return of capital in any way of benefit will strengthen willingness to providing aid. On the other hand, people are naturally liable to help and perform activities which do not give them any interest or gain. What is most interesting – nowadays developing countries are strengthening and they are evaluating theirs powers as equal partners of the rich, developed world. It comprises change in the system of international relations. Moreover United Nations should find a way of enforcing obligations of donors – like 0,7 percent of GDP for ODA to 2015. If the line of politics is steady, similar to current line, this goal will not be reached, so ODA will be more seen as a way of imperialism than help. In general, there are a lot of aspects of development which indicate that ODA is an implement of imperialism. On the other hand – some kind of interest improves the willingness of donors to provide aid. Besides that question – imperial or not – development aid is still increasing the number of people whose conditions of living are better because of ODA.

Official Development Aid as an idea is an implement of assistance, a kind of redistribution of the global income on the governmental level. Nevertheless, it is also a source of influence and as a result peculiarly understood imperialism. The opposition between political vision and reality is the factor which backs up this thesis. Political plans and prospects of the EU aid policy, such as "The European Consensus of Development" or "The EU and Africa: Towards a Strategic Partnership", are concerned about supporting good governance and providing fair conditions of international trade. On the other hand, introducing this policy often, more or less, increases dependency of poor economies on the rich. It is also not eradicated from the European Union policy, for example in the case of the European Development Bank. However, EU development aid, coming to 49 billions euro, could be named munificent when compared to the United States. U.S. Official Development Aid amounts to only 0,19% of GDP, when the obligations confirmed by the government in a few declarations, among which is the Millennium Declaration of the United Nations, are about 0,7% of GDP. Secondly it is commonly shaped as an interrelated aid, which augment dependency of the recipient country. International institutions established in Bretton Woods, like International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group, have also a huge impact on the way of development of poor countries. There are a lot of groups of interest whose opinions are clear – above-mentioned institutions are the U.S. instruments of imperialism. It is caused by American predominance in these institutions and the line of policy which it supports. In the XXI century imperial aspirations are also present in recently developing countries – like China or Brazil. Changing roles in the system of international relations are now coming, creating a diffusion between clubs of rich North and poor, developing South. Leaders of development from developing countries are trying to build a strong position in relations with recipients of ODA. It is easier for them than for the West, mostly because of the lack of bad, colonial past relations. Their imperialism is not linked with history whatsoever, making their role of foreign relations easier to build up. Despite these cases of using development assistance in order to build up an imperium, there are a lot of non-governmental institutions whose perception of aid is beyond politics and burdens of imperialism. Best example of that is Grameen Bank – an institution founded by M. yunus, a Noble Prize winner. Its way of helping people is mainly intended to being unprofitable. There are a lot of ideas about how to describe development aid – more like a charity or kind of imperialism. Some aspects of business are desirable in ODA, partly because of increasing efficiency. It is economically proved that the return of capital in any way of benefit will strengthen willingness to providing aid. On the other hand, people are naturally liable to help and perform activities which do not give them any interest or gain. What is most interesting – nowadays developing countries are strengthening and they are evaluating theirs powers as equal partners of the rich, developed world. It comprises change in the system of international relations. Moreover United Nations should find a way of enforcing obligations of donors – like 0,7 percent of GDP for ODA to 2015. If the line of politics is steady, similar to current line, this goal will not be reached, so ODA will be more seen as a way of imperialism than help. In general, there are a lot of aspects of development which indicate that ODA is an implement of imperialism. On the other hand – some kind of interest improves the willingness of donors to provide aid. Besides that question – imperial or not – development aid is still increasing the number of people whose conditions of living are better because of ODA.