Suchergebnisse

The article aims at analyzing the dimension of history in the neo-scholastic conception of the European integration. The research focuses on R. Schuman's vision of the European integration. He was among the politicians who created the first European communities. His political thought was deeply influenced by the philosophy of the famous French philosopher J. Maritain and the pope Pius XII who both cherished the historical ideal of the European integration, based on the Christian philosophy of history. The main incentive for undertaking this kind of research was the wish to find an alternative intellectual and theoretical position that would not be based on the historicist principles of modernity and enlightenment. Eventually, such position could enhance the poor reflectivity of today`s European integration theory. The analysis of the neo-scholastic European unification idea revealed that all three authors grounded their understanding of history in onto-existential epistemology of Thomism. Its main claim is twofold. First, every historical moment is perceived as a reference to the underlying reality that is not dependent upon historical flow and endows it with spiritual meaning. Second, at the very moment of perceiving the temporal circumstances and grasping their underlying transcendental reality, the moral requirements for the concrete historical moment are discovered. J. Maritain, Pius XII, and R. Schuman withdrew their ideas of European unification and Christian heritage of Europe from this Thomistic conception of history and the onto-existential epistemology. It is sustained that the results of the undertaken analysis can open qualitatively new theoretical perspectives in the European integration theory and thus help to create a more meaningful Europe. First of all, such a non-historicist position of looking at the process of European integration can provide one condition that is necessary for every true scientific enquiry: it can help to create a theoretical distance among the knowing subject and the known reality. Second, the Christian conception of a human person, which was held by J. Maritain, Pius XII, and R. Schuman, is able at least to stimulate the raising of the most fundamental questions about the true nature and goals of European unification. Third, the analysis has demonstrated that the issue of the Christian heritage of Europe is important and cannot be ignored, because it is a historical fact and not only a lofty idea.

The article aims at analyzing the dimension of history in the neo-scholastic conception of the European integration. The research focuses on R. Schuman's vision of the European integration. He was among the politicians who created the first European communities. His political thought was deeply influenced by the philosophy of the famous French philosopher J. Maritain and the pope Pius XII who both cherished the historical ideal of the European integration, based on the Christian philosophy of history. The main incentive for undertaking this kind of research was the wish to find an alternative intellectual and theoretical position that would not be based on the historicist principles of modernity and enlightenment. Eventually, such position could enhance the poor reflectivity of today`s European integration theory. The analysis of the neo-scholastic European unification idea revealed that all three authors grounded their understanding of history in onto-existential epistemology of Thomism. Its main claim is twofold. First, every historical moment is perceived as a reference to the underlying reality that is not dependent upon historical flow and endows it with spiritual meaning. Second, at the very moment of perceiving the temporal circumstances and grasping their underlying transcendental reality, the moral requirements for the concrete historical moment are discovered. J. Maritain, Pius XII, and R. Schuman withdrew their ideas of European unification and Christian heritage of Europe from this Thomistic conception of history and the onto-existential epistemology. It is sustained that the results of the undertaken analysis can open qualitatively new theoretical perspectives in the European integration theory and thus help to create a more meaningful Europe. First of all, such a non-historicist position of looking at the process of European integration can provide one condition that is necessary for every true scientific enquiry: it can help to create a theoretical distance among the knowing subject and the known reality. Second, the Christian conception of a human person, which was held by J. Maritain, Pius XII, and R. Schuman, is able at least to stimulate the raising of the most fundamental questions about the true nature and goals of European unification. Third, the analysis has demonstrated that the issue of the Christian heritage of Europe is important and cannot be ignored, because it is a historical fact and not only a lofty idea.

The article aims at analyzing the dimension of history in the neo-scholastic conception of the European integration. The research focuses on R. Schuman's vision of the European integration. He was among the politicians who created the first European communities. His political thought was deeply influenced by the philosophy of the famous French philosopher J. Maritain and the pope Pius XII who both cherished the historical ideal of the European integration, based on the Christian philosophy of history. The main incentive for undertaking this kind of research was the wish to find an alternative intellectual and theoretical position that would not be based on the historicist principles of modernity and enlightenment. Eventually, such position could enhance the poor reflectivity of today`s European integration theory. The analysis of the neo-scholastic European unification idea revealed that all three authors grounded their understanding of history in onto-existential epistemology of Thomism. Its main claim is twofold. First, every historical moment is perceived as a reference to the underlying reality that is not dependent upon historical flow and endows it with spiritual meaning. Second, at the very moment of perceiving the temporal circumstances and grasping their underlying transcendental reality, the moral requirements for the concrete historical moment are discovered. J. Maritain, Pius XII, and R. Schuman withdrew their ideas of European unification and Christian heritage of Europe from this Thomistic conception of history and the onto-existential epistemology. It is sustained that the results of the undertaken analysis can open qualitatively new theoretical perspectives in the European integration theory and thus help to create a more meaningful Europe. First of all, such a non-historicist position of looking at the process of European integration can provide one condition that is necessary for every true scientific enquiry: it can help to create a theoretical distance among the knowing subject and the known reality. Second, the Christian conception of a human person, which was held by J. Maritain, Pius XII, and R. Schuman, is able at least to stimulate the raising of the most fundamental questions about the true nature and goals of European unification. Third, the analysis has demonstrated that the issue of the Christian heritage of Europe is important and cannot be ignored, because it is a historical fact and not only a lofty idea.

The article aims at analyzing the dimension of history in the neo-scholastic conception of the European integration. The research focuses on R. Schuman's vision of the European integration. He was among the politicians who created the first European communities. His political thought was deeply influenced by the philosophy of the famous French philosopher J. Maritain and the pope Pius XII who both cherished the historical ideal of the European integration, based on the Christian philosophy of history. The main incentive for undertaking this kind of research was the wish to find an alternative intellectual and theoretical position that would not be based on the historicist principles of modernity and enlightenment. Eventually, such position could enhance the poor reflectivity of today`s European integration theory. The analysis of the neo-scholastic European unification idea revealed that all three authors grounded their understanding of history in onto-existential epistemology of Thomism. Its main claim is twofold. First, every historical moment is perceived as a reference to the underlying reality that is not dependent upon historical flow and endows it with spiritual meaning. Second, at the very moment of perceiving the temporal circumstances and grasping their underlying transcendental reality, the moral requirements for the concrete historical moment are discovered. J. Maritain, Pius XII, and R. Schuman withdrew their ideas of European unification and Christian heritage of Europe from this Thomistic conception of history and the onto-existential epistemology. It is sustained that the results of the undertaken analysis can open qualitatively new theoretical perspectives in the European integration theory and thus help to create a more meaningful Europe. First of all, such a non-historicist position of looking at the process of European integration can provide one condition that is necessary for every true scientific enquiry: it can help to create a theoretical distance among the knowing subject and the known reality. Second, the Christian conception of a human person, which was held by J. Maritain, Pius XII, and R. Schuman, is able at least to stimulate the raising of the most fundamental questions about the true nature and goals of European unification. Third, the analysis has demonstrated that the issue of the Christian heritage of Europe is important and cannot be ignored, because it is a historical fact and not only a lofty idea.

The French Minister of Culture suggested extending to a European level the "Monuments' Open Doors" initiative launched in France in 1984. Several European countries, such as The Netherlands, Luxemburg, Malta, Belgium, the United Kingdom (Scotland) and Sweden soon set up similar events. In 1991, the Council of Europe officially launched the European Heritage Days (EHDs) with the support of the European Commission. In 1999, this initiative became a joint action of the Council of Europe and the European Commission. Throughout Europe, during the weekends of September, the European Heritage Days open the doors of numerous monuments and sites, many of them usually closed to the public, allowing Europe's citizens to enjoy and learn about their shared cultural heritage and encouraging them to become actively involved in the safeguard and enhancement of this heritage for present and future generations. Today, the European Heritage Days can be considered an essential instrument for fostering a tangible experience of European culture and history in addition to raising the awareness of the public about the multiple values of our common heritage and the continuous need for its protection. All 49 States parties to the European Cultural Convention actively take part in the initiative and the number of annual visitors is now estimated to be around 20 million at more than 30,000 participating monuments and sites. The EHDs have succeeded in stimulating civil society's participation, the specific involvement of youth, voluntary work and cross-border cooperation, thereby promoting the core principles of intercultural dialogue, partnership and civic responsibility. Like in the rest of Europe, in its European Heritage Days Lithuania is trying to draw attention to a certain area of our national heritage, to make us able to gain a deeper recognition of the long-term role and potential of heritage in the context of modern civilisation and culture. In particular, Heritage Days focus on youth thus hoping to inspire in them more aspirations and interest in the cultural history of their own and neighbouring European countries which have become as close as never before. As regards municipalities and other responsible or involved organisations, these events should become a stimulus to preserve and nurture cultural heritage of Lithuania more carefully and take a more innovative approach as regards its integration into information flows of European cultural heritage, as well as promote cultural tourism. In Lithuania European heritage days began only at 1995 and lasts till now already for 12 years. The themes were: jewish heritage in Lithuania, wooden, technical heritage, parks and gardens, cultural tourism and others. This year European heritage days will be – "Europe: common heritage. Cultural routes". With the support of the Council of Europe, the Photo experience from 1995 allows young people, in the framework of the European Heritage Days, to become familiar with the richness of their heritage, their history and their environment, from the past and from today. The international photo contest is a very good experience for young people. In Lithuania the campaign started at 1999.

The French Minister of Culture suggested extending to a European level the "Monuments' Open Doors" initiative launched in France in 1984. Several European countries, such as The Netherlands, Luxemburg, Malta, Belgium, the United Kingdom (Scotland) and Sweden soon set up similar events. In 1991, the Council of Europe officially launched the European Heritage Days (EHDs) with the support of the European Commission. In 1999, this initiative became a joint action of the Council of Europe and the European Commission. Throughout Europe, during the weekends of September, the European Heritage Days open the doors of numerous monuments and sites, many of them usually closed to the public, allowing Europe's citizens to enjoy and learn about their shared cultural heritage and encouraging them to become actively involved in the safeguard and enhancement of this heritage for present and future generations. Today, the European Heritage Days can be considered an essential instrument for fostering a tangible experience of European culture and history in addition to raising the awareness of the public about the multiple values of our common heritage and the continuous need for its protection. All 49 States parties to the European Cultural Convention actively take part in the initiative and the number of annual visitors is now estimated to be around 20 million at more than 30,000 participating monuments and sites. The EHDs have succeeded in stimulating civil society's participation, the specific involvement of youth, voluntary work and cross-border cooperation, thereby promoting the core principles of intercultural dialogue, partnership and civic responsibility. Like in the rest of Europe, in its European Heritage Days Lithuania is trying to draw attention to a certain area of our national heritage, to make us able to gain a deeper recognition of the long-term role and potential of heritage in the context of modern civilisation and culture. In particular, Heritage Days focus on youth thus hoping to inspire in them more aspirations and interest in the cultural history of their own and neighbouring European countries which have become as close as never before. As regards municipalities and other responsible or involved organisations, these events should become a stimulus to preserve and nurture cultural heritage of Lithuania more carefully and take a more innovative approach as regards its integration into information flows of European cultural heritage, as well as promote cultural tourism. In Lithuania European heritage days began only at 1995 and lasts till now already for 12 years. The themes were: jewish heritage in Lithuania, wooden, technical heritage, parks and gardens, cultural tourism and others. This year European heritage days will be – "Europe: common heritage. Cultural routes". With the support of the Council of Europe, the Photo experience from 1995 allows young people, in the framework of the European Heritage Days, to become familiar with the richness of their heritage, their history and their environment, from the past and from today. The international photo contest is a very good experience for young people. In Lithuania the campaign started at 1999.

European Men's Basketball championship of 2011 – EuroBasket2011– was the extraordinary event not only in Lithuania, but also in the European history. First time in the history there were 24 high qualification European basketball teams in the European championship. There were almost 300 professional basketball players who were fighting because of medals and permission to London Olympian games. The object of the paper – the organization of European Men's Basketball championship. Problem of the paper: what features of European men`s basketball championship organization can be evaluated as positive and negative? The goal of the paper – to analyze the specific organizational features of European Men's Basketball (hereinafter – EuroBasket2011) championship. The tasks of the paper: 1. To show Sports events organizational features 2. To carry out Euro Basket 2011 organization situation analysis 3. To compare EuroBasket2011 championship organization to championships that was taken part in other countries. 4. To evaluate EuroBasket2011 championship organization Working methods: 1. Analytical Review of Literature 2. Questionnaire survey. 3. Expert interviews. 4. Descriptive statistical data analysis. Conclusions. The paper, with reference to secondary informational sources, interview, and Eurobasket2011 participants' survey, analyzes the European basketball championship of 2011 organizational features and identifies related problems. After the informational analysis, we could agree, that Eurobasket2011 was the most successfully organized basketball championship in the Europe – that was also noticed by "FIBA Europe", participants and international media. It got the highest evaluation not only for the Eurobasket2011 organization, but for other events also, such as the U-16 and U-18 European Men's Basketball Championship, Eurobasket2011 opening ceremony, social events "Go for Lithuania", 60 000 Basketball ball knocking record and others. All the infrastructure was prepared to meet the highest requirements of "FIBA Europe". This summer was the time of trial for the basketballs managers of the country and for the organizational committee. Lithuania was the first country in the history who organized the European Men's Championship that meet the new format – there were 24 participant teams instead of 16. The budget was much smaller than earlier championships in other countries – it was only 23 million Lt. To conclude we could say, that the results were exceeding the expectations even for the organizational committee. It was sold more than 75 percent of tickets to all the Eurobasket2011 games. The incomes from tickets and private sponsors were exceeding planed incomes and covered the Lithuanian Government donation.

European Men's Basketball championship of 2011 – EuroBasket2011– was the extraordinary event not only in Lithuania, but also in the European history. First time in the history there were 24 high qualification European basketball teams in the European championship. There were almost 300 professional basketball players who were fighting because of medals and permission to London Olympian games. The object of the paper – the organization of European Men's Basketball championship. Problem of the paper: what features of European men`s basketball championship organization can be evaluated as positive and negative? The goal of the paper – to analyze the specific organizational features of European Men's Basketball (hereinafter – EuroBasket2011) championship. The tasks of the paper: 1. To show Sports events organizational features 2. To carry out Euro Basket 2011 organization situation analysis 3. To compare EuroBasket2011 championship organization to championships that was taken part in other countries. 4. To evaluate EuroBasket2011 championship organization Working methods: 1. Analytical Review of Literature 2. Questionnaire survey. 3. Expert interviews. 4. Descriptive statistical data analysis. Conclusions. The paper, with reference to secondary informational sources, interview, and Eurobasket2011 participants' survey, analyzes the European basketball championship of 2011 organizational features and identifies related problems. After the informational analysis, we could agree, that Eurobasket2011 was the most successfully organized basketball championship in the Europe – that was also noticed by "FIBA Europe", participants and international media. It got the highest evaluation not only for the Eurobasket2011 organization, but for other events also, such as the U-16 and U-18 European Men's Basketball Championship, Eurobasket2011 opening ceremony, social events "Go for Lithuania", 60 000 Basketball ball knocking record and others. All the infrastructure was prepared to meet the highest requirements of "FIBA Europe". This summer was the time of trial for the basketballs managers of the country and for the organizational committee. Lithuania was the first country in the history who organized the European Men's Championship that meet the new format – there were 24 participant teams instead of 16. The budget was much smaller than earlier championships in other countries – it was only 23 million Lt. To conclude we could say, that the results were exceeding the expectations even for the organizational committee. It was sold more than 75 percent of tickets to all the Eurobasket2011 games. The incomes from tickets and private sponsors were exceeding planed incomes and covered the Lithuanian Government donation.

To start with, scientific works of Lithuanians and foreign sociologists, culturologists and other scientists are analyzed in the master's work. The sport is represented as important phenomena which can have an impact for each person or for the whole society or country. Global sports events forms attitude for the life and for the whole sports as well, for this reason, this theme is topical and interesting. European basketball championship of 2011 was one of the most important sport events in Lithuanians sport history. Not to mention the fact, that it was substantial for the country politically and economically.

To start with, scientific works of Lithuanians and foreign sociologists, culturologists and other scientists are analyzed in the master's work. The sport is represented as important phenomena which can have an impact for each person or for the whole society or country. Global sports events forms attitude for the life and for the whole sports as well, for this reason, this theme is topical and interesting. European basketball championship of 2011 was one of the most important sport events in Lithuanians sport history. Not to mention the fact, that it was substantial for the country politically and economically.

This article is an attempt to overview the recent state of European studies in Lithuania & some problems arising in this field of research. Because of the 'constructivist' essence of contemporary science, the social sciences, including European studies, are exposed to a threat of losing 'a sense of reality.' If this ever growing tendency gets stronger & becomes irreversible, the knowledge acquired in the course of those studies would become only 'doxical' knowledge reflecting daily realities & needs of short-term political conjuncture. One of possible ways to solve the problem of a loss of 'a sense of reality' in the field of European studies is to expand the research horizons by paying more attention to European history & especially to its religious & philosophical heritage. Adapted from the source document.

There are no social movements or political parties in Europe which would strive for united social policy model. Large historic, structural and financial differences between various countries are the main reasons for that. Negative results of referendums for adoption of European Constitution in France and the Netherlands, as other forms of resistance, are witnessing about aims of population to preserve continental corporative European model without changes or only with slight changes. The latter does not help European integration and harmonization of social tasks, although helps to survive for developed and well financed social security systems in Europe. European Union , as before, foresees social security as a subject for national competence and jurisdiction. Nevertheless, separate problems considering common EU labour market are solved jointly and positively. Social policy modeling in Western European countries has a history of several decades. It enables to define one or another European social security model and to conduct analysis of existing social situation and prognostic perspectives. English sociologist Richard Titmuss and danish sociologist Gosta Esping-Andersen have made the largest input into social policy modelling. They both have scientifically founded the liberal, corporative and socialdemocratic welfare models. If Titmuss in his work have made more qualitative analysis, Esping-Andersen have added substantial quantitative indicators of decommodification. The works of other researchers have shown the impact of this theory for other parts of societal life, especially - for labour market policies. Globalisation impact is decisive for one or another social policy model configuration. Mainly because of globalisation impact the ,,passive social policy", which was functioning until the 90-ies is replaced by ,,active social policy" which is posing final social reintegration aims. ; Europos integracijos procese natūraliai kyla bendro Europos socialinės politikos modelio pasirinkimo problema. Kai kurie administratoriai ir tyrėjai siūlo nuo "socialinės Europos" darbotvarkės klausimų pereiti prie konkretaus socialinės apsaugos modelio pasirinkimo. Kiti administratoriai ir mokslininkai atkakliai tvirtina, kad Europoje ir toliau išliks bent 4 svarbiausi socialinės apsaugos modeliai - Šiaurės, kontinentinėje, Pietų Europoje ir Britanijos salose, nes socialinei apsaugai ES ir toliau bus skiriamas antraeilis vaid-muo, ji ir toliau priklausys nacionalinei jurisdikcijai ir kompetencijai. Trečia tyrėjų grupė pabrėžia sociali-nių problemų aktualumą Europoje tik tuo atveju, jeigu socialinės apsaugos uždaviniai neprieštarauja ben-drai Europos Sąjungos darbo rinkos politikai. Šiame straipsnyje paliečiama Europos socialinė integracija, suderinamumo, konvergencijos ir bendros socialinės erdvės problema, nušviečiamos svarbiausios kliūtys didesnei socialinei Europos integracijai pasiekti, apibrėžiami iššūkiai socialinės politikos modeliams praeityje ir dabar, pateikiamos G. Esping-Anderseno ir kitų Vakarų mokslininkų pastabos apie gerovės modelius, numatomos Vakarų Europos ir Lietuvos socialinės apsaugos lyginamosios perspektyvos.

The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The application of the neorealist theory in such research is blocked by its assumption that its subject is international system, consisting of sovereign national states. However, there were no such states (and nations) in medieval Europe and most other places in premodern times. The concept of international society of H. Bull is not applicable to premodern polities because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. In the first part of the article, the corrections to remove these modernist and europocentric deformations are suggested. They include the replacement of the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society", and the distinction between "sovereign politikes system/society" and "suzerain (imperial) polity system/society", borrowed (with modifications) from M. Wight. Second part and third parts together constitute a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII–XV centuries. The second part is about the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. According to the unconventional account of the so-called "feudal war" (1431–1453) in the Great Duchy of Moscow by Alexander Zimin, there was real possibility to establish at least two Russian states in the lands ruled by the Muscovite princes. Great Novgorod was viable polity too, bearing promise of the protobourgeois and protodemocratic Russia. Another viable polity was created in Kazan by Tatars who have changed to sedentary life of agriculturalists, and were about to become the power, filling out the geopolitical space that in older times was held by Volga Bulgaria. However, mainly due to the pursuit by Jagiellonian rulers of GDL and Poland of the dynastic politics in the Central Europe, at least three windows of opportunity to preserve this interpolity system from its annihilation by rising Moscow empire were not used. Last of them was the opportunity to re-establish the independence of Great Novgorod in 1480. These failures of the Lithuanian statesmanship sealed the fate of the Eastern European interpolity system: its disappearance in the Moscow empire. So the history of Eastern European interpolity politics in the XIII–XVIII centuries is another case proving the finding of the recent research by Stuart J. Kaufman, William C. Wohlforth, Richard Little, David Kangi, Charles Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, Williams Brenner that a long-lasting balance of power in a interpolity system is rather an exception than rule, the rule being the displacement of the multipolar or bipolar balance of power interpolity systems by empires.

The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The application of the neorealist theory in such research is blocked by its assumption that its subject is international system, consisting of sovereign national states. However, there were no such states (and nations) in medieval Europe and most other places in premodern times. The concept of international society of H. Bull is not applicable to premodern polities because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. In the first part of the article, the corrections to remove these modernist and europocentric deformations are suggested. They include the replacement of the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society", and the distinction between "sovereign politikes system/society" and "suzerain (imperial) polity system/society", borrowed (with modifications) from M. Wight. Second part and third parts together constitute a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII–XV centuries. The second part is about the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. According to the unconventional account of the so-called "feudal war" (1431–1453) in the Great Duchy of Moscow by Alexander Zimin, there was real possibility to establish at least two Russian states in the lands ruled by the Muscovite princes. Great Novgorod was viable polity too, bearing promise of the protobourgeois and protodemocratic Russia. Another viable polity was created in Kazan by Tatars who have changed to sedentary life of agriculturalists, and were about to become the power, filling out the geopolitical space that in older times was held by Volga Bulgaria. However, mainly due to the pursuit by Jagiellonian rulers of GDL and Poland of the dynastic politics in the Central Europe, at least three windows of opportunity to preserve this interpolity system from its annihilation by rising Moscow empire were not used. Last of them was the opportunity to re-establish the independence of Great Novgorod in 1480. These failures of the Lithuanian statesmanship sealed the fate of the Eastern European interpolity system: its disappearance in the Moscow empire. So the history of Eastern European interpolity politics in the XIII–XVIII centuries is another case proving the finding of the recent research by Stuart J. Kaufman, William C. Wohlforth, Richard Little, David Kangi, Charles Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, Williams Brenner that a long-lasting balance of power in a interpolity system is rather an exception than rule, the rule being the displacement of the multipolar or bipolar balance of power interpolity systems by empires.

The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The application of the neorealist theory in such research is blocked by its assumption that its subject is international system, consisting of sovereign national states. However, there were no such states (and nations) in medieval Europe and most other places in premodern times. The concept of international society of H. Bull is not applicable to premodern polities because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. In the first part of the article, the corrections to remove these modernist and europocentric deformations are suggested. They include the replacement of the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society", and the distinction between "sovereign politikes system/society" and "suzerain (imperial) polity system/society", borrowed (with modifications) from M. Wight. Second part and third parts together constitute a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII–XV centuries. The second part is about the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. According to the unconventional account of the so-called "feudal war" (1431–1453) in the Great Duchy of Moscow by Alexander Zimin, there was real possibility to establish at least two Russian states in the lands ruled by the Muscovite princes. Great Novgorod was viable polity too, bearing promise of the protobourgeois and protodemocratic Russia. Another viable polity was created in Kazan by Tatars who have changed to sedentary life of agriculturalists, and were about to become the power, filling out the geopolitical space that in older times was held by Volga Bulgaria. However, mainly due to the pursuit by Jagiellonian rulers of GDL and Poland of the dynastic politics in the Central Europe, at least three windows of opportunity to preserve this interpolity system from its annihilation by rising Moscow empire were not used. Last of them was the opportunity to re-establish the independence of Great Novgorod in 1480. These failures of the Lithuanian statesmanship sealed the fate of the Eastern European interpolity system: its disappearance in the Moscow empire. So the history of Eastern European interpolity politics in the XIII–XVIII centuries is another case proving the finding of the recent research by Stuart J. Kaufman, William C. Wohlforth, Richard Little, David Kangi, Charles Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, Williams Brenner that a long-lasting balance of power in a interpolity system is rather an exception than rule, the rule being the displacement of the multipolar or bipolar balance of power interpolity systems by empires.