Suchergebnisse

The Activity Report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania for 2017 declares that Lithuania's foreign policy is effective and claims that public opinion is the most important criteria for measuring its effectiveness. The article analyses Lithuania's foreign public policy cycle, with the focus on its formation and evaluation peculiarities. It argues that the cycle of Lithuanian foreign public policy is stagnating since its evaluation stage lacks efficiency and misses critical evaluations. The lack of strategic documents does not allow defining core foreign policy goals and in this matter to evaluate their achievement. The ambiguous goals in lower level documents prevent critical evaluation because of political interests. Lithuanian foreign policy is the outcome of close cooperation between President's Office and Ministry of Foreign Affairs which limits criticism between institutions. The Seimas provides greater criticism only when initiative is showed by the opposition. Foreign policy remains the sphere of responsibility of the political elite which has broad consensus and has differences in their views on a tactical level. Media and experts, for the most part, avoid critical evaluations of foreign policy as they want to remain in the dominating discourse and keep close contacts with state institutions. The current evaluation environment and tools are not sufficient to make changes at the agenda-setting stage of foreign policy.

The Activity Report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania for 2017 declares that Lithuania's foreign policy is effective and claims that public opinion is the most important criteria for measuring its effectiveness. The article analyses Lithuania's foreign public policy cycle, with the focus on its formation and evaluation peculiarities. It argues that the cycle of Lithuanian foreign public policy is stagnating since its evaluation stage lacks efficiency and misses critical evaluations. The lack of strategic documents does not allow defining core foreign policy goals and in this matter to evaluate their achievement. The ambiguous goals in lower level documents prevent critical evaluation because of political interests. Lithuanian foreign policy is the outcome of close cooperation between President's Office and Ministry of Foreign Affairs which limits criticism between institutions. The Seimas provides greater criticism only when initiative is showed by the opposition. Foreign policy remains the sphere of responsibility of the political elite which has broad consensus and has differences in their views on a tactical level. Media and experts, for the most part, avoid critical evaluations of foreign policy as they want to remain in the dominating discourse and keep close contacts with state institutions. The current evaluation environment and tools are not sufficient to make changes at the agenda-setting stage of foreign policy.

The Activity Report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania for 2017 declares that Lithuania's foreign policy is effective and claims that public opinion is the most important criteria for measuring its effectiveness. The article analyses Lithuania's foreign public policy cycle, with the focus on its formation and evaluation peculiarities. It argues that the cycle of Lithuanian foreign public policy is stagnating since its evaluation stage lacks efficiency and misses critical evaluations. The lack of strategic documents does not allow defining core foreign policy goals and in this matter to evaluate their achievement. The ambiguous goals in lower level documents prevent critical evaluation because of political interests. Lithuanian foreign policy is the outcome of close cooperation between President's Office and Ministry of Foreign Affairs which limits criticism between institutions. The Seimas provides greater criticism only when initiative is showed by the opposition. Foreign policy remains the sphere of responsibility of the political elite which has broad consensus and has differences in their views on a tactical level. Media and experts, for the most part, avoid critical evaluations of foreign policy as they want to remain in the dominating discourse and keep close contacts with state institutions. The current evaluation environment and tools are not sufficient to make changes at the agenda-setting stage of foreign policy.

The Activity Report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania for 2017 declares that Lithuania's foreign policy is effective and claims that public opinion is the most important criteria for measuring its effectiveness. The article analyses Lithuania's foreign public policy cycle, with the focus on its formation and evaluation peculiarities. It argues that the cycle of Lithuanian foreign public policy is stagnating since its evaluation stage lacks efficiency and misses critical evaluations. The lack of strategic documents does not allow defining core foreign policy goals and in this matter to evaluate their achievement. The ambiguous goals in lower level documents prevent critical evaluation because of political interests. Lithuanian foreign policy is the outcome of close cooperation between President's Office and Ministry of Foreign Affairs which limits criticism between institutions. The Seimas provides greater criticism only when initiative is showed by the opposition. Foreign policy remains the sphere of responsibility of the political elite which has broad consensus and has differences in their views on a tactical level. Media and experts, for the most part, avoid critical evaluations of foreign policy as they want to remain in the dominating discourse and keep close contacts with state institutions. The current evaluation environment and tools are not sufficient to make changes at the agenda-setting stage of foreign policy.

The controversial war in Iraq has revitalized the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union (EU), which has been stagnant since Maastricht Treaty and the failure in the Balkans. The development of the CFSP is accumulating acceleration: the EU will soon have not only a common market, common institutions and a single currency, but also a common constitution, minister of foreign affairs and even a common army. The leaders of the larger states are especially enthusiastic about a stronger CFSP as a counterweight to the US dominance in the international security affairs. The authors of this article contend that clearly articulated and globally projected CFSP will not be possible unless common European interests stemming from as common European identity and implemented by common supranational institutions will emerge. The impact of the CFSP on Lithuanian foreign and security policy will depend on the pace of European integration in this area and the strength of European identity within the political elite of Lithuania and the society itself. Will this impact be of a positive nature? It will depend on the way Europe will choose: creation of an independent defence structure as an alternative to NATO or development of a cohesive strategic partnership with the US and NATO. In any case, Lithuania will have to constantly seek for a subtle balance between her commitments to NATO, implications of the EU membership and the strategic partnership with the US. In this. [to full text]

The controversial war in Iraq has revitalized the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union (EU), which has been stagnant since Maastricht Treaty and the failure in the Balkans. The development of the CFSP is accumulating acceleration: the EU will soon have not only a common market, common institutions and a single currency, but also a common constitution, minister of foreign affairs and even a common army. The leaders of the larger states are especially enthusiastic about a stronger CFSP as a counterweight to the US dominance in the international security affairs. The authors of this article contend that clearly articulated and globally projected CFSP will not be possible unless common European interests stemming from as common European identity and implemented by common supranational institutions will emerge. The impact of the CFSP on Lithuanian foreign and security policy will depend on the pace of European integration in this area and the strength of European identity within the political elite of Lithuania and the society itself. Will this impact be of a positive nature? It will depend on the way Europe will choose: creation of an independent defence structure as an alternative to NATO or development of a cohesive strategic partnership with the US and NATO. In any case, Lithuania will have to constantly seek for a subtle balance between her commitments to NATO, implications of the EU membership and the strategic partnership with the US. In this. [to full text]

The controversial war in Iraq has revitalized the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union (EU), which has been stagnant since Maastricht Treaty and the failure in the Balkans. The development of the CFSP is accumulating acceleration: the EU will soon have not only a common market, common institutions and a single currency, but also a common constitution, minister of foreign affairs and even a common army. The leaders of the larger states are especially enthusiastic about a stronger CFSP as a counterweight to the US dominance in the international security affairs. The authors of this article contend that clearly articulated and globally projected CFSP will not be possible unless common European interests stemming from as common European identity and implemented by common supranational institutions will emerge. The impact of the CFSP on Lithuanian foreign and security policy will depend on the pace of European integration in this area and the strength of European identity within the political elite of Lithuania and the society itself. Will this impact be of a positive nature? It will depend on the way Europe will choose: creation of an independent defence structure as an alternative to NATO or development of a cohesive strategic partnership with the US and NATO. In any case, Lithuania will have to constantly seek for a subtle balance between her commitments to NATO, implications of the EU membership and the strategic partnership with the US. In this. [to full text]

The controversial war in Iraq has revitalized the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union (EU), which has been stagnant since Maastricht Treaty and the failure in the Balkans. The development of the CFSP is accumulating acceleration: the EU will soon have not only a common market, common institutions and a single currency, but also a common constitution, minister of foreign affairs and even a common army. The leaders of the larger states are especially enthusiastic about a stronger CFSP as a counterweight to the US dominance in the international security affairs. The authors of this article contend that clearly articulated and globally projected CFSP will not be possible unless common European interests stemming from as common European identity and implemented by common supranational institutions will emerge. The impact of the CFSP on Lithuanian foreign and security policy will depend on the pace of European integration in this area and the strength of European identity within the political elite of Lithuania and the society itself. Will this impact be of a positive nature? It will depend on the way Europe will choose: creation of an independent defence structure as an alternative to NATO or development of a cohesive strategic partnership with the US and NATO. In any case, Lithuania will have to constantly seek for a subtle balance between her commitments to NATO, implications of the EU membership and the strategic partnership with the US. In this. [to full text]

The controversial war in Iraq has revitalized the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union (EU), which has been stagnant since Maastricht Treaty and the failure in the Balkans. The development of the CFSP is accumulating acceleration: the EU will soon have not only a common market, common institutions and a single currency, but also a common constitution, minister of foreign affairs and even a common army. The leaders of the larger states are especially enthusiastic about a stronger CFSP as a counterweight to the US dominance in the international security affairs. The authors of this article contend that clearly articulated and globally projected CFSP will not be possible unless common European interests stemming from as common European identity and implemented by common supranational institutions will emerge. The impact of the CFSP on Lithuanian foreign and security policy will depend on the pace of European integration in this area and the strength of European identity within the political elite of Lithuania and the society itself. Will this impact be of a positive nature? It will depend on the way Europe will choose: creation of an independent defence structure as an alternative to NATO or deve¬lopment of a cohesive strategic partnership with the US and NATO. In any case, Lithuania will have to constantly seek for a subtle balance between her commitments to NATO, implications of the EU membership and the strategic partnership with the US. In this. [to full text]

The controversial war in Iraq has revitalized the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union (EU), which has been stagnant since Maastricht Treaty and the failure in the Balkans. The development of the CFSP is accumulating acceleration: the EU will soon have not only a common market, common institutions and a single currency, but also a common constitution, minister of foreign affairs and even a common army. The leaders of the larger states are especially enthusiastic about a stronger CFSP as a counterweight to the US dominance in the international security affairs. The authors of this article contend that clearly articulated and globally projected CFSP will not be possible unless common European interests stemming from as common European identity and implemented by common supranational institutions will emerge. The impact of the CFSP on Lithuanian foreign and security policy will depend on the pace of European integration in this area and the strength of European identity within the political elite of Lithuania and the society itself. Will this impact be of a positive nature? It will depend on the way Europe will choose: creation of an independent defence structure as an alternative to NATO or deve¬lopment of a cohesive strategic partnership with the US and NATO. In any case, Lithuania will have to constantly seek for a subtle balance between her commitments to NATO, implications of the EU membership and the strategic partnership with the US. In this. [to full text]

The controversial war in Iraq has revitalized the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union (EU), which has been stagnant since Maastricht Treaty and the failure in the Balkans. The development of the CFSP is accumulating acceleration: the EU will soon have not only a common market, common institutions and a single currency, but also a common constitution, minister of foreign affairs and even a common army. The leaders of the larger states are especially enthusiastic about a stronger CFSP as a counterweight to the US dominance in the international security affairs. The authors of this article contend that clearly articulated and globally projected CFSP will not be possible unless common European interests stemming from as common European identity and implemented by common supranational institutions will emerge. The impact of the CFSP on Lithuanian foreign and security policy will depend on the pace of European integration in this area and the strength of European identity within the political elite of Lithuania and the society itself. Will this impact be of a positive nature? It will depend on the way Europe will choose: creation of an independent defence structure as an alternative to NATO or deve¬lopment of a cohesive strategic partnership with the US and NATO. In any case, Lithuania will have to constantly seek for a subtle balance between her commitments to NATO, implications of the EU membership and the strategic partnership with the US. In this. [to full text]

The controversial war in Iraq has revitalized the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union (EU), which has been stagnant since Maastricht Treaty and the failure in the Balkans. The development of the CFSP is accumulating acceleration: the EU will soon have not only a common market, common institutions and a single currency, but also a common constitution, minister of foreign affairs and even a common army. The leaders of the larger states are especially enthusiastic about a stronger CFSP as a counterweight to the US dominance in the international security affairs. The authors of this article contend that clearly articulated and globally projected CFSP will not be possible unless common European interests stemming from as common European identity and implemented by common supranational institutions will emerge. The impact of the CFSP on Lithuanian foreign and security policy will depend on the pace of European integration in this area and the strength of European identity within the political elite of Lithuania and the society itself. Will this impact be of a positive nature? It will depend on the way Europe will choose: creation of an independent defence structure as an alternative to NATO or deve¬lopment of a cohesive strategic partnership with the US and NATO. In any case, Lithuania will have to constantly seek for a subtle balance between her commitments to NATO, implications of the EU membership and the strategic partnership with the US. In this. [to full text]

This article raises the question of what role does the presidential institution hold in the Lithuanian foreign policy formation mechanism and how a particular actor (president) can change their powers in foreign policy without going beyond the functions formally defined in the Constitution. The period of President Grybauskaitė's term and her efforts as an actor to define her role in shaping Lithuanian foreign policy are analyzed. This is assessed in the context of the activities and behavior of former Lithuanian presidents and in the context of relations with other institutions involved in foreign policy making – the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and the Seimas in particular. This article analyzes the relationship between the actor (Grybauskaitė) and the already established structure of domestic foreign policy formation and the ability of the actor to change this structure. The analysis suggests that it is precisely because of the choices made by Grybauskaite during 2009–2019 that a relationship between the structures of foreign policy making in Lithuania has changed considerably, and that the center of power of foreign policy formation has shifted to the presidency

This article raises the question of what role does the presidential institution hold in the Lithuanian foreign policy formation mechanism and how a particular actor (president) can change their powers in foreign policy without going beyond the functions formally defined in the Constitution. The period of President Grybauskaitė's term and her efforts as an actor to define her role in shaping Lithuanian foreign policy are analyzed. This is assessed in the context of the activities and behavior of former Lithuanian presidents and in the context of relations with other institutions involved in foreign policy making – the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and the Seimas in particular. This article analyzes the relationship between the actor (Grybauskaitė) and the already established structure of domestic foreign policy formation and the ability of the actor to change this structure. The analysis suggests that it is precisely because of the choices made by Grybauskaite during 2009–2019 that a relationship between the structures of foreign policy making in Lithuania has changed considerably, and that the center of power of foreign policy formation has shifted to the presidency

This article raises the question of what role does the presidential institution hold in the Lithuanian foreign policy formation mechanism and how a particular actor (president) can change their powers in foreign policy without going beyond the functions formally defined in the Constitution. The period of President Grybauskaitė's term and her efforts as an actor to define her role in shaping Lithuanian foreign policy are analyzed. This is assessed in the context of the activities and behavior of former Lithuanian presidents and in the context of relations with other institutions involved in foreign policy making – the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and the Seimas in particular. This article analyzes the relationship between the actor (Grybauskaitė) and the already established structure of domestic foreign policy formation and the ability of the actor to change this structure. The analysis suggests that it is precisely because of the choices made by Grybauskaite during 2009–2019 that a relationship between the structures of foreign policy making in Lithuania has changed considerably, and that the center of power of foreign policy formation has shifted to the presidency