Suchergebnisse

Poland towards Russia between 1992 and 2015 and outline their specifics. The author attempted at a synthesis of major manifestations of Polish-Russian cooperation and most sticking points in the intergovernmental (international) relations during that period. An important objective was to show the sources and examples of a divergence of interests, and point to the goals, which were based on these premises, established by the foreign policy-makers in Poland and Russia and pursued in mutual relations and international affairs. Between 1992 and 2015, in Poland's foreign policy towards the East and national security policy, the relations with Russia and the Ukraine were of utmost importance. On the economic level, considering the volume of mutual trade turnover, Poland's main partner in the East was the Russian Federation, whereas on the political level, the Ukraine was seen as a strategic partner. Along with the Ukraine, Russia played a key role in Poland's security policy in the discussed period. It should be emphasized that Polish-Russian and Polish-Ukrainian relations were very closely linked, and so was Poland's policy towards Russia and the Ukraine. In Poland's foreign policy towards Russia, or in broader terms, in Polish-Russian relations between 1992 and 2015, seven stages can be distinguished; each having their own characteristic. Despite some new specifics in each particular stage, they all shared an element of continuity. The constant theme was a great divergence of interests between Poland and Russia, particularly with regard to the European security system, and the role of NATO in shaping this security, as well as further stages of the alliance's enlargement, especially by countries of the post-Soviet area; energy security and Poland's strive for diversification of fuels supplies faced with Russia's actions aimed at the diversification of routes of sending its gas and crude oil to Western Europe bypassing the Ukraine and Poland; a historic dispute, in which a thorough, satisfying for the Poles, explanation of the Katyn Forest massacre was particularly high on the agenda among other issues; opposing visions of building an order in Eastern Europe, and first and foremost, in the Ukraine. With the passing of time, especially after Poland's NATO and the EU accession, the future of Eastern European countries, particularly the Ukraine and Belarus, has become a fundamental issue in Polish-Russian relations. Both Russia and Poland treated Eastern European countries as a sort of a safety buffer. However, the two countries had entirely different visions of how this buffer ought to be shaped. The political leadership in Poland saw the strenghtening of national security in the strenghtening of the Ukrainian buffer through the Ukraine's membership in NATO and the EU, whereas for the political leadership in Russia, the strenghtening of national security through Ukrainian buffer meant preserving its outside NATO status, or incorporating it in the the security system built under the aegis of Russia on the area of CIS. A characteristic of the Polish-Russian relations in that period was a great imbalance to Poland's disadvantage, resulting from the differences in broadly understood physical potential of the two countries and, consequently, their international roles (Poland being a medium-size country situated in Central Europe and Russia being a superpower in Central Eurasia). The capacities of Poland to shape the situation in Eastern Europe on its own were incomparably lower than Russia's. Therefore, Poland was trying to make use of European and Euro-Atlantic multirateral structures, mainly through the Eastern Dimension realized by the EU and NATO, to have as much influence as possible, on the desired developments in Eastern Europe. The eastern policy under successive RP governments was characterized by their overrating, frequently, of their own capacities, lack of objectivity in assessment of the situation across our eastern border, and application of double standards, particularly in the policy towards Russia. Polish-Russian political relations throughout the post-Cold War period were critical, and improvements were relatively short-lasting. Not only Russia, but also Poland is to blame for such a state of events. The Polish side, due to historical reasons and imbalance of potential, expected Russia to take more initiative in coming to an agreement with Poland. However, it has to be admitted that in many activities undertaken by Poland with regard to European security, in particular Eastern European subregion, the interests of Russia were completly disregarded, although they did not have to be accepted fully. An example of this was Polish diplomacy in the second half of 2013 intended not to allow Russia to be included in the negotiations on the EU association agreement with the Ukraine about issues that had economic implications for Russia's interests. In their policy towards Russia, foreign policy-makers in Poland, forgot, all too often, or, were unwilling to remember, about the principle that in order to meet the security needs of one's own country, one should also consider the security needs of other countries, the neighbouring ones in the first place. Analyzing the policies under succesive III RP governments on European security and relations with the post-Soviet countries, it is hard to share the view prevailing in our country that Poland did its best to develop partnership and good neighbourly relations with Russia. Among politicians, publicists and the Polish society, there was a large group of people who took a stance, though it was not always formally articulated, that Poland has a right, or even a duty to remain hostile towards Russia. On the other hand, Russia should not act unfavourably towards Poland, regardless of Poland's anti-Russian policy, although, obviously, it was declared otherwise. One of the few stages showing a distinct improvement in Poland's policy towards Russia and a mutual willingness to normalize our political relations, was the one between 2008 and 2010, when an unsuccesful attempt was made at pragmatizing foreign policy towards Russia. Since the end of 2007, this new foreign policy, gradually encompassing other areas, led to a greater or lesser modification of the policy to date towards Russia, the Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia by basing it on the so-called positive realism. These new trends increased cooperation between Poland and Russia and, eventually, a considerable progress was achieved in normalizing our relations. Between 2008 and 2010, Polish policy towards the East not only changed in practice, it was also a conceptual change. The crash of the presidential plane at Smoleńsk (April 10th, 2010), in which 96 peple were killed, including President of RP Lech Kaczyński and His Spouse, was a major, if not primary reason why the normalization process (2008–2010) was seriously hampered to the point of a standstill between 2011 and 2013. The Smoleńsk air disaster, and conflicting stands over its causes in particular, exacerbated divisions in the Polish society and strenghtened reluctance, if not hostility, towards Russia. A large part of the Polish political class and society did not accept a version of an inadvertent air disaster (plane crash), whose causes, like not following correct procedures, lay on both Poles and Russians. The surveys conducted during the years following the Smoleńsk air disaster showed that over 30% of the Polish society were convinced that it had been an attempt on the life of the Polish delegation en route to a commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Katyn Forrest massacre, and that the Russian government and secret services had been involved. After the Smoleńsk air disaster, foreign policy towards Russia and Polish-Russian relations became a ground for political struggle in our country. For many politicians and conservatist right-wing journalists, a demonstrated degree of anti-Russian sentiment became the main criterion of patriotism. In a large part of the Polish society, a belief was strenghtened that actions should be taken to weaken and isolate Russia, and to minimize, rather than increase cooperation between the two countries. This meant that internal conditions within our country, which could possibly motivate the foreign policy-makers to stop viewing Russia as the main threat and encourage a breakthrough in thinking about that issue, deteriorated markedly. Consequently, Polish-Russian relations between 2011 and 2013 remained in a state of deadlock. In the foreign policy of Poland between 1992 and 2015, Russia played the leading role. This, however, stemmed from Russia being perceived by the policy-makers as the main threat to our national security, not a recognized partner in pursuing this security. Throughout that period, in all successive stages of Polish security policy, Russia was regarded as the main threat. Each political leadership in Poland, especially since the mid 1990s, treated Russia in this way, and these were not merely anti-Russian declarations, but a guiding principle of the foreign policy. Behind it, was a conviction that Russian imperialism was timeless and Russia would never accept the sovereignty of Poland. It was an obvious reference to the classical Polish geopolitical thought about Russia posing main threats to our national security. During the crisis and conflict in eastern Ukraine, between 2014 and 2015, the foreign policymakers in Poland revived the stance of a military threat on the part of Russia. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, such loud voices were heard about a possible military attack on Poland. Unlike the earlier periods, when there was an informal presumption that Russia was a threat to the security of Poland, in 2014, for the first time, in III RP's security policy, Russia was formally pointed to as a direct military threat. It was articulated in official state documents, including Strategia Bezpieczeństwa Narodowego Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej from November, 2014, and in addresses delivered by the Polish government officials (for instance in exposé of Foreign Minister R. Sikorski and his follower G. Schetyna). The crisis and conflict in south-eastern Ukraine did not substantially change Poland's policy towards Russia. What did change between 2014 and 2015, however, was that much more emphasis than ever was placed on Russia being a threat to our national security, and there being a serious risk of a Russian direct invasion of Poland. During 2014 and 2015, the process of politicizing fear (policy of fear) of Russia was at its height. For Poland, a major outcome of the Ukrainian conflict and crisis was decreased national security and growing fears, among them the fear of Russian invasion, which does not mean that such a threat was real. During the years 2014 and 2015, Polish-Russian political relations at the highest level came almost to the point of being frozen. Important direct implications of the Ukrainian conflict for Poland's security were, apart from a growing fear of Russia, increased desires towards strenghtening its own defense capability, strenghtening NATO cohesion, increased involvement of NATO in our sub-region's security and closer bilateral Polish-American cooperation regarding military security. Resolving the conflict in eastern Ukraine as quickly as possible was in the interests of Poland. However, Polish diplomacy did not engage much in the conflict deescalation. They were very sceptical about the successive agreements aimed at ending the military operations negotiated within the frames of the so-called Normandy format (Mińsk I and Mińsk II). It seems that, considering the geopolitical situation in the Ukraine and divisions of the Ukrainian society, this country should remain a buffer state. Alternatively, coming out of this role should occur gradually, through a simultaneous Europeization of the Ukraine and Russia. Poland should not be interested in the "revolutionary" speeding up of the processes occuring in the Ukrainian society. Responsible politicians willing to serve the best interests of their nation should be aware of the limitations in pursuing even the most support worthy goals. The policy of every country, the foreign policy of Poland and the Ukraine included, should be founded on a realistic assessment of one's own capabilities so that aspirations would not outgrow the real possibilities of their attainment. Poland, aspiring to the role of the EU main expert in Russian and the post-Soviet area affairs, through insisting in the EU on the earliest possible Ukraine association with the EU, contributed in a way to the situation when the Ukraine had to choose between the EU and Russia. Polish politicians did not anticpate the negative outcomes of such acceleration for the Ukraine itself (including the loss of Crimea and strong separatist tendencies in the East of the Ukraine), as well as for Russian- Ukrainian relations and the security of Poland. Therefore, the firm support and involvement of the Polish political class in the so-called democratic revolution in the Ukraine during 2013 and 2014, can hardly be regarded as a succcess. Polish policy towards the East ended in yet another failure, which was shown as confirmation when Poland was not included in the talks aimed at resolving the Ukrainian crisis, which were held by officials from the Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France since the middle of 2014. The Ukrainian crisis and conflict was a turning point in Polish security policy and Polish-Russian relations. The Polish government officially began to treat Russia as the largest threat to the national and international security. A considerable part of the political elites in Poland did not see the threat in excessive dependence of Polish economy on Russian energy resources or other economic threats, but in a direct military attack. Generally speaking, it is unknown to what extent the Ukrainian crisis and conflict will, in the long run, have an impact on changes in Polish policy towards the East, particularly towards Russia and the Ukraine. It exposed the ineffectiveness of our foreign policy to date towards the East. In this context, a question arises: What will be mid- and long-term implications of the Ukrainian conflict for the modification or a radical alteration to Polish foreign policy towards the East? Another fundamental question pertains to Polish-Russian relations: What policy should Poland pursue towards Russia now and in the future? Will the foreign policy and security policy be directed, like in 2014 and 2015, at instransigence and confrontation, or will the normalization tendency prevail as regards Russia, and will the relations with the Ukraine be redefined? However, at the end of 2015, nothing implied that the foreign and security policy-makers intended to transform in any way the policy towards Russia and the Ukraine to date. It does not mean that changes will not be implemented in the years to come. It will be closely connected with the impact of the Ukrainian conflict on the modification of the policy of Germany and the entire European Union as well as the policy of the United States on the post-Soviet area. The crisis and conflict in eastern Ukraine strenghtened the legitimacy of argumentation that the main player in the post-Soviet area is Russia. None of the serious problems in this area can be resolved without the participation of Russia, and all the more, against Russia, which obviously, does not mean that the proponents of this stance overrate the capabilities of Russia in terms of shaping the closer and farther international environment. On this account, Polish policy will be hardly effective if at least some of Russia's interests in the post-Soviet area, especially in Eastern Europe, are taken into consideration, as was proven to date. Bearing in mind long-term consquences, the strategic conceptions of the Polish policy towards the East, should opt for the closest possible ties of Russia with political and economic structures of the EU and Euro-Atlantic structures (Europeization of Russia). This, in turn, should result in the evolution of the economic-political system of Russia into liberal democracy. The Ukrainian crisis and conflict classified the effectiveness of the Polish conception aimed at occidentalizing the Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova without simultaneously occidentalizing Russia. As was indicated by the proponents of this conception, its implementation assumed an inevitable cost such as a political conflict with Russia. The crisis and conflict in the Ukraine between 2014 and 2015 should be a good reason to change this stance. The biggest price for its implementation was paid by the Ukraininas themselves. Therefore, in the context of these experiences, Poland should suport not in opposition to Russia, but together with Russia, which does not imply that this process has to be fully synchronized. The direction of actions in this matter is of key importance. Despite the many contentious issues in Polish-Russian relations and different historical memory of Poles and Russians, in the long-term interests of Poland's security, lies implementing a cooperative and integrating, not a confrontational conception. For the normalization of Polish-Russian relations, it is essential that the successive governemnets of Poland and Russia should have a political will to a less confrontational approach towards disputable issues and resolve emerging problems in a compromising way, which is one of the "scarcest commodities" in the Polish-Russian relations. A compromise should not be treated as a failure, as is often believed, also by the Poles. It also requires changes in mutual perception. A true normalization of mutual relations between Poland and Russia will not be possible if the majority of political elites, media and society in both countries will see the other not even as a difficult partner of rival, but an enemy. The divergence of interests does not have to lead to hostility. The governing groups in Poland and Russia face a challenge in improving Polish-Russian relations. They can either attempt to broaden the area of common interests or to highlight the discrepancies and divergence of interests, and thus strenghten social attitudes prone to either cooperation or confrontation.

Celem poniższego artykułu jest przeprowadzenie analizy na temat kultury strategicznej Węgier po zmianach ustrojowych. Poznanie węgierskiej kultury strategicznej jest niezbędne do zrozumienia decyzji strategicznych i politycznych dotyczących bezpieczeństwo dla sojuszników oraz partnerów politycznych. Węgierska strategia opiera się między innymi na położeniu geopolitycznym, doświadczeniach historycznych o sytuacji wewnętrznej i zewnętrznej. Węgry są małym krajem, co uwarunkuje jego kulturę strategiczną. Kraj podobnie jak inne państwa w regionie po upadku Układu Warszawskiego jednoznacznie określił cel strategiczny - dołączenie się do struktury euroatlantyckiej. Najważniejszymi momentami okresu badanego jest zaproszenie do Organizacji Traktatu Północnoatlantyckiego w 1999 roku oraz dołączenie do Unii Europejskiej w 2004 roku. W badanym okresie 1990-2020 zostało wydanych 5 strategii bezpieczeństwa narodowego. Dokumenty te są podstawą do analizy kierunku rozwoju, jak i współpracy w aspekcie bezpieczeństwa kraju. Węgry od zmian ustrojowych prowadzili pokojową politykę w regionie. Mimo zgrzytów historycznych ciągnących się od dwóch wojen światowych, traktaty pokojowe nie zostały głównym elementem kultury nienawiści i wrogości. Najnowsza strategia z 2020 roku wydana na początku pandemii Sars-CoV-2 jest jedną z najbardziej rozbudowaną od 1990 roku. Mimo 30 lat od zmianach ustrojowych nie można mówić o własnej kulturze strategicznej Węgier. Kraj o małej potencjale społeczno-gospodarczym w dobie globalizacji nie ma możliwości tworzenia własnej kultury strategicznej bez uwzględnienia otoczenia a także sojuszników i organizacji międzynarodowych działających w regionie. Wynika to między innymi z charakteru uchwalenia i pracy nad strategią. Analiza opiera się na analizach dokumentów strategicznych w okresie 1990-2020, a także literatury węgierskiej. Ze względu na analizy dokumentów i literatury można wywnioskować charakterystyczne cechy kultury strategicznej regionu Środkowej Europy, a także doświadczenia historyczne z czasów zimnej wojny i strefy wschodniej do której Węgry należą. ; The aim of the article is to analyze the strategic culture of Hungary after the political changes in 1990. Getting to know the Hungarian strategic culture it is inevitable to understand the strategic political decisions regarding security for political allies and partners. The Hungarian strategy is based, inter alia, on the geopolitical situation, historical experience, internal and external situation. Hungary's culture is conducted by small countries situation. The country, similarly, to others in the region after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, clearly defined its strategic goals, which included the joining the Euro-Atlantic structures. The most important moments of the analyzed period are the invitation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1999 and joining to the European Union in 2004. In the period from 1990 to 2020, five national strategies were issued. These documents are the basis for the analysis of development directions and cooperation in the aspect of security. Since the political changes, Hungary has pursued a peaceful policy in the region. Even the historical experiences of the two lost world wars and peace treaties, did not remain the main element of the Hungarian culture of hatred and hostility. The latest strategy from 20202, released at the beginning of the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic, is one of the most extensive strategy since 1990. Despite 30 years after the political changes, it is impossible to speak of Hungary's own strategic culture. A country with a small socio-economic potential in the era of globalization cannot create its own strategic culture without considering its location, allies and international organizations operating in the region. This is due, inter alia, to the nature of the adoption and work on the strategy. The analysis is based on analyzes of strategic documents in the period 1990-2020, as well as Hungarian literature. Due to the analysis of documents and literature it is possible to deduce the characteristic features of the strategic culture of the Central European region as well as historical experiences from the Cold War and the Eastern zone to which Hungary belongs.

Celem poniższego opracowania jest syntetyczne przedstawienie zaangażowania Unii Europejskiej w rozwiązanie konfl iktu izraelsko-palestyńskiego. Rok 2018 jest dobrym momentem na podsumowanie roli Unii Europejskiej oraz innych aktorów regionalnych i międzynarodowych w rozwiązaniu kwestii palestyńskiej. Obecnie mija 25 lat od podpisania porozumienia z Oslo i 30 lat od deklaracji niepodległości ogłoszonej przez Organizację Wyzwolenia Palestyny. Z kolei w 2017 r. minęło 50 lat od zajęcia przez Izrael Strefy Gazy oraz Zachodniego Brzegu Jordanu. W artykule autorka zdecydowała się przyjąć tezę, iż konfl ikt izraelsko-palestyński stanowi jedno z głównych wyzwań dla polityki zagranicznej UE oraz jest nieodłączną cechą regionalnego układu sił i bez jego uregulowania nie można myśleć o trwałym pokoju na Bliskim Wschodzie86. Implikacje konfl iktu dla Unii Europejskiej są wielowymiarowe oraz dotyczą bezpieczeństwa, dialogu politycznego, kwestii gospodarczych i społecznych. Mają również wpływ na całościową politykę prowadzoną przez Unię wobec regionu śródziemnomorskiego. Powyższe zagadnienie stanowi ponadto ważny przyczynek do pogłębienia badań nad ewolucją Wspólnej Polityki Zagranicznej i Bezpieczeństwa Unii. Artykuł podzielony jest na pięć części. Pierwsza przedstawia źródło, ewolucję oraz poszczególne etapy konfl iktu od końca drugiej wojny światowej. W drugiej części wskazane zostały implikacje zapisów porozumienia z Oslo dla procesu negocjacji pokojowych. W trzeciej zawarto zidentyfi kowane najważniejsze problemy, które uniemożliwiają osiągnięcie trwałego pokoju między Izraelem a Palestyną. W czwartej części przedstawiono stanowisko Unii Europejskiej wobec konfl iktu i rozwiązania dwupaństwowego oraz współpracy dwustronnej z Izraelem i Palestyną. Ostatnia, piąta część stanowi omówienie problemów związanych z zaangażowaniem Unii Europejskiej na rzecz zakończenia konfl iktu. Analiza przeprowadzona w niniejszym artykule oparta została na zróżnicowanych źródłach i literaturze przedmiotu, w szczególności z lat 2015–2018 oraz badaniach własnych autorki. W opracowaniu zastosowano ujęcie krytyczne i problemowe, uwzględniające zachowanie podstawowych aktorów, ważnych z punktu widzenia omawianego tematu oraz wykorzystano następujące metody badawcze: czynnikową, instytucjonalno-prawną, analizy zawartości oraz elementy metody decyzyjnej. ; The aim of the article is to present the European Union's commitment to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian confl ict. 2018 is a good time to take stock of the role of the European Union and other regional and international actors in resolving the Palestinian issue. Currently, it is 25 years since the signing of the Oslo Agreement, 30 years after the declaration of independence announced by the PLO. A year earlier, 50 years have passed since Israel seized the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The article assumes the thesis that the Israeli-Palestinian confl ict is one of the main challenges for the EU's foreign policy, is an inherent feature of the regional balance of power and without its regulation it is impossible to think about a lasting peace in the Middle East. Its implications are multidimensional and concern security, political dialogue, economic and social issues. The confl ict also has an impact on the overall policy pursued by the Union towards the Mediterranean. The article is divided into fi ve parts. The fi rst presents the source, evolution and individual stages of the confl ict from the end of the Second World War. In the second part, the implications of the provisions of the Oslo Agreement for the negotiation process were indicated. The third identifi es the most important problems that prevent a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine. In the fourth part author shows the position of the European Union towards the confl ict and a two-state solution, and bilateral cooperation with Israel and Palestine. The fi fth part discusses the problems related to the involvement of the European Union in ending the conflict. The analysis carried out in this article is based on diversified sources, literature on the subject, in particular from 2015–2018, and the author's own research. The study uses a critical, problematic approach, taking into account the behavior of the basic actors, important from the point of view of the discussed topic, and the following research methods were used: factor analysis, institutional and legal, content analysis and elements of the decision method.

e.roszkowska@uwb.edu.pl ; Adamus-Matuszyńska A., Współczesne teorie konfliktu społecznego, AE w Katowicach, Katowice 1998. ; Aumann R. J., Hart S. (eds.), Handbook of game theory with economic applications, Tom I, II, Elsevier, Amsterdam 1994. ; Albrecht K., Albrecht S., Added Value Negotiating. The Breakthrough Method for Building Balanced Deals, Business One, Irwin, Homewood, III, 1993. ; Baran K. W., Zbiorowe prawo pracy, Universitas, Kraków 2002. ; Bargiel-Matusiewicz K., Negocjacje i mediacje, PWE, Warszawa 2007. ; Baron D. P., Ferejohn J. A., Legislatures, American Political Science Review, 1989. ; Bartos O. J., Process and Outcome of Negotiation, Columbia University Press, New York 1974. ; Bartos O. J. , Simple Model of Negotiation, [in:] I. W. Zartman (ed.), Negotiation Process: Theories and Applications, Sage, Beverly HillsCA 1978. ; Bazerman M. H., Neale M. A., Negocjując racjonalne, Polskie Towarzystwo Psychologiczne, Olsztyn 1997. ; Bednarek A., Kraszewska H., Budowanie zgody. Mediacje jako sposób zapanowania nad konfliktem", Personel, 23(92), 2000. ; Bell D., Raiffa H., Tversky A., Decision Making. Descriptive, Normative and Prescriptive Interactions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1988. ; Kulpa A., Dwa oblicza konfliktu. Funkcjonalna teoria konfliktu Lewisa A. Cosera a współczesne koncepcje zarządzania konfliktami, Organizacja i Kierowanie, Nr 1(107), 2002. ; Lax D. L., Sebenius J. K., Negocjacje w trzech wymiarach. Jak wygrać najważniejsze gry negocjacyjne, MT Biznes, Warszawa 2007. ; Lemmerman H., Komunikacja werbalna. Szkoła dyskutowania, Wydawnictwo Astrum, Wrocław 1994. ; Lendzion J.P., Stankiewicz-Mróz. A., Wprowadzenie do organizacji i zarządzania, Oficyna Ekonomiczna, Kraków 2005. ; Lewicka-Strzałecka A., Etyka biznesu jako dyscyplina naukowa, [w:] J. Dietl, W. Gasparski (red.), Etyka biznesu, PWN, Warszawa 2000. ; Lewicki R. J., Robinson R. J., Ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: An empirical study, "Journal of Business Ethics", 17(6), 1998. ; Lewicki R.J., Weiss S.E., Lewin D., Models of conflict, negotiation and third party intervention: A review and synthesis, ,,Journal of Organizational Behaviour", Vol. 13, 1992. ; Lissowski G. (red.), Elementy teorii wyboru społecznego, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa 2001. ; Luce R., Raiffa H. , Games and Decisions. Introduction and Critical Survey, Jon Wiley, New York 1958; polskie wydanie: Gry i decyzje, PWN, Warszawa 1964. ; Luecke R., Negocjacje. Sztuka zawierania dobrych kontaktów, Harward Business Essentials, Warszawa 2008. ; Binmore K., Fun and Games. A text on Game theory, D.C. Heath and Company Lexington 1992. ; Malawski M., Wieczorek A. , Sosnowska H., Konkurencja i kooperacja. Teoria gier w ekonomii i naukach społecznych, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 1997. ; March G., Simon A., Teoria organizacji, PWN, Warszawa 1964. ; Masewicz W., Rokowania oraz spory zbiorowe pracy, Biblioteczka Pracownicza, Warszawa 1993. ; Mastenbroek W., Negocjowanie, PWN, Warszawa 1997. ; Mayer B., The dynamics of conflict resolution. A practitioner's guide, Jossey-Brass, A Wiley Company, San Francisco 2000. ; Mc Clintock C., Game Behavior and Social Motivation in Interpersonal Settings, [in:] Experimental Social Psychology, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York. ; Mc Gregor D. F., The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York 1985. ; Mesjasz C., Mediacje w konflikcie, ,,Przegląd Organizacji", 9(92). ; Mesjasz C., Założenia analizy negocjacji, ,,Organizacja i Kierowanie", nr 3(85), 1996. ; Mesjasz C., Determinanty i modele procesów negocjacji kredytowych pomiędzy bankiem a przedsiębiorstwem, Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie, Kraków 2000. ; Binmore K., Osborne M. J., Rubinstein A., Noncooperative models of bargaining, [in:] Aumann R. J., Hart S. (eds.), Handbook of game theory with economic applications, Tom I, Elsevier 1994. ; Mikuła G., Wenzel M., Justice and Social Conflict, ,,International Journal of Psychology", 35(2), 2000. ; Modzelewski W., Wprowadzenie do socjologii, "Śląsk" Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Katowice 1999. ; Moore Ch. W., The Mediation Process. Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, Londyn 1986. ; Morrow J. D., Game Theory for Political Scientists, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1994. ; Mucha J., Konflikt i społeczeństwo, PWN, Warszawa 1978. ; Mulholan J., The Language of Negotiation: A Handbook of Practical Strategies for Improving Communication, Routledge, London 1991. ; Murnighan J. K., Bargaining games. A new approach to strategic thinking in negotiations, William Morrow and Company, Inc. New York 1992. ; Myerson R. B., Game theory. Analysis of conflict, Harvard University Press, Harvard 1991. ; Myśliwiec G ., Techniki i triki negocjacyjne, EFEKT, Warszawa 1999. ; Nahotko S., Negocjacje biznesowe w zarządzaniu przedsiębiorstwem. Aspekt ekonomiczny, Biblioteka Menadżera Służby Pracowniczej, Zeszyt 192, OPO, Bydgoszcz 2001. ; Birkenbihl V., Komunikacja werbalna. Psychologia prowadzenia negocjacji, Astrum, Wrocław 1997. ; Najowska M., Problemy badania wpływu kapitału ludzkiego na zachowanie przedsiębiorcze, [w:] M. Juchnowicz (red.), Kapitał ludzki a kształtowanie przedsiębiorczości, Poltext, Warszawa 2004. ; Nierenberg G.I., Sztuka negocjacji, Studio Emka, Warszawa 1997. ; Nash J., Equilibrium Points in n-Person Games, "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US)", No. 36, 1950. ; Nash J., Non-cooperative games, "Annals of Mathematics", Vol. 54, 1951. ; Nash J., The bargaining problem, "Econometrica" , No. 18, 1950. ; Nash J., Two–Persons Cooperative Games, "Econometrica", No. 21, 1953. ; Nęcki Z., Negocjacje w biznesie, Profesjonalna Szkoła Biznesu, Kraków 1991. ; Nęcki Z., Komunikacja międzyludzka, Wydawnictwo Aktywa, Kraków 2000. ; Nierenberg G. I., Sztuka negocjacji jako metoda osiągania celu, Wydawnictwo Studio Emka, Warszawa 1994. ; Nogalski B., Jarocki P., Komunikacja niewerbalna w negocjacjach międzynarodowych, TNOiK, Bydgoszcz 1998. ; Blake R., Molton J., The management by grid principles or intuitionalism: Which?, "Group and Organization Studies", No. 6, 1981. ; Obłój K., Mikroszkółka zarządzania, PWE, Warszawa 1994. ; Ordeshook P.C., Game Theory and Political Theory, Cambridge University, Cambridge 1986. ; Osborne M.J., Rubinstein A., Bargaining and Markets, Academic Press, Inc, San Diego, CA 1990. ; Owen G., Teoria gier, PWN, Warszawa 1975. ; Pawlak Z., Systemy informatyczne, PWN, Warszawa 1983. ; Parsons T., The social systems, Routledge, London 1951. ; Perrotin R., Heusschen P., Kupić z zyskiem. Negocjacje handlowe, Poltext, Warszawa 1994. ; Pietras C., Decydowanie polityczne, PWN, Warszawa 1998. ; Pietrzak M. (red.), Metody i techniki menadżerskie, Wydawnictwo SGGW, Warszawa 2007. ; Pruitt D. G., Negotiator Behaviour, Academic Press, Orlando, Fla. 1981. ; Borkowska S., Negocjacje zbiorowe, PWE, Warszawa 1997. ; Putman L. L., Roloff M.E. (eds.), Communication and Negotiation, Sage, Newbury Park 1992. ; Pruitt D. G., Carnevale P. J., Negotiation in social conflict, Open University Press, Buckingham 1993. ; Pszczółkowski T., Umiejętność przekonywania i dyskusji, Warszawa 1995. ; Rahim M. A., A measures of styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict, ,,Academy of Management Journal", 26(2), 1983. ; Rahim M. A., Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict, ,,The International Journal of Conflict Management", Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002. ; Raiffa H. , The Art and the Science of Negotiation, Harvard University Press, Harvard 1982. ; Rapoport A., Guyer M.,Gordon D., The 2x2 Games, Ann Arbor, 1976. ; Reiter R., A logic for default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence, No. 13, 1980. ; Robbins S. P., Zachowania w organizacji, PWE, Warszawa 1998. ; Roszkowska E., Etyka a negocjacje, [w:] Ekonomia. Polityka. Etyka, (red.) A. F. Bocian, Uniwersytet w Białymstoku, Białystok 2003. ; Borkowski J., Dyrda M., Kanarski L., Rokicki B., Wybrane problemy psychologii organizacji. O konflikcie i negocjacjach, Wyższa Szkoła Informatyki Stosowanej i Zarządzania, Warszawa 2000. ; Roszkowska E., Proces negocjacji w ujęciu teorii kompleksów reguł, "Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne", nr 2(10), 2001. ; Roszkowska E., Modelowanie procesów decyzyjnych oraz negocjacji za pomocą kompleksów reguł, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, Białystok 2007. ; Roszkowska E., Style negocjacji-analiza zagadnienia, ,,Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne", nr 4(20), 2003. ; Rubin J. Z., Brown B. R., The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation, Academic Press, Orlando, Fla. 1975. ; Rumel-Syska Z., Konflikty organizacyjne. Ujęcie mikrospołeczne, PWN, Warszawa 1990. ; Rusinowska A., Przetarg, [w:] Grupowe podejmowanie decyzji. Elementy teorii. Przykłady zastosowań, (red.) H. Sosnowska, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa 1999. ; Rusinowska A., Zagadnienie przetargowe ze zmiennymi w czasie preferencjami graczy, "Roczniki Kolegium Analiz Ekonomicznych", Zeszyt 6, 1998. ; Rządca R., Negocjacje w interesach, PWE, Warszawa 2003. ; Rządca R. A., Wujec P., Negocjacje, PWE , Warszawa 1998. ; Sajkiewicz A. (red.), Zasoby ludzkie w firmie. Organizacja, kierowanie, ekonomika, Poltext, Warszawa 1999. ; Błaut R., Skuteczne negocjacje, CIM , Warszawa 1994. ; Salacuse J., Salacuse J. W., Negocjacje na rynkach międzynarodowych, PWE, Warszawa 1994. ; Schelling T. C., Arms and the influence, Yale University Press, New Haven 1966. ; Schelling T. C., The strategy of conflict, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA 1960. ; Sebenius J. K., Negotiation Analysis: A Characterization and Review, ,,Management Science", Vol. 38, No. 1, 1992. ; Shubik M., Game Theory in Social Sciences. Concepts and solutions, The MIT Press, Cambridge 1982. ; Sikora J., Zarządzanie konfliktem w zakładzie pracy, TNOIK, Bydgoszcz 1998. ; Smith W. H., "Conflict", ,,Management Reviev", 1974; Omówienie [w:] ,,Organizacja i Kierowanie", nr 4, 1975. ; Sosnowska H., (red.), Grupowe podejmowanie decyzji, Scholar, Warszawa 2005. ; Spector B., Negotiation as a Psychological Process, [in:] I. W. Zartman (ed.), Negotiation Process: Theories and Applications, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1978. ; Stelmaszczyk M., Negocjowanie kontraktów handlowych. Poradnik dla eksporterów i importerów, CDKHZ, Warszawa 1992. ; Brdulak H., Brdulak J., Negocjacje handlowe, PWE, Warszawa 2000. ; Stępniewski J., Metoda negocjacji. Przygotowanie – techniki – sytuacje, AE we Wrocławiu, Wrocław 2001. ; Stoner J. A. F., Freeman R. E., Gilbert D. R., Kierowanie, PWE, Warszawa 2001. ; Stoner J. A. F., Wankel Ch., Kierowanie, PWE, Warszawa 1994. ; Straffin P., Teoria gier, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa 2000. ; Szaban J., Negocjacje jako jedna z technik zarządzania, Doskonalenie Kadr Kierowniczych, nr 2, 1986. ; Szapiro T., Co decyduje o decyzji, PWN, Warszawa 1993. ; Szapiro T., Podejście interaktywne we wspomaganiu podejmowania decyzji, ,,Monografie i Opracowania", nr 338, SGPIS, Warszawa 1991. ; Szostak A., Zarządzanie konfliktem, ,,Personel", nr 4, 1996. ; Szczepański J., Elementarne pojęcia socjologii, PWN, Warszawa 1969. ; Sztumski J., Konflikty społeczne i negocjacje jako metody ich przezwyciężania, Wydawnictwo Wydziału Zarządzania Politechniki Częstochowskiej, Częstochowa 2000. ; Brdulak H., Brdulak J., Sztuka i technika negocjacji handlowych, Wyd. Bizant, Warszawa 1996. ; Thomas K., Conflict and conflict management, [in:] Dunette M. D (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago 1976. ; Thompson L., The mind and heart of the negotiator, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 2001. ; Thompson V., Modern organizations, Knopf, New York 1961. ; Thompson T. D., Organizations in action, McGraw-Hill, New York 1967 ; Thompson W., A class of solutions to bargaining Problems, "Journal of Economic Theory", Vol. 25, 1981. ; Thompson W., Cooperative models of bargaining, [in:] R. J. Aumann, S. Hart, (ed.), Handbook of game theory with economic applications, t. II, Elsevier 1994. ; Uniszewski Z., Konflikty i negocjacje, Prószyński i S-ka, Poznań 2000. ; Ury W., Odchodząc od nie. Negocjowanie od konfrontacji do kooperacji, PWE, Warszawa 1995. ; Wachowicz T., E-negocjacje. Modelowanie, analiza i wspomaganie, Wydawnictwo AE w Katowicach, Katowice 2006. ; Walas J., Konflikt na cenzurowanym, "Personel", 1996. ; Burns T., Caldas J. C., Roszkowska E., Generalized Game Theory's Contribution to Multi-agent Modelling Addressing Problems of Social Regulation, Social Order, and Effective Security, [in:] B. Dunin-Keplicz. A. Jankowski, A. Skowron, M. A. Szczuka (eds.), Monitoring, Security and Rescue Techniques in Multiagent Systems, Springer, Verlag 2005. ; Wall J. A., Stark J. B., Standifer R. L., Mediation. A current review and theory development, ,,Journal of Conflict Resolution", Vol. 45 (3), 2001. ; Watkins M., Sztuka negocjacji w biznesie. Innowacyjne podejścia prowadzące do przełomu, Wydawnictwo ONE Press, Warszawa 2005. ; Walton R. E., McKersie R. B., A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, ILR Press, Ithaca, New York 1993. ; Watson J., Strategia, Wprowadzenie do teorii gier, WNT, Warszawa 2005. ; Warschow T. A., Winning by Negotiation, McGraw Hill Book, New York 1990. ; Watson J. , Strategia. Wprowadzenie do teorii gier, WNT, Warszawa 2005. ; Weber R. A., Zasady zarządzania organizacjami, PWE, Warszawa 1990. ; Winch A., Winch S., Lepiej sprzedać, lepiej kupić. Taktyki perswazyjne w negocjacjach, ,,Personel", nr 13/14 (82/83), 2000. ; Winch S., Mity negocjacji, "Organizacja i Kierowanie", nr 2(112), 2003. ; Winch A., Winch S., Negocjacje. Jednostka, organizacja, kultura, Difin, Warszawa 2005. ; Burns T., Meeker L., Structural Properties and Resolutions of the Prisonier's Dilemma Game, [in:] A. Rapoport (eds.), Game Theory as the Conflict Resolution, Dordrecht-Holland, Reidel 1974. ; Von Neumann J., Morgenstern O., Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1972. ; Vliert E., Van de Prein E., The difference In the meaning of forcing In the conflict management of actors and observers, Referat na I Miedzynarodową Konferencję Grupy Kierowania Konfliktami, Fairfax, Wirginia 1987. ; Van de Vliert E., Kabanoff B., Toward Theory-Based Measures of Conflict Management, "The Academy of Management Journal", Vol. 33 (1). ; Zartman W. I. (ed.), International Multilateral Negotiation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 1994. ; Zbiegień-Maciąg L., Negocjowanie i negocjacje. Sposób na konflikty, Centrum Kreowania Liderów, Kłudzienko 1994. ; Zbiegień-Maciąg L., Taktyki i techniki negocjacyjne, Uczelniane Wydawnictwa Naukowo-Dydaktyczne, Kraków 2001. ; Zbiegiem Maciąg L., Zarządzanie personelem w firmie, Wydawnictwo AGH, Kraków 1995. ; Zarman I. W., Berman M., The Practical Negotiator, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connn. 1982. ; Burns T. Roszkowska E., Generalized Game Theory: Assumptions, Principles, and Elaborations Grounded in Social Theory, In Search of Social Order, Series. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 2005, 8(21). ; Burns T., Roszkowska E., Economic and Social Equilibria: The Perspective of Generalized Game Theory, "Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne", Nr 3(31), 2006. ; Burns T., Roszkowska E., Fuzzy Game Theory: The Perspective of the General Theory of Games on Nash and Normative Equilibria, [in:] S. K. Pal, L. Polkowski, A. Skowron (eds.), Rough-Neural Computing: Techniques for Computing with Words, Springer, Verlag 2003. ; Boulding K. E., Conflict and defense, Harper, New York 1962. ; Caderman L., Unpacking the National Interest: An Analysis of Preference Aggregation in Ordinal Games, [in:] Game Theory and International Relations. Candidate Images in Presidential Elections, Westport-London 1995. ; Carnevale P.J., Pruitt D.G., Negotiation and mediation, "Annu. Rev. Psychol.", No. 43, 1992. ; Casse P., Jak negocjować, Zysk i S-ka, Poznań 1996. ; Cenker E. M., Negocjacje, Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Komunikacji i Zarządzania w Poznaniu, Poznań 2002. ; Chełpa S., Witkowski T., Paradoks zgody, czyli zarządzanie w sytuacjach konfliktowych i zarządzanie przez konflikt, "Personel" 10(67) 1999. ; Chełpa S., Witkowski J., Psychologia konfliktów, Wydawnictwo Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, Warszawa 1995. ; Christopher E. M., Umiejętność negocjowania w biznesie, ZYSK i S-KA, Poznań 1998. ; Coddington A. J., Theories of the Bargaining Process, Aldine, Chicago 1968. ; Collins A., Mowa ciała, Oficyna Wydawnicza Rytm, Warszawa 2002. ; Colman A., Game Theory and Experimental Games: The Study of Strategic Interaction, Oxford-New York, Toronto-Sydney-Paris-Frankfurt 1982. ; Coser L. A., Funkcjonalna teoria konfliktu, [w:] J. Turner, Struktura teorii socjologicznej, PWN, Warszawa 1985. ; Cross J. G., Negotiation as a Learning Process, "Journal of Conflict Resolution", Vol. 21, 1977. ; Cyret R, March G., A behavioral theory of the firm, Oxford University Press, London 1963. ; Dana D., Rozwiązywanie konfliktów, PWE, Warszawa 1993. ; Dąbrowski P., Praktyczna teoria negocjacji, Sorbog, Warszawa 1991. ; Deutsch M., The resolution of conflict. Constructive and destructive process, Yale Univ. Pr., New Haven, New Haven 1973. ; Deutsch M., Cooperation and conflict: a personal perspective on the history of the social psychological study of conflict resolution West, M.A, [in:] D. J. Tjosvold, G. H. Smith (eds.), International handbook of organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working, Wiley&Sons 2003. ; Domański S. R., Kapitał ludzki a wzrost gospodarczy, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 1993. ; Drabik E., Elementy teorii gier dla ekonomistów, Wydawnictwo UwB, Białystok 1998. ; Drucker P. F., Praktyka zarządzania, Czytelnik, Kraków, 1994. ; Druckman D., Boundary Role Conflict: Negotiation as Dual Responsiveness, "Journal of Conflict Resolution", 1977, Vol. 21. ; Eisenhardt K. M., Kahwajy J. I., Bourgeois L. J. III, How Management Teams Can Have o Good Fight, Harvard Business Review, July-August, 1997. ; Fisburn P. C., Rubinstein A., Time preference, International Economic Review, (23) 1982. ; Fiszer R., Ury W., Patton B., Dochodząc do Tak. Negocjowanie bez poddawania się, PWE, Warszawa 1996. ; Flower A., Jak skutecznie negocjować, Petit, Warszawa 1991. ; Friedman W. J., Game theory with applications to economics, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1990. ; Galas Z., Nykowski I., Żółkiewski Z., Programowanie wielokryterialne, PWE, Warszawa 1987. ; Gasparski W., Etyka biznesu, PWN, Warszawa 2000. ; Gesteland R. F., Różnice kulturowe a zachowania w biznesie, PWN, Warszawa 2000. ; Gomolińska A., Rule Complexes for Representing Social Actors and Interactions, "Studies in Logic Grammar, and Rhetoric", No. 3(16), 1999. ; Gonciarski W., Konflikt niejedno ma imię (1), "Personel", 4(7), 1995. ; Gonciarski W., Konflikt niejedno ma imię (2), "Personel", 5(8), 1995. ; Gonciarski W., Konflikt niejedno ma imię (3), "Personel", 6(9), 1995. ; Goncarski W., Jak kierować konfliktami? (cz. I), "Personel", 7(10), 1995. ; Goncarski W., Jak kierować konfliktami? (cz II), "Personel", 8(11), 1995. ; Graham J., Vis-a-vis. International business negotiation, [in:] P. Ghauri, J.C. Claude Usunier (eds.), International Business Negotiations, Pergamon 1996. ; Griffin R., Podstawy zarządzania organizacjami, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 2007. ; Gulliver P. H., Disputes and Negotiations: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, Academic Press, Orlando 1979. ; Hamman J., Demokracja, decyzje, wybory, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa 2004. ; Harsany J. C., Approaches to the bargaining problem before and after the theory of games: a critical discussion of Zeuthen's, Hick's and Nash's theories, "Econometrica", (24) 1956. ; Harsany J., Game Theory and the Analysis of International Conflict, [in:] James S. Rosenau (ed.), International Politics and Foreign Policy, Free Press, New York 1969. ; Harsanyi J. C., Selten J., A Generalized Nash Solution for Two-person Bargaining Games with Incomplete Information, ,,Management Science", No. 18, 1972. ; Hawes L., Smith D., A critique of the assumption underlying the study of communication in conflict, ,,Speech Monographs", T.59, No. 4, 1973. ; Hawkins L., Hundson M., Cornall R., Prawnik jako negocjator, "ABC", Warszawa 1994. ; Houba H., Sneek K., Vardy F., Can Negotiations Prevent Fish Wars?, Tinbergen Institute, Discussion Paper 1996. ; Morrow J. D., Game Theory for Political Scientists, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1994. ; Jankowski W. B. , Sankowski T. P., Jak negocjować, CIM, Warszawa 1995. ; Jastrzębska-Smolaga H. (red.), Ekonomiczne podstawy negocjacji. Pomiędzy prawem a moralnością, Difin, Warszawa 2007. ; Juchnowicz M. (red.), Elastyczne zarządzanie kapitałem ludzkim w organizacji wiedzy, Difin, Warszawa 2007. ; Kowalczyk-Grzenkiewicz J., Arcimowicz J., Jermakow P., Rozwiązywanie konfliktów, sztuka negocjacji i komunikacji, Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej, Warszawa 2003. ; Kalai E., Proportional solutions to bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons, ,,Econometrica", (45) 1977. ; Kalai E., Smorodinsky M., Other solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem, ,,Econometrica", No. 43, 1975. ; Kałążna-Drewińska U., Negocjacje w biznesie. Kluczowe problemy, Wydawnictwo AE we Wrocławiu, Wrocław 2006. ; Kamiński J., Negocjowanie techniki rozwiązywania konfliktów, Poltext, Warszawa 2003. ; Kamiński J., Modele procesów negocjacji, "Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne", nr 1(5), 2000. ; Kamiński J., Negocjacje w biznesie jako przedmiot zainteresowania nauk ekonomicznych, "Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne", nr 4(24), 2002. ; Kamiński J. Negocjacje w działalności marketingowej przedsiębiorstw, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, Białystok 2006. ; Karrass G., Dobić targu, Wydawnictwo Businessman, Sopot 1991. ; Kennedy G., Negocjacje doskonałe, Dom Wydawniczy REBIS, Poznań 1999. ; Kerstern G. E., Szapiro T., Generalized Approach to Modeling Negotiations, "European Journal of Operational Reseach", Vol. 26, 1986. ; Kersten G. E., Szapiro T., Generalized Approach to Modelling Negotiations, "European Journal of Operational Reseach", Vol. 35, No. 1, 1986. ; Kipnis D., Smith S. M., An influence Perspective on Bargaining within Organizations, "Research on Negotiation in Organizations", Vol. 1, 1983. ; Kowalczyk-Grzenkowicz J., Arcimowicz J., Jermakowicz P., Rozwiązywanie konfliktów, sztuka negocjacji i komunikacji, Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej, Warszawa 2003. ; Kowalczyk E., Psychologiczne uwarunkowania negocjacji gospodarczych, Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu, Poznań 2001. ; Kozielecki J., Konflikt, teoria gier i psychologia, PWN, Warszawa 1970. ; Kozioł L., Tyrańska M., Bińczycki B. , Metody analizy strategicznej w obszarze zarządzania zasobami ludzkimi, AE w Krakowie, Zeszyty Naukowe Nr 603, 2002. ; Kozina A., Style negocjowania-analiza porównawcza, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie, Nr 561, 2001. ; Koźmiński A. K., Piotrowski W. (red.), Zarządzanie. Teoria i praktyka, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 1998. ; Kreps D., Game Theory and Economic Modelling, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1990. ; Kreps D., A Course in Microeconomics Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1990. ; Kreps D. M., Wilson R., Sequential equilibria, "Econometrica", No. 50, 1982. ; Kruś L., Bronisz P., Łopuch B., MCBARG System Supporting Multicriteria Bargaining, "Control and Cybernetics", Vol. 22, No. 4, 1993. ; Krzymieniewska G., Od walki do współpracy. Negocjacyjna sztuka zawierania porozumień, TNOIK, Bydgoszcz 1998. ; Kuc B. R., Moczydłowska J. M., Zachowania organizacyjne, Difin, Warszawa 2009.

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