The EUROSUR system is supposed to further the surveillance of external borders of European Union Member States. From this point of view, it can be considered an important step in the construction of a controlled space. Drawing inspiration from the Foucauldian attention to programs and technologies, and mobilizing the Actor- Network-Theory concepts of setting and actant, the paper investigates EUROSUR main methodological operations. It highlights how the making of a controlled space is, first and foremost, a mise-en-discours going well beyond surveillance and pro- hibition: a continuous effort to make sense of a disparate multiplicity, encompassing both human and nonhuman elements, both controlled and controlling ones. From a theoretical perspective, the chapter contributes to on-going endeavors to reinvigor- ate the post-structuralist studies of International Relations with approaches inspired by Actor-Network-Theory.
Some states are widely recognized by policy makers and scholars as middle powers. The characteristics that were highlighted for these countries have become the basic guidelines for understanding middle powermanship and developing the corresponding theory. While those analyses offer rich in-depth insights into the foreign policy of specific countries, they have so far lacked a further step of generalization. When establishing such power-based rankings, we assume the possibility to determine states' capacities so as to identify their position in said ranking. As appealing as this theoretical model may be, the reality of international politics increasingly challenge it. Thus, we argue that this theoretical inadequacy is due to the fact that middle power theory as it has been developed so far should be understood as an inductive, not a deductive, approach . Consequently, the contemporary reality calls for yet another stage of development in this theory. The choice of Pakistan as our case study arises from the observation that while Pakistan can hardly fit into the current classification(s) of middle powermanship due to its poor economic and development performances, it is a nuclear state and is –at least– in the top twenty armies of the world. Moreover, we find several cases in which Pakistan has used the diplomatic tools characterizing middle powers, such as mediation or niche diplomacy. Our paper aims at answering two questions: (1) can middle power theory bring some light on Pakistan's positioning in world politics? (2) Alternatively, what does the case of Pakistan tell us about the (ir)relevance of middle power theory? We build upon role theory to develop the case of middle powermanship as a status-role bundle, by analyzing three specific cases of Pakistan's foreign policy: Pakistani nuclear posturing, its Afghan policy and its posturing vis-à-vis the Saudi-Iranian regional competition.
Książka stanowi tom studiów autorstwa polskich i zagranicznych językoznawców poświęcony zmianom we współczesnych językach słowiańskich, szczególnie widocznym w słownictwie i słowotwórstwie. Uwzględnienie aspektu stylowo-funkcjonalnego w rozwoju leksyki pozwala lepiej zrozumieć dynamikę zmian językowych i skuteczność działań komunikacyjnych. Celowościowy i pragmatyczny charakter zachowań komunikacyjnych ujawnia się szeroko w uwzględnionych przez Autorów kontekstach społecznych, politycznych i kulturowych. Prace zostały pogrupowane w trzy działy tematyczne: - Zjawiska, procesy i tendencje rozwojowe w słownictwie specjalistycznym (terminologii); - Dynamika mechanizmów słowotwórczych i leksykalnych; - Zmiany leksykalne we współczesnej komunikacji językowej i dyskursie. Wyodrębnione działy pomagają uporządkować przedstawioną w tomie problematykę, wskazując na dominantę tematyczną w poszczególnych tekstach. Zakresy tych grup nie są jednak ostre, złożona i wielowarstwowa problematyka tendencji i zmian we współczesnym słownictwie słowiańskim jest omawiana w różnym stopniu w każdym z wydzielonych działów. W większości prac zastosowano podejście konfrontatywne, pozostałe stanowią podstawę do takiego ujęcia. Do badań wykorzystany został bogaty materiał języków słowiańskich: polskiego, czeskiego, słowackiego, białoruskiego, rosyjskiego, ukraińskiego, bułgarskiego, słoweńskiego, a także innych języków, jak np. nowogreckiego. ; This volume of studies by Polish and international linguists is devoted to changes in modern Slavic languages, which are especially noticeable in the spheres of vocabulary and word formation. Taking into consideration the stylistic and functional aspect of lexis development allows for a better understanding of the dynamics of language change and the efficacy of communicational acts. The purposeful and pragmatic character of communicational behaviour manifests itself widely in the social, political and cultural contexts considered by the Authors. The works comprising the volume are divided into three thematic sections: - Phenomena, processes and tendencies in the development of specialist lexis (terminology); - Word formation and lexical mechanisms dynamics; - Lexical change in modern language communication and discourse. The sections help organize the volume by highlighting the dominant theme in particular texts. The scopes of the sections are, nevertheless, not sharply delineated – each section is to an equal extent devoted to the complex and multifaceted subject-matter of the tendencies and changes in modern Slavic vocabulary. Most of the works comprised in the volume adopt a contrastive approach, the remaining ones can serve as bases for contrastive studies. The text analyse the rich material of the Slavic languages – Polish, Czech, Slovak, Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Slovene – as well as of other languages, like Modern Greek. ; Publikacja finansowana ze środków Instytutu Slawistyki Polskiej Akademii Nauk
From the beginning of the 1990's onwards, political analysts in all Western European countries discovered the contours of what they thought to be a widespread crisis of democracy. The alleged decline of political trust and public participation, and the rise of electoral volatility pointed out that the gap between politicians and citizens had never been wider. This political climate characterized by a deep-rooted crisis of democratic legitimacy offered an excellent breeding ground for critical reflection on the role, shape and function of democracy in modern societies. It gave rise to a fruitful quest for new and innovative ways of governing a democracy. It is in this turbulent period that the ideal of a deliberative democracy was coined (Dryzek 2000). A community of international scholars and philosophers, inspired by the work of Jürgen Habermas, became more and more convinced that a vibrant democracy is more than the aggregate of its individual citizens, and that democratic politics should be about more than merely voting. The quality of a democracy and the quality of democratic decisions, according to them, did not depend on the correct aggregation of individual preferences, but rather on the quality of the public debate that preceded the voting stage. Democratic decisions were thus no longer considered a function of mere compliance with aggregation rules. Instead, they were determined by extensive argumentation about political choices before voting on them. Because of its strong focus of public involvement in politics, this deliberative model of democracy started out in life as a theory of legitimacy (Benhabib 1996; Cohen 1997; Dryzek 2001; Parkinson 2006). By including everyone who is affected by a decision in the process leading to that decision, deliberation has important political merits: it is capable of generating political decisions that receive broad public support, even when there is strong disagreement on the aims and values a polity should promote (Geenens & Tinnevelt 2007, p. 47). After all, talking about political issues allows citizens to hear other perspectives to a problem and to see their own perspectives represented in the final decision. However, deliberation's beneficial effects do not come about easily. If deliberative democracy wants to contribute to increasing the legitimacy of the political system as a whole, it has to be legitimate in itself. In other words, deliberative events have to reflect the principles of legitimacy in their own functioning before their outcomes can generate legitimate political decisions. It is therefore crucial to assess the internal legitimacy of deliberative mini-publics before making claims about their contribution to the legitimacy of the political system as a whole. Our research question is therefore: to what extent can deliberative mini-publics live up to the criteria of democratic and political legitimacy? In this paper, we set out to assess the internal legitimacy of one specific deliberative event, namely the G1000 project in Belgium (Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2012). The G1000 project takes a particular place in the world of deliberative practice because it was not only grassroots in its process and its results, but also in its organization. Most deliberative events are introduced and funded by either public administrations or scientific institutions. The G1000 was rather considered a genuine citizens' initiative from its very inception. All of the organizers of the event were volunteers, and all of the funds were gathered using crowd funding. So instead of a scientific experiment, the G1000 was more of a democratic experiment by, through, and for citizens. This grass-root structure makes it a very interesting case for students of legitimacy, because as we will see later on it situated at the heart of the democratic trade-off between input and output legitimacy.
From the beginning of the 1990's onwards, political analysts in all Western European countries discovered the contours of what they thought to be a widespread crisis of democracy. The alleged decline of political trust and public participation, and the rise of electoral volatility pointed out that the gap between politicians and citizens had never been wider. This political climate characterized by a deep-rooted crisis of democratic legitimacy offered an excellent breeding ground for critical reflection on the role, shape and function of democracy in modern societies. It gave rise to a fruitful quest for new and innovative ways of governing a democracy. It is in this turbulent period that the ideal of a deliberative democracy was coined (Dryzek 2000). A community of international scholars and philosophers, inspired by the work of Jürgen Habermas, became more and more convinced that a vibrant democracy is more than the aggregate of its individual citizens, and that democratic politics should be about more than merely voting. The quality of a democracy and the quality of democratic decisions, according to them, did not depend on the correct aggregation of individual preferences, but rather on the quality of the public debate that preceded the voting stage. Democratic decisions were thus no longer considered a function of mere compliance with aggregation rules. Instead, they are determined by extensive argumentation about political choices before voting on them. Because of its strong focus of public involvement in politics, this deliberative model of democracy started out in life as a theory of legitimacy (Benhabib 1996; Cohen 2002; Dryzek 2001; Parkinson 2006). By including everyone who is affected by a decision in the process leading to that decision, deliberation has important political merits: it is capable of generating political decisions that receive broad public support, even when there is strong disagreement on the aims and values a polity should promote (Geenens & Tinnevelt 2007, p. 47). After all, talking about political issues allows citizens to hear other perspectives to a problem and to see their own perspectives represented in the final decision. As such, deliberative democracy seeks to score high on input, throughput and output legitimacy. However, deliberation's beneficial effects do not come about easily. If deliberative democracy wants to contribute to increasing the legitimacy of the political system as a whole, it has to be legitimate in itself. In other words, deliberative events have to reflect the principles of legitimacy in their own functioning before their outcomes can generate legitimate political decisions. It is therefore crucial to assess the internal legitimacy of deliberative mini-publics before making claims about their contribution to the legitimacy of the political system as a whole. In this paper, we set out to assess the internal legitimacy of one specific deliberative event, namely the G1000 project in Belgium (Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2012a). Our research question is therefore: to what extent does the G1000 live up to the criteria of input, throughput and output legitimacy? The G1000 project takes a particular place in the world of deliberative practice because it was not only grass roots in its process and its results, but also in its organization. Most deliberative events are introduced and funded by either public administrations or scientific institutions. The G1000 was rather considered a citizens' initiative from its very inception. All of the organizers of the event were volunteers, and all of the funds were gathered using crowd funding. So instead of a scientific experiment, the G1000 was more of a democratic experiment by, through, and for citizens. This grass-root structure makes it a very interesting case for students of legitimacy, because as we will see later on it situated at the heart of the democratic trade-off between input and output legitimacy.
T. 1: Demografski charakteristiki. (Übers.: Demographische Charakteristika.) - 1994. - XXXIV, 393 S., graph. Darst., Tab.; T. 2,1/2,2: Socialno-ikonomiceski charakteristiki. (Übers.: Sozioökonomische Charakteristika.) - 1995. - XLIV, 625 S., graph. Darst., Tab.; T. 3: Broj na naselenieto po oblasti, obstini i naseleni mesta (okoncatelni danni). (Übers.: Zahl der Bevölkerung nach Kreisen, Gemeinden und Siedlungen (endgültige Daten).) - 1994. - 312 S., Tab., Reg.; T. 4: Domakinstvata v Balgarija. (Übers.: Die Haushalte in Bulgarien.) - 1994. - XVI, 216 S., graph. Darst., Tab.; T. 5: Semejstvata v Balgarija. (Übers.: Die Familie in Bulgarien.) - 1995. - X, 103 S., graph. Darst., Tab.; T. 6,1/6,2: Vatresna migracija na naselenieto. (Übers.: Die Binnenmigration der Bevölkerung.) - 1994. - XXIV, 719 S., graph. Darst., Tab.; T. 7: Invalidite v Balgarija. (Übers.: Die Invaliden in Bulgarien.) - 1994. - XII, 491 S., graph. Darst., Tab.; T. 8: Lica, zavarsili visse, poluvisse i sredno specialno obrazovanie, SPTU i PTU. (Übers.: Personen mit einer höheren, halbhöheren und mittleren speziellen Bildung, SPTU und PTU.) - 1995. - VII, 355 S., Tab
