The end of the Cold War showed the geostrategical transformation of the world. We could see how relations between great powers became more ethical. The main subject of the analysis is the ethical problems in realization of foreign policy. Nowadays ethical problems became more important when we see so many crises, wars, & attacks of terrorists in different places of all over the world. Especially after September 11,' 2001, international terrorism became the most threatening problem for all states. Thus, states of different geostrategy have to collaborate to reach international security. The article aims to discuss how to administrate international relations due to reach the consensus in more ethical-moral way between states with different geostrategy. The work consists of five parts, in which are discussed various aspects of ethical problems in realization of foreign policy. The analysis of different geostrategical models lets to envisage possibilities of the formation of more common global geostrategical model in the 21st century. Bargains between the greatest powers (G8) attest to the ethical reality of global policy. All states understand that security is a very important condition of reform & progress, which could be reached through the common efforts of all states. Adapted from the source document.
Security studies have survived a lot of transformations. Like any other social theory, security studies have gone through a number of consecutive development stages: the dominance of traditional theories (realism/neorealism), the rise of critical & discourse approaches as well as the attempts to modify the traditional theories & methodological frameworks & to search for the synthetic or universal theoretic models. Author reviews how the security studies developed in the last few decades. Further attention is devoted to the attempts of Barry Buzan to provide for a compromised frameworks for security analysis in his works People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era (1991), & Security: A New Framework for Analysis (1998). The first work was an attempt to sum up the most valuable inputs for a widening security agenda; it includes the new aspects of security (economic, political, social & ecological), acknowledging that a state can be one of the many other subjects in the security studies. The greatest value of this work is a model of sectorization of security studies -- analytical proposition to classify threats by sectors. The second framework for analysis seeks to preserve the use of the security sectors' concept. However B. Buzan, 0. Waever & J. de Wilde propose to include a discursive theory of securitization into the framework. Authors suggest that security is not an objective condition -- it is about presenting issues as existential threats that require emergency measures. Some critiques (eg. J. Eriksson) argue, theories of securitization & sectonzation are incompatible in methodological meaning. The author of this article gives some suggestions that a model of sectorization of security studies should be supplemented by a new sector -- the communication sector. This expansion of the model could help fill some gaps left in the B. Buzan model -- i.e. the way threats emerge, the reason why one threat is considered differently from the other one as well as why they enjoy a specific influence on the other security sectors. 3 Schemas. Adapted from the source document.
The aim of the article was to explore the Agreement on the Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe 1999 (hereinafter referred to as an A-CFE) & its positive/negative implications for the NATO-Russian relations. The A-CFE, considered to be a cornerstone of the European security paving the way to a greater conventional stability on the continent, has not entered into force for political & geo-strategic reasons. Moreover, A-CFE aims at establishing a stable & balanced overall level of conventional armed forces between NATO & Russia in Europe, thus solving NATO enlargement & security dilemmas, the bone of contention between NATO & Russia. The main question the article dealt with was whether the A-CFE could stabilize NATO-Russian relations in the anarchical international system facing the dynamics of balance of power. The article focused on analyzing conventional arms control influence on NATO-Russian interaction; a heavy emphasis was placed on A-CFE functionality to solve security dilemma problems in light of NATO enlargement, hypothetical NATO-Russian conflict, & NATO-Russian level of conventional armed forces in Europe. What's more, a concrete case -- the Baltic States possible membership in A-CFE & its influence on NATO-Russian relations has been analyzed in the context of military power disparities & geo-strategic position of the Eastern Baltic sub-region. Having analyzed it accordingly, the following conclusion has been made: A-CFE Treaty of actual text would not properly stabilize NATO-Russian relations due to the reaction of national units to the on-going redistribution of military power & the dynamic of military balance. If not revised, A-CFE will amount to a "sunset Treaty" while remaining an instrument of political process. This assumption emerges from the following factors: 1. A-CFE has asymmetrically imposed the ceilings of conventional arms in favor of Russia, reducing U.S. Army quota in Europe & setting strict limits on keeping foreign military forces on a permanent basis; new NATO members are obliged not to increase the ceilings whereas Russia's limits rise to the Flanks. 2. Asymmetrical distribution of power imposed by A-CFE has decreased NATO operational capabilities to respond to Russian offensive/defensive attacks. NATO forces have been reduced in NATO-Russian border sub-regions, which might become a conflict zone. 3. The first wave of NATO enlargement was set in a frame of arms control thus solving the security dilemma of Russia, whereas the second wave diverted the distribution of power & required a new response from arms control. With the second wave including the Baltic States, NATO has significantly improved its geo-strategic positions as a result of the possibility of establishing an offensive front against Russia from the Baltic States in which conventional arms control does not apply. 4. The Baltic States' membership in the A-CFE has had implications for its own national security could be evaluated from perspectives of defensive & offensive realism. In the world of the offensive realism, the Baltic States should avoid entering the A-CFE with low ceilings, as Russia proposed, which would diminish Baltic States' national security. On the other hand, the Baltic States are supposed to evaluate a negative effect of the security dilemma, according to defensive realists. Large & flexible ceilings the Baltics may negatively affect Russian security & it could start increasing the weapons. The Baltic States would lose the arms race with Russia due to the lack of economic recourses. 5. The research suggests two ways to revise the A-CFE to solve the security dilemma of both Russia & the Baltic States: (1) to set ceilings for the whole Eastern Baltic sub-region (at the present time, Russia's commitments in Kaliningrad & Pskov are the political ones); (2) to add the whole Eastern Baltic sub-region to Central European stability zone using the formula national ceilings = territorial ceiling. 5 Lenteles. Adapted from the source document.
The article deals with the impact of globalization on social security & social exclusion in Lithuania for the first time in Lithuanian social sciences literature. The article consists of 5 parts: in the first part "globalization risk" & related non-traditional methodology is examined, in the second part the relation between globalization & glocalization is analyzed, in the third part of the article the changes of Lithuanian macrosocial indicators are examined, in the fourth part the role of libertarian ideology & practice for social exclusion development is shown & the fifth part reveals the positive & negative shifts in Lithuanian state social security. The author relies on Lithuanian macrosocial data & tries to prove that parallelly with globalization its antipode -- glocalization -- is thriving in the social processes. Globalization impact on social exclusion may be understood not only in its narrow sense -- as marginalization of different "traditional" social risk groups but also in the wider meaning because globalization is raising risks for many life spheres & even for entire society. Globalization often positively influences the social position of the "winners" & enables their better self-realization. But globalization often negatively influences the situation of the "losers" when they are imprisoned in glocalization for the longer or shorter time without any clear perspectives to rise. Among social security backwardness & the reasons of social exclusion formation were: a) the lack of financial resources, b) accelerating globalization & transformation rates -- when the system could not "develop into deepness" but was forced to chase headlong perfunctory all the time accelerating processes. The strife was followed not against the reasons but against the separate negative social consequences. The preventive activities were very limited, c) the lack of new progressive administrative theories & decisions, d) insufficient development of social policy, social security & social exclusion research, e) frequent confinement of social administration agents on barely theoretical solutions & solving problems "on paper," f) unfavorable international & native influence of ideology & practice of extreme liberalism. The article shows that globalization had influenced the distinctive administrative reforms & measures in Lithuania, which have given controversial results (New Public Management, private pensions funds reform, development of social services). The conclusion is possible to make that characteristic contradiction in Lithuanian social security is between organizational maturity & scarcity of real results after implementation of social security measures. Adapted from the source document.
Anti-globalist riots in Seattle in 1999 & the global anti-war demonstrations in 2003 not only made their way to the news headlines, but also received renewed academic attention. This article seeks to outline the differences between the traditional social movements & the new social movements. The first part of the article addresses the definition & classification issues of social movements. It also presents a comparison of three theoretical approaches (rational choice, Marxism & social constructivism) towards the phenomenon of social movement. The author concludes, that advocates of all three approaches present certain valuable insights on the causes & effects of this phenomenon. The second chapter of the article outlines presents trends & problems in the research of the social movements. It is argued that researchers of this subject face basically the same problems as all social scientists, first of the problems of comparability & the limits of qualitative methods. On the other it is assessed that new tools of quantitative analysis, information technologies significantly enhance the possibilities of research. By combining different theoretical approaches the author then seeks to outline the criteria of what could be the constitutive elements of the new social movements as opposed to the traditional ones. It is concluded that the new social movements can only exist in the postmodern or post-materialist societies where the questions of physical survival or national liberation are replaced by the questions of quality of life & self-expression. The new movements are also transnational in nature & their goals are usually universal (ecology, peace, rights of animals) rather than national (independence) or individual (employment, salary etc.). The new movements mobilize around collective identity & common values while the traditional movements mobilize around common goals of social or economic changes. The organization mode of the new movements is usually horizontal & the role of the leaders is rather limited while in the case of traditional movements the organization structure is strictly hierarchical & the role of the leader is essential. Finally the new movements are less prone to violence & rely more on the new technologies of communication & information. Building on the criteria outlined in the second part of the article, the final chapter discusses the case of Lithuania. It is concluded that the number & activities of the new social movements in Lithuania are very scarce. The most significant among such movements is the feminist movement, which is indeed rather active, & even have established ties with international feminist network. Traditional movements (in particular farmers, nationalists & neo-nazists, are still abundant in Lithuania. The authors argues that such imbalance between traditional & new movements could be a cause for concern as the number & activity of the new social movements is a good indicator of the maturity of the civil society in a country. The conclusion of the article reiterates the importance to continue the research of the phenomenon of the social movements. The warning of Ortega Y Gaset voiced in 1932 about the danger of the masses that have the supreme power in their hands is still relevant. Adapted from the source document.
