Suchergebnisse

The twentieth century is an era of pervasive turmoil. There were two cataclysmic full-scale wars and many wars and conflicts of lesser importance in all parts of the world. The term crisis is among the most widely used verbal symbols of turmoil in politics among nations. Scholars and journalists, too, often write about such things as incidents, disputes, riots, and rebellions etc. as crisis. In short, crisis is a pervasive term to describe dis ruption and disorder in the global arena. Many political scientists have been researching this phenomenon of international system but there is still a need for new researches and analysis of crisis in world politics. New technological tools and data-sets enable further development of analytical aspects of crisis theory: eruption of conflictual situations, context and reasons of crisis escalation and de-escalation, decision making process etc. The main reason impelled to write this article is the lack of integral theory on crisis issues. That is why the main objective of this study is to make a quantitative and comparative research of the crisis in the 20th century in order to highlight the main influential factors of this process in different time and space dimensions. A quantitative and comparative analysis in this article was performed using International Crisis Behavior (ICB) data-set of international crisis (by the SPSS 12.0 package). The results of the research confirm the presumption that the analysis of different "levels" provides different outcomes.[.].

The twentieth century is an era of pervasive turmoil. There were two cataclysmic full-scale wars and many wars and conflicts of lesser importance in all parts of the world. The term crisis is among the most widely used verbal symbols of turmoil in politics among nations. Scholars and journalists, too, often write about such things as incidents, disputes, riots, and rebellions etc. as crisis. In short, crisis is a pervasive term to describe dis ruption and disorder in the global arena. Many political scientists have been researching this phenomenon of international system but there is still a need for new researches and analysis of crisis in world politics. New technological tools and data-sets enable further development of analytical aspects of crisis theory: eruption of conflictual situations, context and reasons of crisis escalation and de-escalation, decision making process etc. The main reason impelled to write this article is the lack of integral theory on crisis issues. That is why the main objective of this study is to make a quantitative and comparative research of the crisis in the 20th century in order to highlight the main influential factors of this process in different time and space dimensions. A quantitative and comparative analysis in this article was performed using International Crisis Behavior (ICB) data-set of international crisis (by the SPSS 12.0 package). The results of the research confirm the presumption that the analysis of different "levels" provides different outcomes.[.].

The twentieth century is an era of pervasive turmoil. There were two cataclysmic full-scale wars and many wars and conflicts of lesser importance in all parts of the world. The term crisis is among the most widely used verbal symbols of turmoil in politics among nations. Scholars and journalists, too, often write about such things as incidents, disputes, riots, and rebellions etc. as crisis. In short, crisis is a pervasive term to describe dis ruption and disorder in the global arena. Many political scientists have been researching this phenomenon of international system but there is still a need for new researches and analysis of crisis in world politics. New technological tools and data-sets enable further development of analytical aspects of crisis theory: eruption of conflictual situations, context and reasons of crisis escalation and de-escalation, decision making process etc. The main reason impelled to write this article is the lack of integral theory on crisis issues. That is why the main objective of this study is to make a quantitative and comparative research of the crisis in the 20th century in order to highlight the main influential factors of this process in different time and space dimensions. A quantitative and comparative analysis in this article was performed using International Crisis Behavior (ICB) data-set of international crisis (by the SPSS 12.0 package). The results of the research confirm the presumption that the analysis of different "levels" provides different outcomes.[.].

The article deals with the interconnected issues of tax "burden" and international tax competition. Author bases his argumentation vis'a vis these issues on holistic assumptions, namely on the postulates that the public sector is part of the economy and that taxes are not simply a burden laid down on the private sector, but the source of investment in the production (procurement) of public goods. Furthermore, author stresses that for more than a century one can follow the tendency of the increasing share of tax revenues in the national product, the so-called as Wagner's law. In recent decades, another - international-factor of fiscal policy is playing an increasingly importan role. This is tax competition among national states. This factor poses threat to tax bases of sovereign countries and leads, as some assume, to the appearance of tax havens, tax poaching, race-to-the botton, social dumping and other negative phenomenan which distort the natural course of economic development. This trend is supported by power centers which pursue the individualistic economic strategy and base their perception of economy on the premises of methodological individualism. Some other power centers, institutions, on the other hand, resist this tendency as harmful to the global welfare. The United Nations, OECD and partly EU assert that international harmonization in the field of taxation could be conductive to economic growth and prosperity of mankind.

The article deals with the interconnected issues of tax "burden" and international tax competition. Author bases his argumentation vis'a vis these issues on holistic assumptions, namely on the postulates that the public sector is part of the economy and that taxes are not simply a burden laid down on the private sector, but the source of investment in the production (procurement) of public goods. Furthermore, author stresses that for more than a century one can follow the tendency of the increasing share of tax revenues in the national product, the so-called as Wagner's law. In recent decades, another - international-factor of fiscal policy is playing an increasingly importan role. This is tax competition among national states. This factor poses threat to tax bases of sovereign countries and leads, as some assume, to the appearance of tax havens, tax poaching, race-to-the botton, social dumping and other negative phenomenan which distort the natural course of economic development. This trend is supported by power centers which pursue the individualistic economic strategy and base their perception of economy on the premises of methodological individualism. Some other power centers, institutions, on the other hand, resist this tendency as harmful to the global welfare. The United Nations, OECD and partly EU assert that international harmonization in the field of taxation could be conductive to economic growth and prosperity of mankind.

The article deals with the interconnected issues of tax "burden" and international tax competition. Author bases his argumentation vis'a vis these issues on holistic assumptions, namely on the postulates that the public sector is part of the economy and that taxes are not simply a burden laid down on the private sector, but the source of investment in the production (procurement) of public goods. Furthermore, author stresses that for more than a century one can follow the tendency of the increasing share of tax revenues in the national product, the so-called as Wagner's law. In recent decades, another - international-factor of fiscal policy is playing an increasingly importan role. This is tax competition among national states. This factor poses threat to tax bases of sovereign countries and leads, as some assume, to the appearance of tax havens, tax poaching, race-to-the botton, social dumping and other negative phenomenan which distort the natural course of economic development. This trend is supported by power centers which pursue the individualistic economic strategy and base their perception of economy on the premises of methodological individualism. Some other power centers, institutions, on the other hand, resist this tendency as harmful to the global welfare. The United Nations, OECD and partly EU assert that international harmonization in the field of taxation could be conductive to economic growth and prosperity of mankind.

The article deals with the interconnected issues of tax "burden" and international tax competition. Author bases his argumentation vis'a vis these issues on holistic assumptions, namely on the postulates that the public sector is part of the economy and that taxes are not simply a burden laid down on the private sector, but the source of investment in the production (procurement) of public goods. Furthermore, author stresses that for more than a century one can follow the tendency of the increasing share of tax revenues in the national product, the so-called as Wagner's law. In recent decades, another - international-factor of fiscal policy is playing an increasingly importan role. This is tax competition among national states. This factor poses threat to tax bases of sovereign countries and leads, as some assume, to the appearance of tax havens, tax poaching, race-to-the botton, social dumping and other negative phenomenan which distort the natural course of economic development. This trend is supported by power centers which pursue the individualistic economic strategy and base their perception of economy on the premises of methodological individualism. Some other power centers, institutions, on the other hand, resist this tendency as harmful to the global welfare. The United Nations, OECD and partly EU assert that international harmonization in the field of taxation could be conductive to economic growth and prosperity of mankind.

The beginning of XXI century was marked by few events that had influence on international relations in the whole world. Terror attacks in the United States of America in September 11, 2001, were the first such high a big range attacks against the USA. It had shown that the USA – the most powerful state of the world – is vulnerable to more danger, than nuclear weapons alone. After September 11 the USA started war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and many states supported it. However, in spring 2003 the USA unilaterally, without international support, decided to use military power in Iraq, arguing that Iraq possessed potential threat – weapons of mass destruction. Unilateralism, and military and technological differences between the USA and its allies have brought to light a presumption that in the international system there is a single pole, a superpower (hyperpower), the United States of America. The existence of one pole only can have different consequences on international system and international security. The aim of this article was to determine specific features of the unipolar world, influence of polarity of international system upon international security, and specific threats to security that emerge only in unipolar international systems. Another aim was to try to predict the end of the unipolar system: what could be the next poles and when could it come to the end. After analysing a number of articles concerning this topic, few conclusions were drawn. Contemporary international system is unipolar and the single pole is the USA; the USA is superior in military, economic, geopolitical, and political spheres at the same time. Increasing military power and unilateralism of the USA may be treated as a threat to international security. Great powers are trying to balance unipolar power, however, the creation of balance to unipolar power is complicated for several reasons.[.].

The beginning of XXI century was marked by few events that had influence on international relations in the whole world. Terror attacks in the United States of America in September 11, 2001, were the first such high a big range attacks against the USA. It had shown that the USA – the most powerful state of the world – is vulnerable to more danger, than nuclear weapons alone. After September 11 the USA started war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and many states supported it. However, in spring 2003 the USA unilaterally, without international support, decided to use military power in Iraq, arguing that Iraq possessed potential threat – weapons of mass destruction. Unilateralism, and military and technological differences between the USA and its allies have brought to light a presumption that in the international system there is a single pole, a superpower (hyperpower), the United States of America. The existence of one pole only can have different consequences on international system and international security. The aim of this article was to determine specific features of the unipolar world, influence of polarity of international system upon international security, and specific threats to security that emerge only in unipolar international systems. Another aim was to try to predict the end of the unipolar system: what could be the next poles and when could it come to the end. After analysing a number of articles concerning this topic, few conclusions were drawn. Contemporary international system is unipolar and the single pole is the USA; the USA is superior in military, economic, geopolitical, and political spheres at the same time. Increasing military power and unilateralism of the USA may be treated as a threat to international security. Great powers are trying to balance unipolar power, however, the creation of balance to unipolar power is complicated for several reasons.[.].

The beginning of XXI century was marked by few events that had influence on international relations in the whole world. Terror attacks in the United States of America in September 11, 2001, were the first such high a big range attacks against the USA. It had shown that the USA – the most powerful state of the world – is vulnerable to more danger, than nuclear weapons alone. After September 11 the USA started war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and many states supported it. However, in spring 2003 the USA unilaterally, without international support, decided to use military power in Iraq, arguing that Iraq possessed potential threat – weapons of mass destruction. Unilateralism, and military and technological differences between the USA and its allies have brought to light a presumption that in the international system there is a single pole, a superpower (hyperpower), the United States of America. The existence of one pole only can have different consequences on international system and international security. The aim of this article was to determine specific features of the unipolar world, influence of polarity of international system upon international security, and specific threats to security that emerge only in unipolar international systems. Another aim was to try to predict the end of the unipolar system: what could be the next poles and when could it come to the end. After analysing a number of articles concerning this topic, few conclusions were drawn. Contemporary international system is unipolar and the single pole is the USA; the USA is superior in military, economic, geopolitical, and political spheres at the same time. Increasing military power and unilateralism of the USA may be treated as a threat to international security. Great powers are trying to balance unipolar power, however, the creation of balance to unipolar power is complicated for several reasons.[.].

SUMMARY Stirring international military activity has become one of the most important tasks of Lithuanian foreign policy implementation. Intensive international military collaboration and participation in peace keeping process are the main means to implement that task. The main aim of the paper is to detect geographical peculiarities of Lithuanian international military activity. It is defined that Lithuanian international military activity is reasoned not only politically, but also has a geographical validity. Bilateral and multilateral military collaboration of Lithuania clearly reveals it's priorities given to the most of the Baltic Sea region countries. Especially active cooperation in military range Lithuania holds with other Eastern Baltic countries – Latvia and Estonia. The main geographical factors of such collaboration peculiarity are: the Baltic Sea and the need of geopolitical balance. Moreover, according to Lithuania's increased activity in international peace making operations, it's very important to have a good military staff preparation system for such aims. Perhaps a combatant preparation is in a high level, but geographical preparation is insufficient. It becomes especially important when the country sends peacemakers to the geographically distant regions. Membership in NATO and other international organizations obligate Lithuania to be an active associate in peace keeping process. Lithuania was taking part in military operations that were prosecuted in four regions of Europe and Asia: The Balkans, Persian Gulf region, Caucasus and South and Central Asian region. The priority is given to the geographically closest region – The Balkans, where Lithuania have sent the biggest part of it's international peacemakers, that served in five countries of the region. Furthermore, consideration of Lithuanian activity in peace keeping process shows that the country gives priority to NATO, European Union and USA, which is the most important strategic partner of Lithuania, supervising military missions. Finally, Lithuania is participating in peace keeping operations not because of it's own national interests in the "hot" regions. It is more determined to the obligations to NATO and other international organisations and regarding to the position of strategic partners. Military and political benefit also remains as a very important factor of participating in the chosen peace keeping operations.

SUMMARY Stirring international military activity has become one of the most important tasks of Lithuanian foreign policy implementation. Intensive international military collaboration and participation in peace keeping process are the main means to implement that task. The main aim of the paper is to detect geographical peculiarities of Lithuanian international military activity. It is defined that Lithuanian international military activity is reasoned not only politically, but also has a geographical validity. Bilateral and multilateral military collaboration of Lithuania clearly reveals it's priorities given to the most of the Baltic Sea region countries. Especially active cooperation in military range Lithuania holds with other Eastern Baltic countries – Latvia and Estonia. The main geographical factors of such collaboration peculiarity are: the Baltic Sea and the need of geopolitical balance. Moreover, according to Lithuania's increased activity in international peace making operations, it's very important to have a good military staff preparation system for such aims. Perhaps a combatant preparation is in a high level, but geographical preparation is insufficient. It becomes especially important when the country sends peacemakers to the geographically distant regions. Membership in NATO and other international organizations obligate Lithuania to be an active associate in peace keeping process. Lithuania was taking part in military operations that were prosecuted in four regions of Europe and Asia: The Balkans, Persian Gulf region, Caucasus and South and Central Asian region. The priority is given to the geographically closest region – The Balkans, where Lithuania have sent the biggest part of it's international peacemakers, that served in five countries of the region. Furthermore, consideration of Lithuanian activity in peace keeping process shows that the country gives priority to NATO, European Union and USA, which is the most important strategic partner of Lithuania, supervising military missions. Finally, Lithuania is participating in peace keeping operations not because of it's own national interests in the "hot" regions. It is more determined to the obligations to NATO and other international organisations and regarding to the position of strategic partners. Military and political benefit also remains as a very important factor of participating in the chosen peace keeping operations.

SUMMARY Stirring international military activity has become one of the most important tasks of Lithuanian foreign policy implementation. Intensive international military collaboration and participation in peace keeping process are the main means to implement that task. The main aim of the paper is to detect geographical peculiarities of Lithuanian international military activity. It is defined that Lithuanian international military activity is reasoned not only politically, but also has a geographical validity. Bilateral and multilateral military collaboration of Lithuania clearly reveals it's priorities given to the most of the Baltic Sea region countries. Especially active cooperation in military range Lithuania holds with other Eastern Baltic countries – Latvia and Estonia. The main geographical factors of such collaboration peculiarity are: the Baltic Sea and the need of geopolitical balance. Moreover, according to Lithuania's increased activity in international peace making operations, it's very important to have a good military staff preparation system for such aims. Perhaps a combatant preparation is in a high level, but geographical preparation is insufficient. It becomes especially important when the country sends peacemakers to the geographically distant regions. Membership in NATO and other international organizations obligate Lithuania to be an active associate in peace keeping process. Lithuania was taking part in military operations that were prosecuted in four regions of Europe and Asia: The Balkans, Persian Gulf region, Caucasus and South and Central Asian region. The priority is given to the geographically closest region – The Balkans, where Lithuania have sent the biggest part of it's international peacemakers, that served in five countries of the region. Furthermore, consideration of Lithuanian activity in peace keeping process shows that the country gives priority to NATO, European Union and USA, which is the most important strategic partner of Lithuania, supervising military missions. Finally, Lithuania is participating in peace keeping operations not because of it's own national interests in the "hot" regions. It is more determined to the obligations to NATO and other international organisations and regarding to the position of strategic partners. Military and political benefit also remains as a very important factor of participating in the chosen peace keeping operations.