Suchergebnisse

International relations are a form of human action so they should become the object of praxiology as a science oriented to efficiency. The traditional approach however must be changed. As it suggested in this article, human action is divided into three sections – cooperation, struggling and rivalry, which correspond to three types of theories. It should be added that cooperation is a positive-sum game, struggling – a negative-sum game and rivalry – a zero-sum game. The theory of international relations should be focused on the link between principles of cooperation and principles of struggling. This means that theory of foreign policy should be a theory of control in the zero-sum game system. ; International relations are a form of human action so they should become the object of praxiology as a science oriented to efficiency. The traditional approach however must be changed. As it suggested in this article, human action is divided into three sections – cooperation, struggling and rivalry, which correspond to three types of theories. It should be added that cooperation is a positive-sum game, struggling – a negative-sum game and rivalry – a zero-sum game. The theory of international relations should be focused on the link between principles of cooperation and principles of struggling. This means that theory of foreign policy should be a theory of control in the zero-sum game system.

Stosunki międzynarodowe są postacią działania ludzi, dlatego powinny stać się obiektem zainteresowania prakseologii jako nauki nastawionej na sprawność działania. Dotychczasowe rozumienie sprawności musi być jednak odmienne od tradycyjnego. Zgodnie z propozycją zawartą w artykule, ludzkie działanie dzieli się na trzy działy – współpracę, walkę oraz rywalizację , którym odpowiadają trzy rodzaje teorii. Charakterystyczne jest to, że współpraca jest grą o sumie dodatniej, walka – grą o sumie ujemnej, natomiast rywalizacja – grą o sumie zerowej. Teoria stosunków międzynarodowych powinna skupiać się na teorii rywalizacji, rozpostartej pomiędzy współpracą a walką. Oznacza to, że teoria stosunków międzynarodowych powinna opierać się na zasadach współpracy i zasadach walki, a teoria polityki międzynarodowej państwa powinna być teorią sterowania w systemie gry o sumie zerowej. ; International relations are a form of human action so they should become the object of praxiology as a science oriented to efficiency. The traditional approach however must be changed. As it suggested in this article, human action is divided into three sections – cooperation, struggling and rivalry, which correspond to three types of theories. It should be added that cooperation is a positive-sum game, struggling – a negative-sum game and rivalry – a zero-sum game. The theory of international relations should be focused on the link between principles of co- operation and principles of struggling. This means that theory of foreign policy should be a theory of control in the zero-sum game system.

The paper has the objective to present public diplomacy as a discipline requiring interdisciplinary approach. At the current stage of development of the discipline, the approach rooted in the theory of international relations is dominating. The author suggests inclusion of the tools used for the analysis of political communication into the body of research on new public diplomacy. Therefore, there is nothing more as an aggregate of paradigms and tools of two disciplines implemented at the moment.Public diplomacy was defined in the paper as a symmetrical form of international, political communication targeted at foreign public opinion in order to facilitate the achievement of the goals of state abroad. Currently, the adjective "new" as added to public diplomacy, means that new public diplomacy is different from informational public diplomacy of United States before the liquidation of USIA. The new public diplomacy acknowledges non state organizations as actors of international relations and adjusts to the logic of globalization. New public diplomacy should not be equalized with political propaganda. ; The paper has the objective to present public diplomacy as a discipline requiring interdisciplinary approach. At the current stage of development of the discipline, the approach rooted in the theory of international relations is dominating. The author suggests inclusion of the tools used for the analysis of political communication into the body of research on new public diplomacy. Therefore, there is nothing more as an aggregate of paradigms and tools of two disciplines implemented at the moment.Public diplomacy was defined in the paper as a symmetrical form of international, political communication targeted at foreign public opinion in order to facilitate the achievement of the goals of state abroad. Currently, the adjective "new" as added to public diplomacy, means that new public diplomacy is different from informational public diplomacy of United States before the liquidation of USIA. The new public diplomacy acknowledges non state organizations as actors of international relations and adjusts to the logic of globalization. New public diplomacy should not be equalized with political propaganda.

Celem tekstu jest wskazanie na nową dyplomacją publiczną jako na obszar badawczy, który wymaga podejścia interdyscyplinarnego. Na obecnym etapie rozwoju tej dyscypliny dominują podejścia badawcze i narzędzia zaczerpnięte z nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych. Autorka postuluje włączenie podstawowych paradygmatów badań nad komunikacją polityczną do analizy nowej dyplomacji publicznej. Na razie jednak nie można wskazać takiego podejścia badawczego, które wychodziłoby poza prostą sumę metod stosowanych w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych i badaniach nad komunikacja polityczną. Na potrzeby artykułu dyplomacja publiczna została zdefiniowana jako symetryczna forma międzynarodowej komunikacji politycznej, której celem jest wspieranie osiągnięcia celów państwa za granicą poprzez wpływanie na opinię publiczną. Współcześnie dyplomację publiczna określa się jako "nową", aby odróżnić ją od dyplomacji publicznej Stanów Zjednoczonych, uprawianą przed 1999 r. oraz wskazać na dostosowanie tej formy komunikacji politycznej do procesów globalizacji, w tym do rosnącego znaczenia aktorów niepaństwowych w stosunkach międzynarodowych. W tym ujęciu dyplomacja publiczna nie jest tożsama z propagandą. ; The paper has the objective to present public diplomacy as a discipline requiring interdisci - plinary approach. At the current stage of development of the discipline, the approach rooted in the theory of international relations is dominating. The author suggests inclusion of the tools used for the analysis of political communication into the body of research on new public diplo - macy. Therefore, there is nothing more as an aggregate of paradigms and tools of two disciplines implemented at the moment. Public diplomacy was defined in the paper as a symmetrical form of international, political communication targeted at foreign public opinion in order to facilitate the achievement of the goals of state abroad. Currently, the adjective "new" as added to public diplomacy, means that new public diplomacy is different from informational public diplomacy of United States before the liquidation of USIA. The new public diplomacy acknowledges non state organizations as ac - tors of international relations and adjusts to the logic of globalization. New public diplomacy should not be equalized with political propaganda

In this paper Author has defined and classified a "militarized non-state actor" pointing that this term comprises many different non-state actors like for example: political parties with their military wings, international criminal groups, terrorist organizations, private military companies or independence movements. It is also a disputable issue if armed forces deployed within governmental organizations (like theUNorNATO) are treated as militarized non-state actors or not.Lebanese Hizballah has been used here as an example to describe the specificity of a militarized non-state actor. Hizballah has its own armed forces and has been active in international relations. As a result of the analysis, such actors like Hizballah are well adoptable to new phenomena and processes which occurred in international relations, they are challenging states in their activities, moreover: they are used in many cases by states to achieve their goals. It shows the ambiguity in functioning of such a non-state actor. ; In this paper Author has defined and classified a "militarized non-state actor" pointing that this term comprises many different non-state actors like for example: political parties with their military wings, international criminal groups, terrorist organizations, private military companies or independence movements. It is also a disputable issue if armed forces deployed within governmental organizations (like theUNorNATO) are treated as militarized non-state actors or not.Lebanese Hizballah has been used here as an example to describe the specificity of a militarized non-state actor. Hizballah has its own armed forces and has been active in international relations. As a result of the analysis, such actors like Hizballah are well adoptable to new phenomena and processes which occurred in international relations, they are challenging states in their activities, moreover: they are used in many cases by states to achieve their goals. It shows the ambiguity in functioning of such a non-state actor.

W artykule podjęto się próby zdefiniowania i sklasyfikowania "zmilitaryzowanego aktora niepaństwowego" wskazując przy tym, że termin ten obejmuje szeroka grupę podmiotów niepaństwowych takich jak: partie polityczne ze swoim skrzydłem zbrojnym, międzynarodowe grupy przestępcze, organizacje terrorystyczne, prywatne firmy wojskowe czy ruchy narodowo- wyzwoleńcze. Dyskusyjna pozostaje obecność w tej grupie kontyngentów wojskowych rządowych organizacji międzynarodowych. Posługując się przykładem libańskiego Hezbollahu, który od początku swojego istnienia dysponuje własnymi siłami zbrojnymi i wykazuje dużą aktywność w stosunkach międzynarodowych, dokonano próby charakterystyki zmilitaryzowanego aktora niepaństwowego. Okazało się, że tego typu aktorzy jak Hezbollah dobrze adaptują się do nowych zjawisk i procesów międzynarodowych ; stanowią spore wyzwanie dla państw, które dysponują zaawansowanymi siłami zbrojnymi oraz jednocześnie są wykorzystywani przez inne państwa do realizacji swoich celów. Zatem rola takiego uczestnika we współczesnych stosunkach międzynarodowych ma charakter złożony. ; In this paper Author has defined and classified a "militarized non-state actor" pointing that this term comprises many different non-state actors like for example: political parties with their military wings, international criminal groups, terrorist organizations, private military companies or independence movements. It is also a disputable issue if armed forces deployed within gov - ernmental organizations (like the UN or NATO) are treated as militarized non-state actors or not. Lebanese Hizballah has been used here as an example to describe the specificity of a milita - rized non-state actor. Hizballah has its own armed forces and has been active in international re - lations. As a result of the analysis, such actors like Hizballah are well adoptable to new phenomena and processes which occurred in international relations, they are challenging states in their activities, moreover: they are used in many cases by states to achieve their goals. It shows the ambiguity in functioning of such a non-state actor.

An element which should be analysed was the underestimation by Poland of the fears of Belarus concerning Polonisation and the activities of the Catholic Church. Initially, issues which were of slight importance to Poland later became the main reason for serious divergences in bilateral understanding. Also of importance is the question of the awareness on the Polish side of the change in the geopolitical future of Belarus following Poland's accession to NATO. Political changes in Belarus in the years 1994-1996 were analysed in this work as well as their influence on the deterioration of mutual relations. It was also important to answer the question about the reasons for the ineffectiveness of the policy of critical dialogue with Belarus and the causes of the conflict concerning the Polish minority in 2005.

Russian Federation in Franco‑American relations during the post‑Cold‑War period. This article analyzes the role of Russia in the relations between 5th French Republic and United States of America after 1989. The manuscript suggests that Franco‑American relations in the Russian dimension are based not only on the elements of cooperation but also on rivalry. However it has to be noted, that the reasons of activity in this area are different. On the one hand, French politics focus mostly on European and economic dimension. On the other hand, Russian‑American relations are connected mostly with international security, nonproliferation and disarmament issues. The significance of Russian Federation in bilateral relations is important in the context of main challenges for international security. Despite some differences between France and USA, both countries understand that only the cooperation with Russia will allow to cope with the dangers of the 21st century.