Search results

The object of research is the trust problem in the relations of the East and the West. The author in detail analyzes the phenomenon of trust, its principles and distinctive signs. Special attention is paid to conditions of formation of trust as on micro (between individuals) and at the macro level (between societies). The author connects the trust problem with a categorization "friend-or-foe", considered in the civilization aspect of the subject. Thus, the author in the research used the case study method and content analysis. The novelty of research consists in approach to understanding intensity between civilizations of the East and the West through a problem of the possibility of confidential relations between them. The author comes to a conclusion that in the modern international relations there is a paradoxical situation: the trust measure between the countries decreases, in volume time as it is possible to cope with new calls and threats only through consolidation of the world community on the basis of mutual trust.

The object of research is the trust problem in the relations of the East and the West. The author in detail analyzes the phenomenon of trust, its principles and distinctive signs. Special attention is paid to conditions of formation of trust as on micro (between individuals) and at the macro level (between societies). The author connects the trust problem with a categorization "friend-or-foe", considered in the civilization aspect of the subject. Thus, the author in the research used the case study method and content analysis. The novelty of research consists in approach to understanding intensity between civilizations of the East and the West through a problem of the possibility of confidential relations between them. The author comes to a conclusion that in the modern international relations there is a paradoxical situation: the trust measure between the countries decreases, in volume time as it is possible to cope with new calls and threats only through consolidation of the world community on the basis of mutual trust.

The positive, unifying ideological resources of liberal and progressive Islamic interpretations deserve more than ever to be exploited in the contemporary socio-political context. Their conceptual tools, principles and theses could solve the conflictual cleavage, politically manipulated, between Islam and Western modernity, without repudiating the references to an Islamic paradigm. Therefore, liberal and progressive Islamic understandings could avoid the recent superficial oscillation between two ideological -artificially constructed- extremes, namely either confining the discussions to the secular, colonialist or postcolonialist perspectives, or promoting the defensive opportunist neotraditionalist Islamic approaches, specific to the nationalist movements of the last century so-called Islamic revival. Liberal Islam does not fully adopt all liberal theses and does not obediently imitate Western philosophy. Liberal Islamic understandings are defined by the opposition against teocracy and by supporting the democracy. Women, minorities and non-Muslims' rights in Muslim-majority countries, freedom of thought and trust in human progress, are other essential tenets that are fundamented on contemporary understandings of the major Islamic sources. Trying to correct some excesses that the liberal Muslims were accused of, but maintaining the reformist tendencies, progressive Muslims' approach is centered on a "multiple critiqueˮ ‒ a simultaneous critique of the diverse discourses and communities in which Muslims are situated. Not only the authoritarian constructions of literalist, puritanist Muslims, the violation of human rights, freedom of expression and of religion, the oppression of women in some Muslim countries are condemned and deconstructed, but also some political, economic, intellectual hegemonic Western aspects of modernity. In Romania these contemporary tendencies of interpreting Islam are not yet represented at a community level.

This study aims to explore the concept of authoritarianism, which – presented in terms of the "wicked problem" of the contemporary world – seems to be a severe challenge to present-day International Relations (IR), both in theoretical and practical dimensions. The author of the article defines the concept of authoritarianism as a form of the political system in which the power and material resources of the state have been centralized, appropriated, and put at the disposal of either an individual or an elitist group "in power." In this way, the possibilities of integrating the authoritarian state – both in the political and economic dimension – with the global system of international relations are limited, and the vital administrative institutions of the state have been manipulated and appropriated. The applied research method allows for interpreting the discussed issues in a complex – albeit specific – systemic form, characteristic not only for politically fragile or declining countries and regions but also for politically stable and economically developed ones. The author's analysis allows for the presentation and reinterpretation of the issue of contemporary authoritarian regimes concerning international relations in terms that not only define but often legitimize – and repeatedly even validate – some of the most despotic, autocratic, and hegemonistic forms of the political systems in modern times.

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 author distinguishes threats to international security from challenges faced by the security policy of states and collective international actors but approaches them as a certain continuum. The following phenomena are considered threats and challenges in the second decade of the 21st century: military threats (nuclear weapons and their proliferation, conventional weapons and huge military spending), terrorism, other threats (cybernetic, economic and energy-related, ecological), as well as the migration challenge. A separate major challenge, which the author analyses in detail, is the reconfiguration of the international order that has been taking place for more than a decade now. The author believes that this reconfiguration constitutes a serious challenge to the West, including to its security policy. In order to take up this challenge, benefit from it and prevent the emergence of new threats to international security, the West needs to not only consolidate its security system but also engage in dialogue and cooperation with the emerging competitors and rivals challenging the West's global leadership (the emerging powers from BRICS), as the American political scientist Charles Kupchan proposed in 2010, emphasising that lasting peace can be achieved by turning enemies into friends. It is, however, uncertain what kind of foreign policy will be conducted by the new US President, Donald Trump, elected in November 2016.

Bilateral relations between the Republic of Turkey and the individual successor states of former Yugoslavia differ, after thirty years since its dissolution, in form and in substance. While just after the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Turkey managed to establish and sustain cordial ties with such countries as, for instance, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, relations with Serbia (Serbia and Montenegro) remained tense and the two countries perceived themselves, in the best case, as traditional opponents. The basic aim of this paper is to analyse the bilateral relations of these two states and Turkish foreign policy towards Serbia, a country currently perceived as a 'neighbour,' despite the fact that they do not share common border. The paper argues that rapprochement of two countries, so clearly visible in several dimensions after 2002, marks a new phase in Turkey's general foreign policy. The paper will trace the thirty-year evolution of bilateral contacts while arguing that the current positive relations have their source also in the domestic arena, both of Turkey and Serbia, which is willing to increase influence in the Western Balkans and institutionalise her international position. Thus, the two states for the first time share similar foreign policy goals. The whole analysis is theoretically anchored in the behavioural approach of the 'middle power' paradigm. An author-applied qualitative content analysis is the main research technique. The main sources are official documents, selected monographs, academic articles, and analytical reports.