Suchergebnisse

The main problem of this thesis is the ability of the international regime theory to explain the international regime to solve the climate change problem. The object of this thesis is the international regime theory and its explanation of the international climate change negotiations. The purpose of this thesis is to test the neorealistic and neoliberalistic international regime formation theories on the case of global climate change negotiations. The research is being carried out on the basis of two main assumptions: firstly, that United States of America is the hegemon of international system; such position was especially revealed at the beginning of the last decade of XX century, when Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended. These events coincided with the first attempts to form an international regime to solve the climate change problem. It is assumed that only USA – the hegemon – had the ability and power to form such a regime. Secondly, the need to form such a regime arose because the essential problem was identified – global climate change. Since this problem will be negatively affecting the well-being of the all states around the world, it is their common interest to reduce its destructive consequences. During the research the definition of an international regime, created by Stephen Krasner and modified by the Tübingen research team, was used to identify the global climate change negotiations as an international regime. This regime was established in February, 2005, when the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force. When discussing for the Kyoto protocol, the negotiation positions of the states were in conflict on means to tackle the climate change problem most often. But when discussing for the extension of the climate change regime (for the new period of commitments of the states to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere of the Earth), the conflict on means was overwhelmed by the conflict of interest about relatively assessed goods. All of the main state-actors were relating their actions to the policy of their opponents. In the context of climate change problem, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per year is being measured as power. The more emissions, the greater power and influence a state has. It was found out that USA was a clear hegemon in terms of military, economic and carbon dioxide emissions in the last decade of the XX century. But at the second part of the first decade of the XXI century, economic hegemony of this state has diminished, while climate change related hegemony has dissolved. During the course of analysis in this thesis two hypotheses were formulated. Hegemonic stability one: USA, possessing hegemonic relative and climate change related power in the international system, having an interest to form an international regime to solve the climate problem, determines the formation and functioning of such a regime. Problem-structural one: conflict of negotiation positions of states about means to tackle the climate change problem determines medium regime-conduciveness, while conflict of negotiation positions of states about relatively assessed goods determines low regime-conduciveness. When tested on the case of climate change negotiations, the former hypothesis is rejected, while the latter is confirmed. The problem-structural hypothesis is additionally tested on the case of the ozone layer protection regime, thus consolidating the explanatory power of the problem-structural model. That does not imply that the variable of power should not be considered in international regimes. The role of state power is very important, but does not explain the formation and functioning of regimes alone.

The main problem of this thesis is the ability of the international regime theory to explain the international regime to solve the climate change problem. The object of this thesis is the international regime theory and its explanation of the international climate change negotiations. The purpose of this thesis is to test the neorealistic and neoliberalistic international regime formation theories on the case of global climate change negotiations. The research is being carried out on the basis of two main assumptions: firstly, that United States of America is the hegemon of international system; such position was especially revealed at the beginning of the last decade of XX century, when Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended. These events coincided with the first attempts to form an international regime to solve the climate change problem. It is assumed that only USA – the hegemon – had the ability and power to form such a regime. Secondly, the need to form such a regime arose because the essential problem was identified – global climate change. Since this problem will be negatively affecting the well-being of the all states around the world, it is their common interest to reduce its destructive consequences. During the research the definition of an international regime, created by Stephen Krasner and modified by the Tübingen research team, was used to identify the global climate change negotiations as an international regime. This regime was established in February, 2005, when the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force. When discussing for the Kyoto protocol, the negotiation positions of the states were in conflict on means to tackle the climate change problem most often. But when discussing for the extension of the climate change regime (for the new period of commitments of the states to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere of the Earth), the conflict on means was overwhelmed by the conflict of interest about relatively assessed goods. All of the main state-actors were relating their actions to the policy of their opponents. In the context of climate change problem, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per year is being measured as power. The more emissions, the greater power and influence a state has. It was found out that USA was a clear hegemon in terms of military, economic and carbon dioxide emissions in the last decade of the XX century. But at the second part of the first decade of the XXI century, economic hegemony of this state has diminished, while climate change related hegemony has dissolved. During the course of analysis in this thesis two hypotheses were formulated. Hegemonic stability one: USA, possessing hegemonic relative and climate change related power in the international system, having an interest to form an international regime to solve the climate problem, determines the formation and functioning of such a regime. Problem-structural one: conflict of negotiation positions of states about means to tackle the climate change problem determines medium regime-conduciveness, while conflict of negotiation positions of states about relatively assessed goods determines low regime-conduciveness. When tested on the case of climate change negotiations, the former hypothesis is rejected, while the latter is confirmed. The problem-structural hypothesis is additionally tested on the case of the ozone layer protection regime, thus consolidating the explanatory power of the problem-structural model. That does not imply that the variable of power should not be considered in international regimes. The role of state power is very important, but does not explain the formation and functioning of regimes alone.

The main problem of this thesis is the ability of the international regime theory to explain the international regime to solve the climate change problem. The object of this thesis is the international regime theory and its explanation of the international climate change negotiations. The purpose of this thesis is to test the neorealistic and neoliberalistic international regime formation theories on the case of global climate change negotiations. The research is being carried out on the basis of two main assumptions: firstly, that United States of America is the hegemon of international system; such position was especially revealed at the beginning of the last decade of XX century, when Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended. These events coincided with the first attempts to form an international regime to solve the climate change problem. It is assumed that only USA – the hegemon – had the ability and power to form such a regime. Secondly, the need to form such a regime arose because the essential problem was identified – global climate change. Since this problem will be negatively affecting the well-being of the all states around the world, it is their common interest to reduce its destructive consequences. During the research the definition of an international regime, created by Stephen Krasner and modified by the Tübingen research team, was used to identify the global climate change negotiations as an international regime. This regime was established in February, 2005, when the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force. When discussing for the Kyoto protocol, the negotiation positions of the states were in conflict on means to tackle the climate change problem most often. But when discussing for the extension of the climate change regime (for the new period of commitments of the states to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere of the Earth), the conflict on means was overwhelmed by the conflict of interest about relatively assessed goods. All of the main state-actors were relating their actions to the policy of their opponents. In the context of climate change problem, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per year is being measured as power. The more emissions, the greater power and influence a state has. It was found out that USA was a clear hegemon in terms of military, economic and carbon dioxide emissions in the last decade of the XX century. But at the second part of the first decade of the XXI century, economic hegemony of this state has diminished, while climate change related hegemony has dissolved. During the course of analysis in this thesis two hypotheses were formulated. Hegemonic stability one: USA, possessing hegemonic relative and climate change related power in the international system, having an interest to form an international regime to solve the climate problem, determines the formation and functioning of such a regime. Problem-structural one: conflict of negotiation positions of states about means to tackle the climate change problem determines medium regime-conduciveness, while conflict of negotiation positions of states about relatively assessed goods determines low regime-conduciveness. When tested on the case of climate change negotiations, the former hypothesis is rejected, while the latter is confirmed. The problem-structural hypothesis is additionally tested on the case of the ozone layer protection regime, thus consolidating the explanatory power of the problem-structural model. That does not imply that the variable of power should not be considered in international regimes. The role of state power is very important, but does not explain the formation and functioning of regimes alone.

The main problem of this thesis is the ability of the international regime theory to explain the international regime to solve the climate change problem. The object of this thesis is the international regime theory and its explanation of the international climate change negotiations. The purpose of this thesis is to test the neorealistic and neoliberalistic international regime formation theories on the case of global climate change negotiations. The research is being carried out on the basis of two main assumptions: firstly, that United States of America is the hegemon of international system; such position was especially revealed at the beginning of the last decade of XX century, when Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended. These events coincided with the first attempts to form an international regime to solve the climate change problem. It is assumed that only USA – the hegemon – had the ability and power to form such a regime. Secondly, the need to form such a regime arose because the essential problem was identified – global climate change. Since this problem will be negatively affecting the well-being of the all states around the world, it is their common interest to reduce its destructive consequences. During the research the definition of an international regime, created by Stephen Krasner and modified by the Tübingen research team, was used to identify the global climate change negotiations as an international regime. This regime was established in February, 2005, when the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force. When discussing for the Kyoto protocol, the negotiation positions of the states were in conflict on means to tackle the climate change problem most often. But when discussing for the extension of the climate change regime (for the new period of commitments of the states to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere of the Earth), the conflict on means was overwhelmed by the conflict of interest about relatively assessed goods. All of the main state-actors were relating their actions to the policy of their opponents. In the context of climate change problem, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per year is being measured as power. The more emissions, the greater power and influence a state has. It was found out that USA was a clear hegemon in terms of military, economic and carbon dioxide emissions in the last decade of the XX century. But at the second part of the first decade of the XXI century, economic hegemony of this state has diminished, while climate change related hegemony has dissolved. During the course of analysis in this thesis two hypotheses were formulated. Hegemonic stability one: USA, possessing hegemonic relative and climate change related power in the international system, having an interest to form an international regime to solve the climate problem, determines the formation and functioning of such a regime. Problem-structural one: conflict of negotiation positions of states about means to tackle the climate change problem determines medium regime-conduciveness, while conflict of negotiation positions of states about relatively assessed goods determines low regime-conduciveness. When tested on the case of climate change negotiations, the former hypothesis is rejected, while the latter is confirmed. The problem-structural hypothesis is additionally tested on the case of the ozone layer protection regime, thus consolidating the explanatory power of the problem-structural model. That does not imply that the variable of power should not be considered in international regimes. The role of state power is very important, but does not explain the formation and functioning of regimes alone.

This article summarizes the main contemporary theoretical approaches to international institutions as well as significant theories of institutions, which build upon those approaches. In line with the existing overviews, I focus on realism, neoliberalism & constructivism. All three approaches differ in regard to both the origin & impact of institutions. Whereas, the basic realist perspective regards state interests & power to be the main source of the institution's origin; the basic perspective of neoliberalism emphasizes the structure of state interests & collective action problems, which result from it. Many constructivists presume that so-called general institutions determine the origin of specific institutions. According to realists, the impact of institutions is dependent on state interests & power; institutions only regulate state behavior in a limited way. The neoliberal conception of institutions infers that: institutions significantly regulate state behavior since they help states resolve collective action problems. According to constructivists: institutions even constitute state identities & interests. Adapted from the source document.

Neoliberal institutionalism, developed by Robert Keohane, & liberal theory of international relations elaborated by Andrew Moravcsik, nowadays represent two grand International Relations (IR) theories drawing on liberalism as one of the main theoretical approaches in this discipline. However, Keohane conceived of neoliberal institutionalism as a synthesis of realism & liberalism & Moravcsik proceeds from a specific understanding of liberalism & defines liberalism by the criteria of empirical social science. This essay examines, therefore, whether neoliberal institutionalism & liberal theory indeed involve & assemble together the main ideas of liberalism. The perspective applied in the essay is based on the intellectual history of liberalism and, in this way, regards the assumptions about the most fundamental actor in international relations & about the evolution of international relations as the intellectual core of liberalism. According to liberalism, individuals & collective social actors constituted by individuals (social & bureaucratic groups) are the most fundamental actors in international relations & international relations undergo transformation, in the course of which cooperation gradually prevails over conflict. Neoliberal institutionalism considers the state to be the most fundamental actor in international relations & assumes that the nature of international relations transforms & they acquire a more cooperative character. Liberal theory claims that individuals & social groups are the most fundamental actors & that international relations undergo transformation that is marked by the growth of cooperation. Consequently, whereas neoliberal institutionalism involves the intellectual core of liberalism only to some extent, liberal theory implies that there is a grand theory that subsumes the main ideas of liberalism. Adapted from the source document.

Building on the latest scholarship in the nationalism-economy nexus studies, the arti cle examines how nationalism inhabits other ideologies in the economic realm. First ly, the article presents the latest strands in the nationalism-economy nexus research, namely compatibility between economy and nationalism understood as ideology. Then, using Foucault's concept of governmentality, the article shows how the two phe nomena are compatible on the theoretical level. Going further, the article connects the latest nationalism-economy nexus scholarship with existing literature on national neoliberalism in the post-socialist Baltic states. The article argues that national neo liberalism in the Baltics provides an example of what the compatibility of nationalism and economy may look like in practice. The Baltic states' Soviet experience encour aged their elites to undertake radical neoliberal reforms, in which the processes of na tion-state and market economy building overlapped. The states were built to create the markets which would in turn guarantee the prosperity of their respective nations. The article juxtaposes different, yet related scholarships and provides a basic theoretical toolkit that could facilitate potential inquiries into the nationalism-economy nexus in Lithuania and a

Building on the latest scholarship in the nationalism-economy nexus studies, the arti cle examines how nationalism inhabits other ideologies in the economic realm. First ly, the article presents the latest strands in the nationalism-economy nexus research, namely compatibility between economy and nationalism understood as ideology. Then, using Foucault's concept of governmentality, the article shows how the two phe nomena are compatible on the theoretical level. Going further, the article connects the latest nationalism-economy nexus scholarship with existing literature on national neoliberalism in the post-socialist Baltic states. The article argues that national neo liberalism in the Baltics provides an example of what the compatibility of nationalism and economy may look like in practice. The Baltic states' Soviet experience encour aged their elites to undertake radical neoliberal reforms, in which the processes of na tion-state and market economy building overlapped. The states were built to create the markets which would in turn guarantee the prosperity of their respective nations. The article juxtaposes different, yet related scholarships and provides a basic theoretical toolkit that could facilitate potential inquiries into the nationalism-economy nexus in Lithuania and a

Building on the latest scholarship in the nationalism-economy nexus studies, the arti cle examines how nationalism inhabits other ideologies in the economic realm. First ly, the article presents the latest strands in the nationalism-economy nexus research, namely compatibility between economy and nationalism understood as ideology. Then, using Foucault's concept of governmentality, the article shows how the two phe nomena are compatible on the theoretical level. Going further, the article connects the latest nationalism-economy nexus scholarship with existing literature on national neoliberalism in the post-socialist Baltic states. The article argues that national neo liberalism in the Baltics provides an example of what the compatibility of nationalism and economy may look like in practice. The Baltic states' Soviet experience encour aged their elites to undertake radical neoliberal reforms, in which the processes of na tion-state and market economy building overlapped. The states were built to create the markets which would in turn guarantee the prosperity of their respective nations. The article juxtaposes different, yet related scholarships and provides a basic theoretical toolkit that could facilitate potential inquiries into the nationalism-economy nexus in Lithuania and a

Building on the latest scholarship in the nationalism-economy nexus studies, the arti cle examines how nationalism inhabits other ideologies in the economic realm. First ly, the article presents the latest strands in the nationalism-economy nexus research, namely compatibility between economy and nationalism understood as ideology. Then, using Foucault's concept of governmentality, the article shows how the two phe nomena are compatible on the theoretical level. Going further, the article connects the latest nationalism-economy nexus scholarship with existing literature on national neoliberalism in the post-socialist Baltic states. The article argues that national neo liberalism in the Baltics provides an example of what the compatibility of nationalism and economy may look like in practice. The Baltic states' Soviet experience encour aged their elites to undertake radical neoliberal reforms, in which the processes of na tion-state and market economy building overlapped. The states were built to create the markets which would in turn guarantee the prosperity of their respective nations. The article juxtaposes different, yet related scholarships and provides a basic theoretical toolkit that could facilitate potential inquiries into the nationalism-economy nexus in Lithuania and a

Usually it is held that the greatest peril to media independence and the integrity of journalism is posed by the political power. However, particularly liberal media policy paved the way for a different kind of external influence and instrumentalization of the media in Lithuania: entering wedges have been found by private powers and market laws to influence media's content and the transformation of notions of journalistic professionalism. The media, having successfully avoided political parallelism is now facing a peril of market parallelism: both cases endanger media's independence from external influences. The work analyzes the effects of the neoliberal ethos and market parallelism on media and journalistic professionalism in Lithuania.

Usually it is held that the greatest peril to media independence and the integrity of journalism is posed by the political power. However, particularly liberal media policy paved the way for a different kind of external influence and instrumentalization of the media in Lithuania: entering wedges have been found by private powers and market laws to influence media's content and the transformation of notions of journalistic professionalism. The media, having successfully avoided political parallelism is now facing a peril of market parallelism: both cases endanger media's independence from external influences. The work analyzes the effects of the neoliberal ethos and market parallelism on media and journalistic professionalism in Lithuania.

Usually it is held that the greatest peril to media independence and the integrity of journalism is posed by the political power. However, particularly liberal media policy paved the way for a different kind of external influence and instrumentalization of the media in Lithuania: entering wedges have been found by private powers and market laws to influence media's content and the transformation of notions of journalistic professionalism. The media, having successfully avoided political parallelism is now facing a peril of market parallelism: both cases endanger media's independence from external influences. The work analyzes the effects of the neoliberal ethos and market parallelism on media and journalistic professionalism in Lithuania.

The presented analysis critically investigates the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the area of human security, specifically in humanitarian disarmament. The objective of the first half is to map the existing discourse on NGOs in this area. After an outline of the characteristics of the field, what follows is an empirical analysis of the discourse on the campaign to ban landmines in its much celebrated role of a model of humanitarian disarmament. The second half has a rebuttal of the belief in the emancipatory role of NGOs in this issue area as its main aim. Foucault's theorization and conceptualization of the development of liberalism and neo-liberalism serve as the basis for this task. The provided interpretation rests on three arguments. First, the notion of newness and lack of precedents regarding the role of NGOs in this area is flawed. Empirical material that deals with 19th Century liberally-based campaigns for humanitarian disarmament will be used to support this claim. Second, the image of soft power as allegedly characterizing the relationship between NGOs and governments in this area is challenged. In order to correct such a portrayal, characteristics of the recent neo-liberal, disciplinary regime in which NGOs have had to operate are provided. Finally, the commonly held idea that one needs to study the accompanying processes at the global level is rectified. As a result, it is argued that microprocesses within domestic institutional settings and the move from the domestic transformations of the non-profit sector in Canada to the global desecuritization of human security also need to be examined. Adapted from the source document.

Civil society is a necessity without which democracy can turn into political technocracy. The neoliberal ideology faces new challenges forcing a rethink underlying the individual and the state and free media and its activity and specificity. We encounter a vivid problem when a group of people who own the media resources have all the tools to shape the public opinion according to their demands. Public commentators become the subjects of public opinion when they analyze the current events. The discourse which is created by these people has suggestibility, subjectivism and ideological style thus creating and having influence on the public opinion. This factor led to more closely analyze the Lithuanian media commentators public discourse in the context of civil initiatives and to evaluate the influence of the discourse of civil society development, based on the principles of liberal democracy. The object of this work is Lithuanian news agencies "Delfi.lt", "15min", "Lrytas.lt", and "lrt.lt" commentator's publications related to the mass initiatives of "supermarket boycott" and "protests against the new Labour Code" which both happened in 2016. The paper examines discreditation of civil initiatives, as one of the attributes of a liberal democracy, in the public space. In order to examine the problem, there are 5 tasks to fallow: (1) to discuss the main features of the collective activities of liberal democracy; (2) to assess the media as a political tool of communication to the public knowledge; (3) to disclosure the selected social initiatives characteristics; (4) to perform selected media portals public commentators publications qualitative discourse analysis, highlighting the main findings; (5) to assess the dominant media portals statements by liberal democratic criteria and assessing the significance of the discourse for civil society. The qualitative discourse analysis method was used for the analyzed problem. A structured interview was also used as a method which helped to disclose and assess the positions of the online media commentators for the relevant civil initiatives. The research revealed that the initiative "supermarket boycott" attempted not only to use its collective action resources to change the market prices but to have solidarity with the most vulnerable social groups as well. Meanwhile the protesters against the new Labour Code were holding a position against the bill thus creating resonance within the society and contributing to the growth of the protest culture in Lithuania. The discourse of the public commentators in the public space assessing the civil and social initiatives opposes the liberal democracy principals where free people meetings (freedom of association) are one of the core ideas of liberal democracy. While having the resources to construct the public opinion, the public commenter's limit the possibilities for other opposing doctrines to appear and act - allowing us to make a conclusion that pluralism is not appreciated. The dominant discourse implies ideas about negative consequences for the liberal and civil society's development.