Suchergebnisse

У статті висвітлено перебіг протистояння між чеським королем Вацлавом І та австрійським герцогом Фрідріхом ІІ Бабенбергом, яке тривало упродовж 30-х років ХІІІ ст. і врешті-решт завершилося примиренням. Для Вацлава І ця боротьба мала передусім династичне значення, адже йшлося про захист честі його сестри Анежки, яку готували до одруження із сином імператора Фрідріха ІІ Штауфена – Генріха (VII). Однак через інтриги Фрідріхового батька Леопольда VI Бабенберга цей шлюб так і не було укладено. В результаті, Генріх (VII) одружився з Леопольдовою донькою Маргаретою Бабенберг. Тоді батько Анежки – чеський король Пршемисл Отакар І – вторгся у володіння Леопольда VI Бабенберга і спустошив їх. Після смерті Пршемисла Отакара І та Леопольда VI Бабенберга війну продовжили їхні сини і спадкоємці – чеський король Вацлав І та австрійський герцог Фрідріх ІІ Бабенберг. Аби помститися за плюндрування Австрії і скинути Вацлава І з трону Фрідріх ІІ Бабенберг навіть уклав союз із його братом Пршемислом, маркграфом Моравії. Однак через раптову хворобу Фрідріхові ІІ Бабенбергові довелося припинити успішні військові дії, а маркграфові Пршемислові – підкоритися братові Вацлавові. Фортуна й надалі не сприяла Фрідріхові Бабенбергові. Проти нього виступив також угорський король Андраш ІІ, який уклав союз із Вацлавом І. Відтак угорці разом з чехами стали спопеляти австрійські землі. Тож потрапивши у скрутне становище, Фрідріх ІІ Бабенберг був змушений примиритися з Вацлавом І. ; The article describes the course of the conflict between the Czech King Vaclav I and the Austrian Duke Friedrich II Babenberg, which lasted for 30 years of the XIII century and eventually ended with conciliation. As to Vaclav I, that struggle bore dynastic meaning first of all, because the matter was in protection of his sister's Anezhka honour, who was to marry the Emperor Friedrich II Stauffen 's son - Henry (VII). However because of the intrigues of Friedrich's father Leopold VI Babenberg that marriage was never concluded. As a result, Henry (VII) married Leopold's daughter Margaret Babenberg. Then Anezhka's father - the Czech king Przemysl Otakar I, invaded Leopold VI Babenberg's territories and devastated them. After the death of Przemysl Otakar I and Leopold VI Babenberg, their sons and heirs - the Czech king Vaclav I and the Austrian Duke Friedrich II Babenberg continued the war. Friedrich II Bagenberg even made an alliance with Vaclav's brother - the Margrave of Moravia Przemysl - to take the revenge for devastation Austria and to dethrone Vaclav I. However due to sudden illness Friedrich II Bagenberg had to stop his successful military operations, and the markrave Przemysl had to surrender to his brother Vaclav. Fortune continued not to be in favour to Friedrich Babenberg. Hungarian king Andrásh II opposed him too and made an alliance with Vaclav I. Thus the Hungarians, together with the Czechs, began spitting the Austrian lands. So having fallen into a difficult position, Friedrich II Bagenberg was forced to reconcile with Vaclav I.

У статті висвітлено перебіг протистояння між чеським королем Вацлавом І та австрійським герцогом Фрідріхом ІІ Бабенбергом, яке тривало упродовж 30-х років ХІІІ ст. і врешті-решт завершилося примиренням. Для Вацлава І ця боротьба мала передусім династичне значення, адже йшлося про захист честі його сестри Анежки, яку готували до одруження із сином імператора Фрідріха ІІ Штауфена – Генріха (VII). Однак через інтриги Фрідріхового батька Леопольда VI Бабенберга цей шлюб так і не було укладено. В результаті, Генріх (VII) одружився з Леопольдовою донькою Маргаретою Бабенберг. Тоді батько Анежки – чеський король Пршемисл Отакар І – вторгся у володіння Леопольда VI Бабенберга і спустошив їх. Після смерті Пршемисла Отакара І та Леопольда VI Бабенберга війну продовжили їхні сини і спадкоємці – чеський король Вацлав І та австрійський герцог Фрідріх ІІ Бабенберг. Аби помститися за плюндрування Австрії і скинути Вацлава І з трону Фрідріх ІІ Бабенберг навіть уклав союз із його братом Пршемислом, маркграфом Моравії. Однак через раптову хворобу Фрідріхові ІІ Бабенбергові довелося припинити успішні військові дії, а маркграфові Пршемислові – підкоритися братові Вацлавові. Фортуна й надалі не сприяла Фрідріхові Бабенбергові. Проти нього виступив також угорський король Андраш ІІ, який уклав союз із Вацлавом І. Відтак угорці разом з чехами стали спопеляти австрійські землі. Тож потрапивши у скрутне становище, Фрідріх ІІ Бабенберг був змушений примиритися з Вацлавом І. ; The article describes the course of the conflict between the Czech King Vaclav I and the Austrian Duke Friedrich II Babenberg, which lasted for 30 years of the XIII century and eventually ended with conciliation. As to Vaclav I, that struggle bore dynastic meaning first of all, because the matter was in protection of his sister's Anezhka honour, who was to marry the Emperor Friedrich II Stauffen 's son - Henry (VII). However because of the intrigues of Friedrich's father Leopold VI Babenberg that marriage was never concluded. As a result, Henry (VII) married Leopold's daughter Margaret Babenberg. Then Anezhka's father - the Czech king Przemysl Otakar I, invaded Leopold VI Babenberg's territories and devastated them. After the death of Przemysl Otakar I and Leopold VI Babenberg, their sons and heirs - the Czech king Vaclav I and the Austrian Duke Friedrich II Babenberg continued the war. Friedrich II Bagenberg even made an alliance with Vaclav's brother - the Margrave of Moravia Przemysl - to take the revenge for devastation Austria and to dethrone Vaclav I. However due to sudden illness Friedrich II Bagenberg had to stop his successful military operations, and the markrave Przemysl had to surrender to his brother Vaclav. Fortune continued not to be in favour to Friedrich Babenberg. Hungarian king Andrásh II opposed him too and made an alliance with Vaclav I. Thus the Hungarians, together with the Czechs, began spitting the Austrian lands. So having fallen into a difficult position, Friedrich II Bagenberg was forced to reconcile with Vaclav I.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the origin of sciences on peace, war, and ethnopolitical conflicts in philosophical, religious and political dimensions. Views and ideas of Ancient Eastern philosophers marked the beginning of future sciences on analysis of the origin of sciences on peace, war, and ethnopolitical conflicts. Subsequently, Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers took up these ideas. Beginning and development of these sciences started in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance. The Middle Ages witnessed the birth of a number of projects related to achieving and maintaining permanent peace. These projects were based on religious principles. Some of them are of scientific interest to this day. Thus, the treatise of George of Poděbrady was republished several times in English, German, Czech and other languages and had an influence on the development of ideas on war, armed conflict, and peace. Erasmus of Rotterdam, the brightest representative of the Renaissance, became well-known due to his exposure of the true causes of wars and armed conflicts. The fundamental work of the prominent Dutch lawyer and political thinker at the turn of the Renaissance and the Modern Era Hugo Grotius made a significant contribution to the study of the issues identified in the article, predominantly from the political and legal viewpoint. A notable contribution to the further development of the sciences on peace, war, and armed ethnopolitical conflicts was made by the eminent English philosopher and lawyer Jeremy Bentham. An outstanding German philosopher Immanuel Kant made a huge contribution to the formation of a new field of knowledge on peace and ethnopolitical conflicts. From a political perspective, it's worth to mention the contribution of the distinguished Austrian-German thinker and politician Friedrich von Gentz to the development of sciences on peace, war, and armed conflicts. The science of peace is called "eirenology" (from Greek "eirnene" – peace). However, this relatively unknown and incomprehensible term due to various reasons has been popular among most foreign researchers, not to mention domestic researchers who are engaged in the study of this problem. In Western corresponding academic literature in 1960–1970 this term was known as "Peace Studies". Nevertheless, since the mid-1980s issues related to it had been investigated mainly within the framework of a new field of scientific knowledge called "Peace and Conflict Studies". In the West today, it is quite known and influential scientific trend. This is demonstrated by the training at many Universities of bachelors, masters and even PhDs in this field and publishing scientific journal "Peace and Conflict Studies".However, in the author's view, this field should be divided into 2 separate ones, namely a) science of peace and b) science of conflicts. The author of the article offers to introduce a new concept "mirology" into the corresponding Ukrainian political and conflict literature, which should be interpreted as the science of peace as the eternal and highest all-human value. Speaking of science aimed at studying conflicts in ethnopolitical sphere of social life. in the West it is known as "Ethnic Conflict Studies". But given that the global ethnopolitical conflicts explosion has occurred at the turn of the millennia, in our opinion, a new branch of scientific knowledge of these conflicts deserves a more correct and adequate name - "Ethnopolitical Conflict Studies". ; The article is devoted to the analysis of the origin of sciences on peace, war, and ethnopolitical conflicts in philosophical, religious and political dimensions. Views and ideas of Ancient Eastern philosophers marked the beginning of future sciences on analysis of the origin of sciences on peace, war, and ethnopolitical conflicts. Subsequently, Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers took up these ideas. Beginning and development of these sciences started in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance. The Middle Ages witnessed the birth of a number of projects related to achieving and maintaining permanent peace. These projects were based on religious principles. Some of them are of scientific interest to this day. Thus, the treatise of George of Poděbrady was republished several times in English, German, Czech and other languages and had an influence on the development of ideas on war, armed conflict, and peace. Erasmus of Rotterdam, the brightest representative of the Renaissance, became well-known due to his exposure of the true causes of wars and armed conflicts. The fundamental work of the prominent Dutch lawyer and political thinker at the turn of the Renaissance and the Modern Era Hugo Grotius made a significant contribution to the study of the issues identified in the article, predominantly from the political and legal viewpoint. A notable contribution to the further development of the sciences on peace, war, and armed ethnopolitical conflicts was made by the eminent English philosopher and lawyer Jeremy Bentham. An outstanding German philosopher Immanuel Kant made a huge contribution to the formation of a new field of knowledge on peace and ethnopolitical conflicts. From a political perspective, it's worth to mention the contribution of the distinguished Austrian-German thinker and politician Friedrich von Gentz to the development of sciences on peace, war, and armed conflicts. The science of peace is called "eirenology" (from Greek "eirnene" – peace). However, this relatively unknown and incomprehensible term due to various reasons has been popular among most foreign researchers, not to mention domestic researchers who are engaged in the study of this problem. In Western corresponding academic literature in 1960–1970 this term was known as "Peace Studies". Nevertheless, since the mid-1980s issues related to it had been investigated mainly within the framework of a new field of scientific knowledge called "Peace and Conflict Studies". In the West today, it is quite known and influential scientific trend. This is demonstrated by the training at many Universities of bachelors, masters and even PhDs in this field and publishing scientific journal "Peace and Conflict Studies".However, in the author's view, this field should be divided into 2 separate ones, namely a) science of peace and b) science of conflicts. The author of the article offers to introduce a new concept "mirology" into the corresponding Ukrainian political and conflict literature, which should be interpreted as the science of peace as the eternal and highest all-human value. Speaking of science aimed at studying conflicts in ethnopolitical sphere of social life. in the West it is known as "Ethnic Conflict Studies". But given that the global ethnopolitical conflicts explosion has occurred at the turn of the millennia, in our opinion, a new branch of scientific knowledge of these conflicts deserves a more correct and adequate name - "Ethnopolitical Conflict Studies".

The article is devoted to the analysis of the origin of sciences on peace, war, and ethnopolitical conflicts in philosophical, religious and political dimensions. Views and ideas of Ancient Eastern philosophers marked the beginning of future sciences on analysis of the origin of sciences on peace, war, and ethnopolitical conflicts. Subsequently, Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers took up these ideas. Beginning and development of these sciences started in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance. The Middle Ages witnessed the birth of a number of projects related to achieving and maintaining permanent peace. These projects were based on religious principles. Some of them are of scientific interest to this day. Thus, the treatise of George of Poděbrady was republished several times in English, German, Czech and other languages and had an influence on the development of ideas on war, armed conflict, and peace. Erasmus of Rotterdam, the brightest representative of the Renaissance, became well-known due to his exposure of the true causes of wars and armed conflicts. The fundamental work of the prominent Dutch lawyer and political thinker at the turn of the Renaissance and the Modern Era Hugo Grotius made a significant contribution to the study of the issues identified in the article, predominantly from the political and legal viewpoint. A notable contribution to the further development of the sciences on peace, war, and armed ethnopolitical conflicts was made by the eminent English philosopher and lawyer Jeremy Bentham. An outstanding German philosopher Immanuel Kant made a huge contribution to the formation of a new field of knowledge on peace and ethnopolitical conflicts. From a political perspective, it's worth to mention the contribution of the distinguished Austrian-German thinker and politician Friedrich von Gentz to the development of sciences on peace, war, and armed conflicts. The science of peace is called "eirenology" (from Greek "eirnene" – peace). However, this relatively unknown and incomprehensible term due to various reasons has been popular among most foreign researchers, not to mention domestic researchers who are engaged in the study of this problem. In Western corresponding academic literature in 1960–1970 this term was known as "Peace Studies". Nevertheless, since the mid-1980s issues related to it had been investigated mainly within the framework of a new field of scientific knowledge called "Peace and Conflict Studies". In the West today, it is quite known and influential scientific trend. This is demonstrated by the training at many Universities of bachelors, masters and even PhDs in this field and publishing scientific journal "Peace and Conflict Studies".However, in the author's view, this field should be divided into 2 separate ones, namely a) science of peace and b) science of conflicts. The author of the article offers to introduce a new concept "mirology" into the corresponding Ukrainian political and conflict literature, which should be interpreted as the science of peace as the eternal and highest all-human value. Speaking of science aimed at studying conflicts in ethnopolitical sphere of social life. in the West it is known as "Ethnic Conflict Studies". But given that the global ethnopolitical conflicts explosion has occurred at the turn of the millennia, in our opinion, a new branch of scientific knowledge of these conflicts deserves a more correct and adequate name - "Ethnopolitical Conflict Studies". ; The article is devoted to the analysis of the origin of sciences on peace, war, and ethnopolitical conflicts in philosophical, religious and political dimensions. Views and ideas of Ancient Eastern philosophers marked the beginning of future sciences on analysis of the origin of sciences on peace, war, and ethnopolitical conflicts. Subsequently, Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers took up these ideas. Beginning and development of these sciences started in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance. The Middle Ages witnessed the birth of a number of projects related to achieving and maintaining permanent peace. These projects were based on religious principles. Some of them are of scientific interest to this day. Thus, the treatise of George of Poděbrady was republished several times in English, German, Czech and other languages and had an influence on the development of ideas on war, armed conflict, and peace. Erasmus of Rotterdam, the brightest representative of the Renaissance, became well-known due to his exposure of the true causes of wars and armed conflicts. The fundamental work of the prominent Dutch lawyer and political thinker at the turn of the Renaissance and the Modern Era Hugo Grotius made a significant contribution to the study of the issues identified in the article, predominantly from the political and legal viewpoint. A notable contribution to the further development of the sciences on peace, war, and armed ethnopolitical conflicts was made by the eminent English philosopher and lawyer Jeremy Bentham. An outstanding German philosopher Immanuel Kant made a huge contribution to the formation of a new field of knowledge on peace and ethnopolitical conflicts. From a political perspective, it's worth to mention the contribution of the distinguished Austrian-German thinker and politician Friedrich von Gentz to the development of sciences on peace, war, and armed conflicts. The science of peace is called "eirenology" (from Greek "eirnene" – peace). However, this relatively unknown and incomprehensible term due to various reasons has been popular among most foreign researchers, not to mention domestic researchers who are engaged in the study of this problem. In Western corresponding academic literature in 1960–1970 this term was known as "Peace Studies". Nevertheless, since the mid-1980s issues related to it had been investigated mainly within the framework of a new field of scientific knowledge called "Peace and Conflict Studies". In the West today, it is quite known and influential scientific trend. This is demonstrated by the training at many Universities of bachelors, masters and even PhDs in this field and publishing scientific journal "Peace and Conflict Studies".However, in the author's view, this field should be divided into 2 separate ones, namely a) science of peace and b) science of conflicts. The author of the article offers to introduce a new concept "mirology" into the corresponding Ukrainian political and conflict literature, which should be interpreted as the science of peace as the eternal and highest all-human value. Speaking of science aimed at studying conflicts in ethnopolitical sphere of social life. in the West it is known as "Ethnic Conflict Studies". But given that the global ethnopolitical conflicts explosion has occurred at the turn of the millennia, in our opinion, a new branch of scientific knowledge of these conflicts deserves a more correct and adequate name - "Ethnopolitical Conflict Studies".

The article highlights some organizational activities which provided personnel and financial support for UPR delegation's work in the Paris Peace Conference 1919–1920. This work consisted of efforts to gain UPR's independence recognition by leading and others states of the world; to get them to take into consideration interests of the Ukrainian people, because of the postwar geopolitical changes in Central Europe; to cooperate in political, military, commercial and economic fields with other countries. It characterizes main directions of personnel part of this work – the dynamics in personnel changes, efforts to engage qualified specialists and technical workers, control over delegation members' business trips, financial expenses aimed at executing tasks, which were given to the delegation. ; Публікація висвітлює деякі організаційні заходи щодо кадрового і фінансового забезпечення діяльності делегації УНР на Паризькій мирній конференції 1919–1920 рр. з метою добитися визнання незалежності УНР провідними та іншими державами світу, врахування інтересів українського народу у ході повоєнних геополітичних змін у Центральній і Східній Європі, налагодження політичної, військової та торговельно-економічної співпраці з іншими країнами. Характеризує головні напрями кадрової складової цієї діяльності – динаміку у кадрових змінах, намагання залучити до роботи кваліфікованих фахівців і технічних працівників, ведення контролю за відрядженням членів делегації; фінансові заходи, спрямовані на виконання завдань, що стояли перед делегацією.

У статті надаються обґрунтування теоретичних основ та розробки структурної моделі формування готовності майбутніх офіцерів ЗСУ до професійної взаємодії в міжнародних операціях з підтримання миру і безпеки. Визначено її компонентний склад. Модель містить чотири основних складових блоки, а саме: цільовий, змістово-практичний, функціональний та діагностичний. доведено, що розроблена модель розглядаються як інструмент дослідження іншомовної компетентності та засіб активізації навчальної діяльності майбутніх офіцерів ЗСУ для ефективного виконання міжнародних завдань. На цій основі здійсняються формування фахової англомовної підготовки військовослужбовців. Питання іншомовної підготовки у ВВНЗ потребую переосмислення у зв'язку зі зміцненням позицій та ролі держави на міжнародній арені. ; The current challenges to the system of collective security require immediate analysis of traditional educational approaches to preparation of military personnel and transition to more innovative and effective ones. The active role of Ukrainian military personnel in international peace and security operations contributes to strengthening the positive image of the Armed Forces of Ukraine within international scene. The article provides theoretical fundamentals and development of the structural model for the readiness formation of AFU future officers for further professional interaction in international peace and security operations. The applied research methods were the following: theoretical (analysis of scientific research papers in order to specify and generalize theoretical and methodological principles of research), empirical (analysis of pedagogical experience, pedagogical observation), modeling method (creation of the model). The model's structural components were determined. The model contains four main blocks, namely: target, content-practical, functional and diagnostic. It has been proved that the developed model is considered as a tool for research foreign language competence and different means for activation of learning activities, which will stimulate future officers for effective decision-making and international tasks performance. Also were determined general and specific pedagogical principles of readiness formation. It was proved that purposeful systemic foreign language training of military personnel will be more effective if the target model is designed when didactic content includes interactive teaching methods (role-playing and business games) taking into account the diversity and complexity of the tasks of military activity, the significance of psychological and psychophysical loads within military service, permanent stay under conditions of uncertainty, creative search for non-standard solutions. Interactive learning forms which didactic content consists of business and role-playing games become of a great importance during the process of foreign language learning and mastering linguistic skills among future officers. Qualitative formation of foreign language competence is the basis of the readiness for effective professional interaction in multinational environment. To test the effectiveness of the proposed model the following eight criteria were used: motivation, emotional stability and endurance, tolerance of dialogue, activity, knowledge of vocabulary and terminology, quality of the proposed solutions, use of language for solving situational tasks, ability to work as a team and a separate assessment of a team leader. The result of implemented model will be formation of readiness of AFU future officers for professional interaction in international peace and security operations according to its components, criteria and formation levels.

Висвітлюються політичні аспекти у перебігу мирових перемовин та під час укладання Мирового договору між УНР та Центральними державами у Бересті. Вказується на позиції і дії української делегації та на пропозиції німецьких й австро-угорських представників, а також офіційних Києва, Берліна та Відня. Розкривається дипломатичне протистояння українських делегатів з представниками німецької та більшовицької делегацій. Розглядаються позиція делегації УНР щодо формування збройних підрозділів з українських військовополонених у Німеччині та Австро-Угорщині та обумовлення зміни підходу щодо цього питання у перебігу перемовин. Зауважується на обставинах і причинах укладання як самого договору, так і таємного протоколу до нього. З'ясовуються деталі втрати українського примірника таємного протоколу до Берестейського договору. Зауважується на ролі у переговорах голови української делегації О. Севрюка. Обумовлюється зміна позицій сторін щодо запросин німецьких та австро-угорських військ в Україну. Висвітлюється обґрунтування дій делегації УНР у її звітності перед Українською Центральною Радою. Висновується, що де-факто новітні українсько-німецькі дипломатичні взаємини почалися з грудня 1917 р. і мали на той час «сепаратний» характер, а де-юре були оформлені 9 лютого 1918 р. Берестейським мировим договором. Договір цей став першою мировою угодою Першої світової війни, а Українська Народна Республіка була визнана Німеччиною та її союзниками (Австро-Угорщиною, Болгарією та Туреччиною) суверенною державою. ; The article covers the political aspects of peace negotiations and the conclusion of the Peace Treaty between the UPR and Central Powers in Brest. The stances and actions of the Ukrainian delegation and the proposals of the German and Austro-Hungarian representatives, as well as Kyiv, Berlin, and Vienna officials are indicated. Diplomatic confrontation between the Ukrainian delegates and representatives of German and Bolshevik delegations is outlined. The position of the UPR delegation on the formation of armed units from Ukrainian prisoners of war in Germany and Austria-Hungary is discussed, as well as its opinion on changing the approach towards the course of negotiations. The article indicates the circumstances and reasons for concluding both the treaty itself and the secret protocol to it. The details of the loss of the Ukrainian copy of the secret protocol to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk are clarified. The role of the Head of the Ukrainian delegation O. Sevriuk in the negotiations is noted. Changes in the parties' positions regarding the invitations of German and Austro-Hungarian troops to Ukraine are conditioned. The rationale for the actions of the UPR delegation in its reporting to the Ukrainian Central Council is elucidated. It is revealed that de facto new Ukrainian-German diplomatic relations began in December 1917 and were then of a "separative" nature, and de jure were legalized on February 9, 1918 by the Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This treaty became the first peace agreement of World War I, while Germany and its allies (Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey) recognized the Ukrainian People's Republic as a sovereign state.

Висвітлюються політичні аспекти у перебігу мирових перемовин та під час укладання Мирового договору між УНР та Центральними державами у Бересті. Вказується на позиції і дії української делегації та на пропозиції німецьких й австро-угорських представників, а також офіційних Києва, Берліна та Відня. Розкривається дипломатичне протистояння українських делегатів з представниками німецької та більшовицької делегацій. Розглядаються позиція делегації УНР щодо формування збройних підрозділів з українських військовополонених у Німеччині та Австро-Угорщині та обумовлення зміни підходу щодо цього питання у перебігу перемовин. Зауважується на обставинах і причинах укладання як самого договору, так і таємного протоколу до нього. З'ясовуються деталі втрати українського примірника таємного протоколу до Берестейського договору. Зауважується на ролі у переговорах голови української делегації О. Севрюка. Обумовлюється зміна позицій сторін щодо запросин німецьких та австро-угорських військ в Україну. Висвітлюється обґрунтування дій делегації УНР у її звітності перед Українською Центральною Радою. Висновується, що де-факто новітні українсько-німецькі дипломатичні взаємини почалися з грудня 1917 р. і мали на той час «сепаратний» характер, а де-юре були оформлені 9 лютого 1918 р. Берестейським мировим договором. Договір цей став першою мировою угодою Першої світової війни, а Українська Народна Республіка була визнана Німеччиною та її союзниками (Австро-Угорщиною, Болгарією та Туреччиною) суверенною державою. ; The article covers the political aspects of peace negotiations and the conclusion of the Peace Treaty between the UPR and Central Powers in Brest. The stances and actions of the Ukrainian delegation and the proposals of the German and Austro-Hungarian representatives, as well as Kyiv, Berlin, and Vienna officials are indicated. Diplomatic confrontation between the Ukrainian delegates and representatives of German and Bolshevik delegations is outlined. The position of the UPR delegation on the formation of armed units from Ukrainian prisoners of war in Germany and Austria-Hungary is discussed, as well as its opinion on changing the approach towards the course of negotiations. The article indicates the circumstances and reasons for concluding both the treaty itself and the secret protocol to it. The details of the loss of the Ukrainian copy of the secret protocol to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk are clarified. The role of the Head of the Ukrainian delegation O. Sevriuk in the negotiations is noted. Changes in the parties' positions regarding the invitations of German and Austro-Hungarian troops to Ukraine are conditioned. The rationale for the actions of the UPR delegation in its reporting to the Ukrainian Central Council is elucidated. It is revealed that de facto new Ukrainian-German diplomatic relations began in December 1917 and were then of a "separative" nature, and de jure were legalized on February 9, 1918 by the Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This treaty became the first peace agreement of World War I, while Germany and its allies (Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey) recognized the Ukrainian People's Republic as a sovereign state.

In the presented article the author highlights the main direction of its foreign policy Romania on Southern Dobrudja lands at the end of the First World War and the period of the Paris Peace Conference (1918–1919 ). The article highlights the work and the struggle for peace with the Balkan states of Romania and Britain politicians, diplomats and civil society towards preserving peaceful relations in the period of operation of the Paris Peace Conference.The most radical departure from the principle of national self-determination which practiced Foreign-Office came in relation to Romania's frontier with Bulgaria. The tasks are to characterize the content of the work of the Romanian diplomatic commission in the direction of the defending the rights to South Dobrudja and the determination of the position of Great Britain as for territorial independence of the region. The main thesis of the article is that after First World War Romania sought to large an alliance with t least on of the Great Powers in case of an attack on South Dobrudja, in this sense, Romania's diplomatic success was only partial. The Romanian government realized that only the permission of the Great Powers, such as Great Britain, would strength its presence in the region.The Great Britain treated ambiguously towards such aspirations of Romania. For the first, Foreign Office was not forgotten for Bucharest the separate peace with the Central Powers in 1918. For the second, Britain diplomatic and military mission at Southern Dobrudja did not take the politics of the terror of Romanian in Bessarabia. The Great Britain provided a summary of the position in Southern Dobrudja: provisional British military occupation is the only possible solution for the moment, in spite of the unrest this causes to the Rumanian Government.From the first of the being in Paris, the Romanian diplomats were sounded actively the question how the Great Britain and France would see the future status of Southern Dobrudja. The Romanian demand for Southern Dobrudja was strongly citing national self-determination and protecting peace in Balkan. Most in the British delegation hoped that this could be agreed.However, the British and French refused absolutely to compel an ally to surrender territory to an enemy. The decision, British politics believed, lay with Romania: such readjustment could only be made after friendly conversations with the Rumanian Government. It is important that the Rumanian politics themselves should be a consenting party to the cession of Southern Dobrudja and that Romanians should not be left with the feeling that they have been robbed by their Allies to placate their enemies.In the Parice Peace Conference Foreign Office took the legalistic view that, because Southern Dobrudja was secured by Romania before the war, its future was beyond the remit of the Peace Conference. The Britain Commission stated in its projects that it was not authorized to recommend a modification of the frontier which would involve the cession to an enemy State of a territory forming de facto et de jure an integral part of an Allied State.The Romanians, angry about losing part of the Banat, never offered to give up Southern Dobrudja. The Americans pushed their view in the Council of Heads of Delegations between July and November, but the British were unyielding. The issue was not even mentioned in the Treaty of Neuilly with Bulgaria in November. Thus, in the words of a member of the Bulgarian Delegation, the settlement proclaimed the principle that no land can be claimed from the victors. It has been argued here that Bucharest gained territory not because of the wartime treaty that promised her so much, and not because of the dubious diplomatic skills of Romanian delegation, but because the Roma nians had a strong case and it was effectively presented by Romanophiles like Britain delegation. There was one other reason, however, that tended to shine its harsh light on every issue, the simple idea that these people are our friends and those are our enemies. This was stated most starkly and frequently by the French, but it was also evident in the British unwillingness to coerce the Romanians over Southern Dobrudja.The consequence of making a settlement which dealt severely with losers was that they became revisionist and eventually allied themselves with those who would undo the hated treaties. Romania remains much bigger than she was in 1918, but the settlement that created Greater Romania did not survive the vengeance of its enemies. ; У представленій статті автором висвітлюються основні вектори зовнішньої політики Румунії щодо Південної Добруджі в 1918–1919 рр. Проаналізовано і визначено спроби Бухаресту збільшити території за рахунок територій сусідніх держав. Відображена діяльність та боротьба румунських дипломатів в напрямку збільшення територіальних надбань Румунії в період роботи Паризької мирної конференції, коли держави-переможниці підтримали приєднання до балканських держав низки болгарських територій. Розглядається підготовка та підписання Нейїського мирного договору. В статті підкреслюється, що румунські політики і дипломати були непоступливими щодо пом'якшення умов мирного договору з Болгарією, зокрема щодо питання статусу Південної Добруджі, який на той час готувався в Парижі. Для цього використовували всі сили та можливості для того, щоб прихилити на бік максимальної підтримки румунських національних інтересів якомога більше реальних учасників мирних домовленостей, зокрема Велику Британію. Антиболгарська пропаганда і агітація, яка розгорнулася в Великій Британії, суттєво посприяли вирішенню всіх цих питань. У статті подана характеристика відношення британських державних діячів до Румунії одразу після закінчення війни, напередодні і в час роботи Паризької мирної конференції. Аналізуючи позицію Великої Британії відносно питання статусу Південної Добруджі в цей період, автор констатує, що вона була двоякою та непередбачливою. Розкрито складне становище Румунії в системі міжнародних відносин після закінчення Першої світової війни, з якою країни-переможниці будували свої стосунки методом поступок, скоригувавши на її користь Нейїський мирний договір. Після війни за безпосереднього сприяння Лондону та Парижу Румунія перетворилась на велику чорноморську та балканську державу.

In the presented article the author highlights the main direction of its foreign policy Romania on Southern Dobrudja lands at the end of the First World War and the period of the Paris Peace Conference (1918–1919 ). The article highlights the work and the struggle for peace with the Balkan states of Romania and Britain politicians, diplomats and civil society towards preserving peaceful relations in the period of operation of the Paris Peace Conference.The most radical departure from the principle of national self-determination which practiced Foreign-Office came in relation to Romania's frontier with Bulgaria. The tasks are to characterize the content of the work of the Romanian diplomatic commission in the direction of the defending the rights to South Dobrudja and the determination of the position of Great Britain as for territorial independence of the region. The main thesis of the article is that after First World War Romania sought to large an alliance with t least on of the Great Powers in case of an attack on South Dobrudja, in this sense, Romania's diplomatic success was only partial. The Romanian government realized that only the permission of the Great Powers, such as Great Britain, would strength its presence in the region.The Great Britain treated ambiguously towards such aspirations of Romania. For the first, Foreign Office was not forgotten for Bucharest the separate peace with the Central Powers in 1918. For the second, Britain diplomatic and military mission at Southern Dobrudja did not take the politics of the terror of Romanian in Bessarabia. The Great Britain provided a summary of the position in Southern Dobrudja: provisional British military occupation is the only possible solution for the moment, in spite of the unrest this causes to the Rumanian Government.From the first of the being in Paris, the Romanian diplomats were sounded actively the question how the Great Britain and France would see the future status of Southern Dobrudja. The Romanian demand for Southern Dobrudja was strongly citing national self-determination and protecting peace in Balkan. Most in the British delegation hoped that this could be agreed.However, the British and French refused absolutely to compel an ally to surrender territory to an enemy. The decision, British politics believed, lay with Romania: such readjustment could only be made after friendly conversations with the Rumanian Government. It is important that the Rumanian politics themselves should be a consenting party to the cession of Southern Dobrudja and that Romanians should not be left with the feeling that they have been robbed by their Allies to placate their enemies.In the Parice Peace Conference Foreign Office took the legalistic view that, because Southern Dobrudja was secured by Romania before the war, its future was beyond the remit of the Peace Conference. The Britain Commission stated in its projects that it was not authorized to recommend a modification of the frontier which would involve the cession to an enemy State of a territory forming de facto et de jure an integral part of an Allied State.The Romanians, angry about losing part of the Banat, never offered to give up Southern Dobrudja. The Americans pushed their view in the Council of Heads of Delegations between July and November, but the British were unyielding. The issue was not even mentioned in the Treaty of Neuilly with Bulgaria in November. Thus, in the words of a member of the Bulgarian Delegation, the settlement proclaimed the principle that no land can be claimed from the victors. It has been argued here that Bucharest gained territory not because of the wartime treaty that promised her so much, and not because of the dubious diplomatic skills of Romanian delegation, but because the Roma nians had a strong case and it was effectively presented by Romanophiles like Britain delegation. There was one other reason, however, that tended to shine its harsh light on every issue, the simple idea that these people are our friends and those are our enemies. This was stated most starkly and frequently by the French, but it was also evident in the British unwillingness to coerce the Romanians over Southern Dobrudja.The consequence of making a settlement which dealt severely with losers was that they became revisionist and eventually allied themselves with those who would undo the hated treaties. Romania remains much bigger than she was in 1918, but the settlement that created Greater Romania did not survive the vengeance of its enemies. ; У представленій статті автором висвітлюються основні вектори зовнішньої політики Румунії щодо Південної Добруджі в 1918–1919 рр. Проаналізовано і визначено спроби Бухаресту збільшити території за рахунок територій сусідніх держав. Відображена діяльність та боротьба румунських дипломатів в напрямку збільшення територіальних надбань Румунії в період роботи Паризької мирної конференції, коли держави-переможниці підтримали приєднання до балканських держав низки болгарських територій. Розглядається підготовка та підписання Нейїського мирного договору. В статті підкреслюється, що румунські політики і дипломати були непоступливими щодо пом'якшення умов мирного договору з Болгарією, зокрема щодо питання статусу Південної Добруджі, який на той час готувався в Парижі. Для цього використовували всі сили та можливості для того, щоб прихилити на бік максимальної підтримки румунських національних інтересів якомога більше реальних учасників мирних домовленостей, зокрема Велику Британію. Антиболгарська пропаганда і агітація, яка розгорнулася в Великій Британії, суттєво посприяли вирішенню всіх цих питань. У статті подана характеристика відношення британських державних діячів до Румунії одразу після закінчення війни, напередодні і в час роботи Паризької мирної конференції. Аналізуючи позицію Великої Британії відносно питання статусу Південної Добруджі в цей період, автор констатує, що вона була двоякою та непередбачливою. Розкрито складне становище Румунії в системі міжнародних відносин після закінчення Першої світової війни, з якою країни-переможниці будували свої стосунки методом поступок, скоригувавши на її користь Нейїський мирний договір. Після війни за безпосереднього сприяння Лондону та Парижу Румунія перетворилась на велику чорноморську та балканську державу.

This article clarifies the role and peculiarities of city diplomacy during the Russian war against Ukraine, and the attention degree of European city networks to peacekeeping, conflict-solving, and interaction in circumstances of aggression. It has been determined that the city diplomacy has not received much attention over the past decade, but the current situation has led to a surge in lobbying policies cities, complemented by more active bilateral contacts and public diplomacy. These trends endorse the thesis of cities` activisation in international relations which was confirmed by qualitative and quantitative content analysis and case study method. ; У статті з'ясовано роль та особливості дипломатії міст в умовах війни Російської Федерації проти України, та ступінь уваги європейських мереж міст до питань забезпечення миру та вирішення конфліктів, взаємодії в умовах агресії. Визначено, що протягом останнього десятиліття питанням дипломатії міста заради миру не було приділено значної уваги. Тим не менш, сучасна ситуація призвела до сплеску політики лобізму міст, яка доповнилась більш активними двосторонніми контактами та публічною дипломатією. Ці тенденції підтримують тезу про активізацію міст у міжнародних відносинах, про що свідчать результати якісного та кількісного контент аналізу й застосування методу кейс-стаді.

Identifying the prospects of reconciliation at various stages of the violent conflict is a matter of urgent concern, since during the conflict the foundations of a post-conflict settlement are laid down, the effectiveness of reconciliation and the possibility of building peace in the future depend on. The purpose of the work is to study the peculiarities of interaction between the parties during the deep interstate conflict and between the parties during the civil conflict within the state. Applying systematic, analytical and comparative methods, the author characterizes political reconciliation as a long-term social and inclusive process, which is designed to transform the unhappy co-existence of the parties to the conflict into a common political participation in public institutions and political processes through the gradual education of respect for both new institutions and former enemies. The four components of reconciliation – peace, justice, truth and forgiveness – must be interconnected in this process. As a result of the study, the author determines the obligatory elements of the interaction between the parties during and after the violent conflict, socio-psychological means of perception and interpretation of the past and future, the development of positive relations and reformatting them cultural and value paradigm, as well as the transformation of socio-economic reality. The conclusions revealed that the ideal model or perfect method of reconciliation after a violent conflict does not exist, therefore, in each particular case, the particularities of reconciliation vary, depending on the ability of the parties to creatively and effectively approach the process of reconciliation, from their ability to assume consistently the loss, cruelty and pain of the past for the sake of prospects for a common future. At the same time, the author comes to the conclusion that the prospects of reconciliation during and after the end of the violent conflict are determined by the practical manifestation of cooperation ...

The purpose of article is the research basic principles and conceptual approaches definitions of "war"and the analysis of the present content of the phenomenon. The methodological basis of scientific research is the dialectical method, based on analysis of scientific understanding of essence and the regularity of the phenomenon of war and its impact on the formation of values and protection of human rights in a democratic society. The information revolution changes the world. It does not affect the quantity and quality of conflicts in the world. In the context of international relations theory how to solve this problem were searched. The theoretical basis for democratic countries is the theory of democratic peace. It was found that in democracies there are four reasons to avoid war. But we are talking about peaceful relationship only between democracies countries. The influence of the theory of just war theory to modern democratic peace on the content of the phenomenon of war was evaluated.