Rolą ośrodków eksperckich jest obiektywne przedstawianie sytuacji w różnych aspektach funkcjonowania państwa, w tym na arenie międzynarodowej, i tworzenie scenariuszy rozwoju sytuacji tak dla konkretnych przypadków, jak też generalizowanie. Partie polityczne, a co za tym idzie także decydenci polityczni, coraz częściej sięgają po wiedzę ekspertów. W tym miejscu rodzi się pytanie, kto stanowi zaplecze eksperckie dla partii i jaki jest wpływ, teoretycznie obiektywnych, ekspertów na politykę państwa. Punktem wyjścia dla podjętych rozważań jest opublikowany w styczniu 2015 r. raport Global Go to Think Tank Ranking Index (VII edycja), w którym w kategorii Bezpieczeństwo i Obrona Narodowa zabrakło polskich ośrodków. Czy to oznacza, że takie nie istnieją, czy może raczej ich dorobek nie kwalifikuje ich do tego prestiżowego rankingu. Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie głównych polskich ośrodków eksperckich podejmujących w swych badaniach kwestie bezpieczeństwa oraz próba odpowiedzi na pytanie czy decydenci polityczni mają świadomość istnienia takich ośrodków i czy korzystają z ich usług. ; The role of expertise centres is to provide an objective presentation of the situation in various aspects of the functioning o f the state, including the international arena, and to design different scenarios for specific cases, as well as developing general outlooks. Political parties, and thus also the policy-makers, are increasingly turning to the knowledge of experts. At this point a question arises o f what this expert support for the parties consists of, and what is the impact o f theoretically objective experts on state policy. The starting point for the considerations in this paper is a report published in January 2015 'Global Go To Think Tank Index Ranking' (7th edition), which does not mention any Polish centres in the category of 'National Security and Defence.' Does that mean that such centres do not exist in Poland, or maybe that their achievements do not qualify them for this prestigious ranking? The purpose of this paper is to present the main Polish expert centres which research security issues and to attempt to answer the question of whether policy-makers are aware of the existence of such think tanks and whether they use their services.
W świetle tabel wyników rynku wewnętrznego Komisji Europejskiej Polska należy do krajów członkowskich o najwyższym deficycie zgodności prawa krajowego z unijnym, przede wszystkim ze względu na powtarzające się istotne opóźnienia w zakresie transpozycji dyrektyw. Niniejszy artykuł przedstawia rezultaty badań ilościowych, opartych na bazie aktów prawnych implementujących prawo UE po 2004 r i poszukuje przyczyn opóźnień, w szczególności poddając analizie, czy są one powodowane w większym stopniu przez działania władzy wykonawczej, czy ustawodawczej. Z naszych ustaleń wynika, że o ile parlamentarny proces stanowienia prawa przebiega w odniesieniu do ustaw implementacyjnych z reguły szybciej niż w odniesieniu do ustaw zwykłych, o tyle inicjacja tegoż procesu dokonuje się tak późno, że zazwyczaj nie jest już możliwe dokonanie terminowej transpozycji aktu unijnego. W istocie, większość projektów ustaw implementacyjnych wnoszonych jest do Sejmu w momencie, gdy przewidziany dla implementowanej dyrektywy termin transpozycji już upłynął. Wyniki sugerują, że to raczej rząd, a nie parlament jest odpowiedzialny za rosnące opóźnienia, jak również że skuteczność rządu w implementacji prawa UE ulega systematycznemu pogorszeniu (najmniejszeopóźnienia w transpozycji występowały bezpośrednio po akcesji). Szereg aspektów analizowanego zjawiska – jak np. rola konfliktu politycznego w generowaniu opóźnień – wymaga jednak dalszych badań. ; According to the Commission's internal market scorecards, Poland is among the countries having highest compliance deficits in the European Union, in part due to repeated and substantial delays in implementing EU directives. Using a comprehensive database of implementing acts introduced in the Polish parliament since the country's accession in 2004, we conduct a quantitative analysis of the timing of the governmental and parliamentary legislative processes to test whether those delays are introduced by the executive or the legislative branch. We conclude that while implementing legislation is usually enacted into law faster than ordinary legislation, it is introduced too late to permit successful implementation before applicable deadline. Indeed, most of the bills implementing EU directives are already overdue when introduced. These results suggest that the government – rather than the parliament – appears to be responsible for the delays, and that the governmental performance in this respect deteriorates rapidly (delays were smallest immediately after accession). We also find that numerous aspects of the problem – such as the role of political controversies in delaying implementing bills – require further research.
W świetle tabel wyników rynku wewnętrznego Komisji Europejskiej Polska należy do krajów członkowskich o najwyższym deficycie zgodności prawa krajowego z unijnym, przede wszystkim ze względu na powtarzające się istotne opóźnienia w zakresie transpozycji dyrektyw. Niniejszy artykuł przedstawia rezultaty badań ilościowych, opartych na bazie aktów prawnych implementujących prawo UE po 2004 r i poszukuje przyczyn opóźnień, w szczególności poddając analizie, czy są one powodowane w większym stopniu przez działania władzy wykonawczej, czy ustawodawczej. Z naszych ustaleń wynika, że o ile parlamentarny proces stanowienia prawa przebiega w odniesieniu do ustaw implementacyjnych z reguły szybciej niż w odniesieniu do ustaw zwykłych, o tyle inicjacja tegoż procesu dokonuje się tak późno, że zazwyczaj nie jest już możliwe dokonanie terminowej transpozycji aktu unijnego. W istocie, większość projektów ustaw implementacyjnych wnoszonych jest do Sejmu w momencie, gdy przewidziany dla implementowanej dyrektywy termin transpozycji już upłynął. Wyniki sugerują, że to raczej rząd, a nie parlament jest odpowiedzialny za rosnące opóźnienia, jak również że skuteczność rządu w implementacji prawa UE ulega systematycznemu pogorszeniu (najmniejsze opóźnienia w transpozycji występowały bezpośrednio po akcesji). Szereg aspektów analizowanego zjawiska – jak np. rola konfliktu politycznego w generowaniu opóźnień – wymaga jednak dalszych badań. ; According to the Commission's internal market scorecards, Poland is among the countries having highest compliance deficits in the European Union, in part due to repeated and substantial delays in implementing EU directives. Using a comprehensive database of implementing acts introduced in the Polish parliament since the country's accession in 2004, we conduct a quantitative analysis of the timing of the governmental and parliamentary legislative processes to test whether those delays are introduced by the executive or the legislative branch. We conclude that while implementing legislation is usually enacted into law faster than ordinary legislation, it is introduced too late to permit successful implementation before applicable deadline. Indeed, most of the bills implementing EU directives are already overdue when introduced. These results suggest that the government – rather than the parliament – appears to be responsible for the delays, and that the governmental performance in this respect deteriorates rapidly (delays were smallest immediately after accession). We also find that numerous aspects of the problem – such as the role of political controversies in delaying implementing bills – require further research.
Podpisany w Helsinkach w 1975 roku Akt Końcowy KBWE otworzył nowy rozdział w poszukiwaniu optymalnego systemu bezpieczeństwa w strefie euroatlantyckiej, obejmującej obszar od Vancouver do Władywostoku. Ustanowił kooperatywny system bezpieczeństwa wprowadzający ponad blokowy mechanizm uzgadniania współpracy politycznej, gospodarczej i w dziedzinach humanitarnych, takich jak kultura, oświata, wymiana informacji i kontakty międzyludzkie. Po zimnej wojnie stworzono organy KBWE, wyposażono ją w nowe kompetencje w zakresie dyplomacji prewencyjnej i rozwiązywania konfliktów, ale ewolucja ładu międzynarodowego w Europie sprawiła, że wbrew początkowym zamierzeniem KBWE, przemianowana z początkiem 1995 roku na OBWE, nie stała się centralną instytucją bezpieczeństwa europejskiego. W wyniku rozszerzenia NATO i Unii Europejskiej na Wschód dokonało się odejście od zasady równego bezpieczeństwa dla wszystkich państw uczestniczących. OBWE pozostała drugorzędną instytucją wyspecjalizowaną w tzw. miękkich aspektach bezpieczeństwa. Kryzys ukraiński, wybuchły jesienią 2013 r., jak inne wyzwania i zagrożenia dla bezpieczeństwa pochodzące z innych regionów ukazały potrzebę rewitalizacji OBWE i stworzenia euroatlantyckiej i euroazjatyckiej wspólnoty bezpieczeństwa. ; The CSCE Final Act, signed in Helsinki in 1975, opened a new chapter in the search for the optimal security system in the Euro-Atlantic area, stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok. It established a cooperative security system introducing a supra-bloc negotiation mechanism of political and economic cooperation, as well cooperation in such humanitarian fields as culture, education, exchange of information and interpersonal contacts. After the Cold War, CSCE organs were created and equipped with new competences in the field of preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution, but the evolution of the international order in Europe meant that, contrary to the original intention of the CSCE (renamed at the beginning of 1995 as the OSCE), it has not become the central institution of European security. As a result of the Eastern enlargement of NATO and the European Union, the principle of equal security for all participating states was abandoned. The OSCE remained a secondary institution specialising in what is called the soft aspects of security. The Ukrainian crisis, which broke out in the autumn of 2013, accompanied by other challenges and threats to security originating in other regions showed the need to revitalise the OSCE and create a Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security community.
The first part of the article deals with questions concerning the oncoming enlargement of the European Union by former eastern-bloc countries such as Poland, Hungary, the Czech and Slovakian Republics, Romania, Bulgaria as well as Slovenia and the three Baltic states. It focuses upon the "europe-Treaties" which the European Union has concluded or is going to conclude the countries obove. The question being raised is whether these treaties can be regarded as sufficient preparation for future membership in the European Union. The treaties' specific deficiencies, such as the existence of a safeguard-clause, as well as the exclusion of a unitary competition right and of the agrarian market are mentioned. The enormous differences between the GDP per capita of the most advances Vysehrad-countries and least developed members of the European Union, as well as the non-compatible structure of these countries' national economies are expected to cause extraordinary problems of adjustment. Furthermore the question is raised if the option of further integration without membership would not be a viable alternative for the oncoming 8 to 10 years. The second part of the article deals with the future perspective of an enlarged Union. First the specific three-structure of the Union is described; the Union being characterized as a "compound" of supranational and intergovernmental elements. Questions concerning the oncoming reforms of the institutions are raised. Furthermore, the article deals with the aspect of a guiding principle for future political development of the Union. The Author concludes that the idea of a European State cannot be regarded as a realistic perspective for the oncoming decades. The objective of a general supranationalisation in the field of European cooperation would inevitably lead to a fundamental conflict with the principles of democracy; this being due to the lack of a unitary European nation as the sovereign and the subject of democracy. A mixed structural "compound" not unlike the present three-pillared structure is therefore the only realistic alternative in the foreseeable furure. Moreover the entire process of cooperation demands a stronger diversification in that not all members have to participate in all fields of integration at the same time. ; Digitalizacja i deponowanie archiwalnych zeszytów RPEiS sfinansowane przez MNiSW w ramach realizacji umowy nr 541/P-DUN/2016
In the introduction the author underlines the importance and role of the foreign trade in the socialist economy. The rate of increase in the trade with abroad in CMEA countries ought to undergo a considerable acceleration and surpass the rate of increase of the national income and industrial production. In the course of the last years the socialist countries have done and still do big efforts aiming at extension and deepening of the profits of economical relations with highly developed West European countries. These efforts were expressed in active cooperation in bilateral talks that were to lead to liberalization of export to CMEA and EFTA countries, to the membership of GATT reacted by some of the socialist countries and in finished negotiations under the name of Kennedy Round. In that way we theoretically reached the approach to western markets — that in general depends on the quality of exported goods, their attractive price, short terms of delivery and profitable sale conditions for foreign contractive parties — this fact however does not solve the problem. Liberalization of import to CMEA and EFTA countries secures the approach to the west markets only in formal and legal terms. But there exists still another aspect of the problem. These markets got under control of the state and international concerns. The introduction of a new competitor is very difficult in that situation. A solution could be found in creating such a situation in which our presence on the West markets would be not only a competition but simultaneously a form of cooperation, profitable for our partners. Cooperation in the international scale would be the required form. Further on, the author discussed in the article three forms of cooperation: licence agreements in the branch of building and exporting machines, gadgets and agreements for cooperation with West enterprises in the aim of supplying on the markets of the third world. The author dealt as well with forms of scientific and technical cooperation and discussed profits of cooperation for both sides. Finishing the article the author put forward the thesis that cooperation helps to enliven the economical relations between East and West. Of course only under the condition that it will be only economical form of international cooperation with no political strings. ; Digitalizacja i deponowanie archiwalnych zeszytów RPEiS sfinansowane przez MNiSW w ramach realizacji umowy nr 541/P-DUN/2016
The book contains a thorough analysis of the European Union institutional system as a specific, sui generis international organisation, in the context of its legitimization (its validity and legitimacy). The book is mainly theoretical. Primarily, the author aims at presenting a reliable depiction of the EU institutional system legitimization through the prism of the theoretical output concerning legitimization of the political power, including and accentuating the indicated specificity of the EU as a distinct international organisation. Secondly, he took into consideration the changes introduced into the legal foundations of the EU functioning, pursuant to the Lisbon Treaty – the latest treaty reforming the structures of the Union. In the context of the main theme of the present study, these changes are important not only in terms of the EU institutions themselves, i.e. their competences and reciprocal relations, but also with regard to the fundamental change of the legal character of the EU, and the alterations introduced into the individual Union politics. Thirdly, the author attempts to present the problem of the EU institutional system legitimization in the special circumstances, i.e. in the situation of the most profound economic crisis that the EU members have faced since the beginning of the integration process. The EU is regarded as a specific structure, being neither a state nor a typical international organisation. Such an approach was the starting point for the main premise of the present book – the idea that the thesis about the deficiency of democracy in the EU, formulated in the literature on the subject and in the public debate, is a certain simplification, and the characteristic features of the EU and its institutions, which provoked the formulation of such a thesis, should be considered in a broader context, such as the problem of the EU institutional system legitimization and, alternatively, the deficiency of that legitimization. For the direct democratic legitimization is only one of many sources of legitimacy of the EU institutional system and of the Union as a specific international organisation in general – an extremely important source, perhaps the most important, yet not the only one. Thus, the legitimization of the EU and its institutions should be analysed in a broader perspective, which also includes other sources of legitimization – as it is done in case of every political power which, striving for its legitimization to be as strong as possible, attempts to derive it from the largest number of sources. According to the author of the book, to base the EU institutional system legitimization only on the grounds of the direct democratic legitimization characteristic of a democratic state, would be tantamount to a certain disruption of the right order. It would rather be a symptom of too advanced an integration on the "institutional" level in comparison to the extent of the "material" integration. Until the EU is a structure sui generis, in which case it is a combination of features characteristic of an intergovernmental, international organisation, a supranational organisation or a state, the nature of legitimization of this structure should also be specific. The most important role should be played by the democratic legitimization, which should be completed with other sources, owing to which the functioning of the EU institutional system, and the whole EU, could be recognised as legally valid. Apart from the main thesis also other theses and hypotheses are posed in the book. The first chapter is a certain theoretical introduction and a basis to the deliberations presented in the further parts of this study. In the first subsection, with reference to the literature on the subject, the problem of legitimization (legitimacy) of the political power, i.e. the concept, classifications and sources of legitimization (legitimacy) of the political power, have been synthetically depicted. In another part of chapter one, the author attempts to relate the problem of legitimization to the EU as a specific international organisation and to formulate his own definition of legitimization deficiency with regard to EU institutional system. Bearing in mind that the problem of legitimization deficiency in the EU (EC) has not been discussed on a larger scale until certain stage of development of integration process was reached, in 1.3. subsection, the author raises some questions concerning: the sufficiency of legitimization of the integration process during the first few decades after the Second World War, the grounds for that legitimization and the reasons why, at a certain stage of the EU (EC) development the legitimization of the Union's institutional system started to be considered insufficient, which was manifested in the opinions acknowledging the democracy and legitimization deficiency. The first chapter ends with a passage devoted to the importance of the EU institutional system legitimization, whereas the significance of legitimization to the political power and political institutions in general, consitutes its reference point. The second chapter (subsections 2.3.–2.8.) presents a synthesis of the evolution of the EU (EC) institutional system in the context of its legitimization, from the moment of the EC founding treaties ratification, till the time the changes pursuant to the Lisbon Treaty were introduced. The author focused here mainly on the competences of the particular EC (EU) institutions and their reciprocal relations, which should make it possible to observe two main tendencies in the dynamics of changes taking place in this field, and present its specificity and distinctiveness in comparison to the systems of democratic states. At the beginning of this chapter, a thesis has been formulated (simultaneously, becoming an extension of the attempt to determine why, at a certain stage of the integration process, the issue of democracy/legitimization deficiency started to be discussed – a question that was raised in the first chapter), which states that the legitimization of the EU institutional system will be sufficient, if the law regulations and political practice of their functioning are convergent with the level of advancement of the integration process in various spheres of social life; in other words, the "institutional" integration should correspond with the "material" integration (that is the Union politics). To that end, the author made an attempt to present, in a synthetized form, the development of the "material" integration (subsection 2.1.), which he completed with an analogical endeavour to illustrate the evolution of the EU (EC) institutional system in the context of its legitimization (subsection 2.9). For in accordance with the increasingly common approach, the EU institutions are treated as a system, the concept and principles of which have been presented in 2.2. subsection. In the third chapter, the author presents the EU institutional system in its current form, that is with the changes introduced under the Lisbon Treaty. Here, the selected aspects regarding competences and functioning of the particular EU institutions have been depicted, as well as the relations between them in the context of legitimization. Additionally, three selected problems regarding the EU institutional system have been raised, which are especially important in the context of its legitimization (the relation between the EU institutional system and the institutions of the EU member states, the question of transparency in the functioning of the EU institutions, as well as the Union budgets in the consecutive years). In the last subsection (3.9.) the specific features of the EU institutional system, significant in the context of its legitimization, have been identified. The fourth chapter is devoted to the functioning of the EU institutional system in the perspective of four basic sources of its legitimization, i.e. indirect and technocratic, direct and democratic, utilitarian, and one consisting of "values". The chapter ends with a conclusion outlining the specificity of the EU and its institutional system with regard to the sources of its legitimization, which is especially important in the context of the book's main thesis. The fifth chapter concerns the problem of legitimization of the EU institutions in the context of the economic crisis, which the EU member states struggle with since around the year 2008. The sixth chapter, in turn, regards the so called subjective (empirical, social) dimension of the EU institutions' legitimization, that is, the way this problem is perceived by the citizens of the EU member states. It has been based on the results of opinion polls conducted for the use of Eurobarometer, from among which these questions and answers were selected, which could be applied to illustrate the way the EU citizens perceive the Union institutions in the context of their legitimization. The closing remarks include the most important conclusions drawn from the conducted analyses and the potential reforms and modifications of the EU institutional system, which may allow for the reinforcement of its legitimization, primarily in its democratic aspect. The bibliography contains a list of sources which were cited and referred to in the book.
Red. nauk. Wydz. : Lewandowski, Jerzy ; Redaktor serii : Wodziński, Piotr ; Unia Europejska jest najważniejszym ugrupowaniem polityczno-gospodarczym na kontynencie europejskim. Członkostwo Polski w jej strukturach stwarza dla naszego kraju ogromne szanse rozwoju. Wynikają one z liberalizacji wymiany międzynarodowej oraz korzystania przez Polskę w coraz szerszym zakresie z czterech swobód (przepływu towarów, osób, usług i kapitału) obejmujących swym zasięgiem Europejski Jednolity Rynek Wewnętrzny. Ich znaczenie dla dalszego rozwoju kontynentu europejskiego jest ogromne, szczególnie w aspekcie założeń Strategii Lizbońskiej, której głównym przesłaniem jest stworzenie w Europie najbardziej konkurencyjnej gospodarki na świecie. Stąd też zainteresowanie problematyką europejską w kontekście oddziaływania tego rynku na rozwój przedsiębiorczości i promowania jej wpływu na gospodarkę poszczególnych państw UE staje się przedmiotem rozważań i to zarówno w sferach akademickich, jak i biznesowych. Waga tego problemu pozwala sądzić, że stanowić on będzie inspirację do dyskursu naukowego w tej materii na wiele kolejnych lat. Zasadniczymi podmiotami Europejskiego Rynku, oprócz znaczącego potencjału konsumenckiego, są małe i średnie firmy, których rozwój w ostatnim okresie jest tak dynamiczny, że można mówić o ich dominującym wpływie na rozwój gospodarczy całej Unii Europejskiej. Stanowią one obecnie ponad 98% wszystkich przedsiębiorstw tego obszaru, w tym Polski, tworząc nowe miejsca pracy oraz generując znaczącą część Produktu Krajowego Brutto. Przewaga tego sektora nad firmami dużymi wynika z faktu ich niezwykłej elastyczności na rynku podmiotów gospodarczych. Stanowią one jednocześnie zalążek nowych projektów gospodarczych oraz źródło innowacyjności i przedsiębiorczości. Próbę dyskusji nad zarysowanymi powyżej zagadnieniami podjęto w niniejszej monografii, która jest owocem konferencji naukowej zorganizowanej przez Katedrę Integracji Europejskiej i Marketingu Międzynarodowego w maju 2006 roku na temat: ,,Polski sektor MŚP na Jednolitym Runku Europejskim". W niniejszym opracowaniu naukowym wykorzystano znaczącą część referatów, które były przedmiotem analizy dociekań naukowych w trakcie powyższej konferencji. Całość monografii stanowią dwa tomy, opublikowane pod wspólnym tytułem ,,Szanse rozwoju polskiego sektora MŚP na Jednolitym Rynku Europejskim". W pierwszej części tego opracowania zatytułowanej "Funkcjonowanie MŚP w warunkach Jednolitego Rynku Europejskiego" znalazły się zagadnienia dotyczące rozwoju sektora MŚP w Polsce w kontekście dwuletniego okresu członkostwa w warunkach Jednolitego Rynku Europejskiego. W tomie drugim zatytułowanym "Wspieranie rozwoju MŚP na Jednolitym Rynku Europejskim" przedstawiono wpływ integracji europejskiej na rozwój MŚP poprzez dostęp tego sektora do unijnych środków pomocowych, wpływu sektora publicznego i instytucji otoczenia biznesu oraz nowoczesnych systemów i strategii zarządzania na funkcjonowanie małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw na Jednolitym Rynku Europejskim. Układ dwutomowy tego opracowania stanowi zwartą merytorycznie całość. Pierwszy tom składa się z czterech rozdziałów. W rozdziale pierwszym analizowane są problemy rozwoju przedsiębiorczości w Polsce, jak również przeprowadzono porównanie warunków funkcjonowania MŚP w wybranych krajach Unii Europejskiej. Ponadto scharakteryzowane zostały czynniki warunkujące prowadzenie działalności na rynkach międzynarodowych. W rozdziale drugim określono wpływ zjawisk integracyjnych na podnoszenie konkurencyjności i innowacyjności sektora MŚP w warunkach Jednolitego Rynku Europejskiego. Rozdział trzeci obejmuje logistyczne aspekty zarządzania przedsiębiorstwem MŚP z uwzględnieniem kosztów logistycznych, usług transportowych oraz pozycji konkurencyjnej firmy w łańcuchu dostaw. Ostatni rozdział poświęcono zagadnieniom dotyczącym marketingu i jego roli w procesie kreowania relacji z klientem na Jednolitym Rynku Europejskim. Wyrażam nadzieję, że monografia ta, będąca efektem pracy wielu Autorów, przyczyni się do pogłębienia wiedzy z zakresu zasad funkcjonowania MŚP na Jednolitym Rynku Europejskim oraz stanie się przyczynkiem do dalszej analizy w tym zakresie i to zarówno wśród badaczy, jak i praktyków. Chciałbym również podkreślić, iż na wiele dylematów wyłaniających się w niniejszej pracy nie ma jednoznacznych odpowiedzi. Należy je traktować jako kwestie do dalszych rozważań i pogłębionych studiów wymagających bacznej obserwacji zjawisk i procesów rynkowych oraz sposobów ich rozwiązywania przez funkcjonujące na Jednolitym Rynku Europejskim małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa. Oddając w Państwa ręce niniejszą publikację, mam nadzieję, iż spotka się ona z przychylnym odbiorem oraz konstruktywną krytyką zawartej w niej treści. ; European Union (EU) is the most important political and economic formation in Europe. The membership of Poland in it' s structures creates for our country the significant chances of development. They result with liberalization of international exchange as well as using by Poland in more and more wider range of four liberties functioning in the European Single Internal Market. Their role for the development of European continent is fundamental, particularly in the aspect of foundations the Lizbon Strategy which the main aspect is creating European economy the most competitive in the world. That' s why the European problems in the context of its influence (of this market) on development and promoting of enterprises (in the individual states of EU) become the subject of considerations academical and business spheres. Role of this problem permits to judge that this questions will be inspiring to scientific discussion for many next years. Small and medium enterprises are principle elements of the European Market. In the last period their development is so dynamie, that they have the predominant influence on economic development of the whole European Union. At present they make up over 98% all enterprises of this area creating the new places of work as well as generating significant part of GDP. Superiority of this sector comparing to large firms is their (SME) the unusual elasticity in the market. They make up simultaneously the ovule of new economic projects as well as source of innovation and enterprise. W orked out the present publication is the first volume of monograph. It is based on the materials sent by the scientists from Poland on the national conference organized by the Department of European lntegration and International Marketing of Technical University of Lodz in May of 2006. The main purpose of this conference (and the monograph) was: "Polish SME in the Single European Market". The whole monograph was published under common title: " The chances of development of Polish SME in the Single European Market". The first part of this book entitled "Functioning of the SME in conditions of Single European Market" is concentrated on the questions of the development of SME in Poland in context of our two-year period of membership in new econornic realities. The second part ("Supporting the development of SME in the Single European Market") presents the role of business institution in the development SME sector in Poland and describes the influence of local factors as well as sector public on functioning the SME in the Single European Market. There are given the financial aspects of development of enterprises and possibilities resulting from extemal sources (the structural funds) and the modem systems and strategies of management used in SME are presented, as well as the different technological innovations (electronic environment). Present, first volume consists of four chapters. In first chapter the problems of development of enterprise in Poland are analysed and there is the comparison of conditions of functioning SME in the chosen countries of European Union. In second chapter the influence of integration phenomena is qualified on increasing the competitiveness and innovation of the sector SME in conditions of Single European Market. Third Chapter concems the logistic aspects of management of SME enterprise concentrating on the chain of deliveries, the logistic costs, transport services as well as the position of competitive firm. The last chapter is relating to the marketing process and its role of creating relation between customer and firm in the Single European Market.
The purpose of this paper is to examine human rights issues through the prism of the Polish Presidency in the EU Council. The Polish Presidency of the EU Council started with high expectations on the part of other Member States and EU officials. Poland took over the EU Council Presidency on 1 July 2011. Assuming the EU Presidency for the first time since its accession in 2004, Poland was well prepared for this challenge. At the same time, all actions of the Polish Presidency were very closely watched in other EU capitals as it was the first Presidency held by Warsaw. Even more so, as the previous Presidencies held by Member States that had joined the EU after 2004, had not been considered as terribly successful. Both the Czech Republic, because of the collapse of the government, and Hungary, because of the adoption of the controversial act on the media, were remembered as weak presidencies whose achievements had been overshadowed by negative internal developments. The Poles were aware of the fact that the standards were set high and of the challenges they would have to face. They also knew that even well prepared Presidencies were often hampered by unexpected turns of events. In a very difficult atmosphere marked by discussions on the need to deal more decisively with the economic crisis and the expectations of strong action on behalf of Europe's leaders, the Polish Presidency pushed the European Agenda forward and achieved some significant results. The main task of the Presidency was to lead the EU on a path to faster economic growth and an enhanced political community. In order to follow these targets, this article has been concentrated on some aspects of the three basic presidency's priorities: "European integration as the source of growth", a "Secure Europe" and a "Europe benefiting from openness". Special emphasis has been put on the development of expanding the area of European values and regulations, including further EU enlargement and the development of cooperation with neighboring countries. The initial objective of the Presidency, adopted by the Council of Ministers in May 2011, was to implement effectively the Stockholm programme. Thus, activities were engaged to protect EU citizens and facilitate their access to justice. Poland fully implemented the priority of the Presidency concerning the strengthening of collaboration in combating drug-related crime. The European Pact against synthetic drugs was adopted, along with the conclusions of the Council concerning the cooperation between the EU and Eastern Europe concerning drugs and conclusions concerning combating of new psychoactive substances. Taking into consideration the EU human rights policy, this paper aims at providing a general, and at the same time, comprehensive picture of the Polish Presidency activities in the field of the EU support for the protection of fundamental rights, as well as enhancing mechanisms for the prevention against any kind of discrimination. One of the key elements, in that respect, has been the EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. As a part of its Presidency, Poland took a major step forward in the process of the negotiations for the accession.
Publikacja recenzowana / Peer-reviewed publication ; Unia Europejska, po impasie instytucjonalnym spowodowanym odrzuceniem traktatu konstytucyjnego, po wysiłku, jakim był proces rozszerzenia na nowe – często nieprzygotowane do tego kraje, oraz po latach kryzysu gospodarczo-finansowego powoli wychodzi na prostą. Wydaje się, że "diabelska alternatywa" – rozpad albo głębsza integracja – przestaje być aktualna. Unia Europejska wybrała zdecydowanie tę drugą opcję. Krok po kroku, szczyt po szczycie, Unia posuwa się mozolnie w kierunku głębszej integracji finansowej i fiskalnej, w kierunku zacieśnienia oraz koordynacji współpracy gospodarczej, a także bardziej rygorystycznego egzekwowania kryteriów konwergencji finansowej. De facto strefa euro, a wraz nią cała Unia Europejska, w zakresie spraw gospodarczo-finansowych, najgorsze ma za sobą. Niepokojący z punktu widzenia całej Unii Europejskiej jest Brexit. Wyjście Brytyjczyków z UE jest ogromnym politycznym, militarnym, gospodarczym i wizerunkowym osłabieniem Unii, a może nawet czymś więcej – porażką Unii, a zapewne także i Brytyjczyków. Innym niepokojącym i trwającym problemem Unii jest kryzys migracyjny. Jednak powoli i z opóźnieniem UE zaczyna z niego wyciągać wnioski i urealniać politykę migracyjną. Coraz bardziej niepokojąca staje się kwestia przestrzegania praworządności przez niektóre kraje unijne, jak również jej ocena i zdolność władz UE do uporania się z tym problemem. Unia Europejska nie powróci już zapewne do dyskusji na temat finalite, czyli finalnego celu: czym być – federacją, superpaństwem, czy też konfederacją państw, Europą Ojczyzn? Jednak integracja w głąb będzie postępować z tymi, którzy chcą, a bez tych, którzy nie chcą. Integracja finansowo- -gospodarcza w ramach UGW, wojskowa w ramach WPBiO, także w sprawach imigracyjnej, regionalnej i wymiaru sprawiedliwości. ; European Union, having back constitutional treaty refusal crisis, enlargement problems with new EU members and economic-financial crisis, seems to have overcome the most difficult period. Looks like "the devil alternative" – breaking up or deepen integration – is no more actual. Step by step, through EU leaders summit after summit recovery decisions, European Union is crawling towards deepen financial and fiscal integration. A number of diff erent long-term proposals have been put forward to deal with Eurozone crisis, as European Fiscal Union, a package for European bank recovery and other measures going to strict respect of financial convergence criteria. Brexit, the ongoing process of withdrawal of United Kingdom from EU will have deep impact on UK and EU mutual political-economic relations, being at the same time deep repulse of EU itself. The other unquiet and still lasting problem for EU was a sharp increase in the migration fl ows into European Union territory, making a lot of problems to EU countries. However, after bad results and the lack of proper approach to that problem European Union is preparing new common immigration policy. EU is also facing the impact of accession to office of a Eurosceptic party/governments violating the principles of law and EU values which makes a problem of EU infringement procedure efficiency. Having in mind all EU aspects of crisis, actually, it is difficult to foresee the return to the debate about finalite politique of European Union, which means answering the questions: what does EU have to be? Federation, super-state or only the Europe of Homelands?
In 2015 we celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the first free local elections to self-governing bodies. Those elections activated local citizens initiatives and greatly contributed to the transformation in our social awareness, leading to real change in Poland's political regime. The underlying rationale of free local elections, however, was the package of laws adopted on 8 March 1990 which created real self-government, enabled the elections to commune and municipality councils of 27 May 1990 and introduced a new dynamic to the process of the decentralisation of the state.Changes are always the result of dreams and our ability to realise them. It is possible to make them if there exist organisational structures and institutions which allow such changes to be made. The need for political transformation had long been felt and deliberated on by those involved in spatial development or and for whom the state monopoly status quo was unacceptable. To quote the late and much missed Professor Jerzy Regulski, the implementation of self-governance was departure from the monopoly of central government, which in turn meant an actual change in the political regime. The reform of 1990 broke up five monopolies of an authoritarian state which had existed in Poland since the end of the World War II: the political monopoly of one party, of centralised power, of uniform state ownership, of public finances and the state budget, and of the uniform public administration of the state.However, it must always be remembered that the possibility of realising dreams of a change in the nature of the state was shaped in the first triumphant stage of the Solidarity period in 1989, and later became a stable basis for the future in the resolution of the First National Congress of Solidarity Delegates and in the 'Samorządna Rzeczpospolita' (A Self-governing Republic) document. The success of the real change of 1990 was rooted in the long term determination and persistence of those whose personal experiences were involved in the quest for rationality in land management. Both Professor Jerzy Regulski and Professor Michał Kulesza drew their inspiration to change the political regime from the need to ensure that society worked in a way that would allow the local needs and initiatives be articulated, and inhabitants having the ability to take concrete decisions about the surrounding environment. In this way, the existing possibility of active involvement in local initiatives, incapable of being realised in the former political system, would become a reality and the citizens would be able to make collective decisions about their local area. This would also give a chance to oppose formally the investment logic resulting from the central planning of those times.The analytic work aimed at the transformation of the political regime that Professor Regulski started in the 1970s during his employment at the University of Lodz were subsequently continued at the Economic Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences and led to the formation of a group of individuals for whom self-governance became a core value of the new regime and a way of looking at the modern state. The change that took place in 1990 was the beginning of the building of a de-centralised, modern state, the status of which was subsequently confirmed when Poland adopted the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Self-government is never an institution whose constitution is ever finished. This was shown during the reform carried out by Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek's government, which continued the break-up of the monopoly of power and implemented subsidiarity principles at the regional level enabling them to exercise powers locally, in newly created districts (powiat), as well as in the later legislative changes pertaining to the regulations governing the election of mayors (wójt or burmistrz) or the work of the Komisja Wspólna Rządu i Samorządu (Joint Committee of the Government and Self-Government). Today, after 25 years of our experience with self-government, we are much more aware of the changes needed in the self-governing system. They include the strengthening of actual independence of self-government achieved through the ensured free choice of the manner in which self-government bodies will carry out their tasks, guaranteed revenues and the possibility given to commune and municipality authorities of exercising real influence on their size, improved cooperation between communes and municipalities (gmina) and districts (powiat), and, fore and foremost, by ensuring all citizens a chance of co-decision on matters which directly affect them. Changes in the regime of self-governance are a consequence of its assessment by external, independent experts but are also motivated by the natural dynamics of the changes resulting from the very essence of self-governance and its institutions, communes and municipalities (gmina), districts (powiat) and regions (voivodships).In 2010 associations of self-governing units realised the need for change and amendments to the law on self-governance. Thus, they formulated a number of proposals which were included in a document called 'Requests to the President of the Republic of Poland to commence work on the white book of territorial self-government in the year of the 20th anniversary.' This document initiated work on a draft law which in 2013 became the subject of a legislative initiative put forward by President Bronisław Komorowski. The purpose of the new law on the collaboration of self-governing bodies in local and regional development is to strengthen the role of the citizen as well as the community in the work of self-government in Poland. The effort that Professors Jerzy Regulski and Michał Kulesza in their capacity as Advisors to President Komorowski put into the legislative work remains invaluable. It is believed that the involvement of individual citizens constitutes the strength of self-government and is a guarantee of its role at the service and in the interest of communities, individual inhabitants and businesses. Hence the need for enhanced collaboration and the partnership of different bodies of self-government and the increased involvement of citizens. There is draft law that contains regulations supporting these activities.Under the draft law, a local referendum is seen as an important tool to ensure the participation of citizens in decision-making processes, including those concerning local development plans. Local referenda should constitute a mechanism used to solve local issues of material importance to residents. Their result should be binding regardless of the turnout.Self-governance helps to create and strengthen the natural inclination of individuals to act together in areas where because of their social, business or cultural ties, a local community spirit develops. In today's world of global challenges and competition, we are looking for a space for the individual which provides a feeling of security. Another important value of self-governance is the possibility of creating affiliations with a community as well as individual entrepreneurship, social activity and a regard for the collective memory of the symbols of a place. The ability to participate in community life is inseparable from the functioning of democracy at a local level, with the consultation process, election of public officers, or participation in referenda.Self-governance is a special value which gives each of us a chance to exercise a real influence on local matters. It therefore occupies a very special place where politics has a personal dimension. The variety of self-governance means at the same time a variety of development policies since there are different communities, with different emotions, different experiences or ability to participate in democratic management. This variety is a special asset in the process of the stabilisation of the state as a whole. The diversity of opinions and experiences, appointments to public office of citizens not affiliated to or necessarily recommended by any party creates the solid foundations of a democratic state. This feeling of freedom within self-governing communities must be continued and promoted.The authors of many of the texts published in this issue of Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny devoted to self-governance are, at the same time, authors of the transformation of Polish law and Poland's administration in the last 25 years. Contributions submitted by, among others, Prof. dr hab. Irena Lipowicz, Prof. Jerzy Stępień, Prof. dr hab. Jerzy Buzek, Prof. dr hab. Leon Kieres or Prof. dr hab. Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz are the best proof of the capital importance that self-governance plays in a democratic state. I thank Professor Teresa Rabska and the editorial staff of Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny for their active involvement in questions of self-government from the very beginning. This issue is entirely devoted to a range of legal, economic and sociological aspects of new challenges facing self-government and its regime. Once again I thank them for such active involvement and participation in the jubilee celebrations of Self-Government and this special issue of the journal.We need self-governance not only to feel that we can influence decisions being made about local issues but also to be continually able to renew our confidence in institutions at a local level, and through their collaboration at the national level.
25 lat działalności samorządu terytorialnego w Polsce to okres w historii Polski szczególny – czas dynamicznych zmian politycznych, społecznych i gospodarczych, których samorządy w znaczącym stopniu były kreatorami. I trzeba przyznać, że to właśnie te pierwsze, najtrudniejsze przecież lata nie miały sobie równych, bo tak ogromnego entuzjazmu i zaangażowania społecznego nie udało się osiągnąć już nigdy później. Miałem szczęście uczestniczyć w budowaniu samorządu terytorialnego w Polsce niemal od początku, na wszystkich jego szczeblach.Na obejmujących swe funkcje samorządowcach spoczęła ogromna odpowiedzialność, bo kredyt zaufania, jakim ich obdarzono, związany był z ogromnymi oczekiwaniami społecznymi: 25 lat temu nie chodziło przecież tylko o możliwość przeprowadzenia wyborów samorządowych, ale o fundamentalne zmiany we wszystkich dziedzinach życia. Decentralizacja i demokratyzacja polskiego państwa nie byłyby możliwe bez samorządów. To one włączały w przemiany całe społeczeństwo, uczyły odpowiedzialności i transparentności działania.Budowa samorządu terytorialnego w Polsce była też ogromną operacją logistyczną, na niespotykana dotąd skalę ‒ 25 lat temu ponad 100 tysięcy osób z urzędników państwowych zmieniło się w samorządowych, zdobywając nowe umiejętności i kompetencje, m.in. korzystając z wcześniejszych doświadczeń innych krajów. W wyniku komunalizacji mienia gminy przejęły wtedy kilka milionów nieruchomości i ponad 1500 przedsiębiorstw.Doświadczenia legislacyjne i organizacyjne pierwszego etapu reformy pozwoliły już jednak w 1991 r. rozpocząć prace nad jej drugim etapem – tworzeniem samorządów powiatowych i wojewódzkich, co nastąpiło po ośmiu latach. Samorząd regionalny powstawał już w momencie, gdy Polska przygotowywała się na przyjęcie unijnych środków przedakcesyjnych, w których podziale samorządy regionalne miały odgrywać znaczącą rolę. To na samorządach regionalnych spoczęła odpowiedzialność za tworzenie warunków do rozwoju województwa i wzrostu jego konkurencyjności.A przed nami kolejne ogromne wyzwanie – optymalne wykorzystanie środków unijnych z okresu budżetowego 2014-2020. Nie mam żadnych wątpliwości, że zrobimy to dobrze. ; The 25 years of activity of self-government in Poland occupy a special place in Polish history. It has been a period of dynamic political, social and economic changes and self-government units have been to a large extent creators of that change. Undoubtedly, the first years, which were also the most difficult ones, played a crucial role, and never again has it been possible to achieve the same level of enthusiasm and social involvement in the process. I was lucky to participate in the building of self-governing structures in Poland from the very beginning and at all levels.There was huge responsibility placed on the shoulders of those who were appointed to the function of a local self-government officer. The credit of trust given to them was charged with enormous social expectations. The stake 25 years ago was not only the possibility of free elections; it was the fundamental changes in all aspect of life. Decentralisation and democtratisation of the Polish state would not have been possible without active engagement of self-government, which involved the entire society in the process of change, they taught responsibility and transparency.The building of self-government in Poland was a huge logistic project, on a scale not previously encountered. Over 100 thousand state clerks transformed into independent officials, learning new skills and competences, also drawing on experiences of other countries. In result of the processof passing state property to local governments, communes and municipalities (gmina) received several millions of plots of land and over acquired over 1,500 enterprises. The experiences gained in the legislative and organisational work of the first stage of the self-governance reform, enabled Poland to enter the second stage of the reform in 1989 and to commence work of the building of district (powiat) and regional (voivodship) self-government structures. That process was completed 8 years later. Self-governance at the regional level was being developed when Poland was about to receive pre-accession funds from the European Union, a lucky moment since it was self-government that was to play a vital role in their distribution. Regional self-government is also responsible for facilitating suitable and supporting conditions for regional development and competitiveness of regions.Today, we are facing another challenge which is an optimal use of the EU funds allocated to Poland from the 2014-2020 budget. I have no doubts that we shall do it well.
Artykuł jest komentarzem do nowej książki Andrzeja Nowaka Pierwsza zdrada Zachodu. 1920 – zapomniany appeasement (Kraków 2015). Monografia ta daje nową analizę międzynarodowych aspektów wojny polsko-sowieckiej (1919–1920). Znaczenie tej wojny było i jest bardzo często spychane na margines historii Europy, podczas gdy były to zmagania decydujące dla przyszłości kontynentu europejskiego, a przede wszystkim ładu wersalskiego. Nie sposób sobie nie wyobrazić jego załamania i sowietyzacji przynajmniej wschodniej i środkowej części Europy, gdyby wojna ta zakończyła się klęską armii polskiej. Książka Nowaka nie jest jednak analityczną monografią wojny polsko-sowieckiej, lecz studium nad ustosunkowaniem zwycięskich mocarstw Zachodu wobec tego konfliktu. Wśród tych mocarstw decydujące znaczenie odrywała Wielka Brytania. Autor doszedł do przekonania, iż w polityce tej wolno widzieć prefigurację późniejszego appeasementu z lat trzydziestych XX w. Rząd Zjednoczonego Królestwa czynił w 1920 r. wszystko, aby doprowadzić do ugody polsko-sowieckiej, która w istocie rzeczy byłaby równoznaczna z hegemonią sowiecką nad odbudowaną Polską. Zwycięstwo armii polskiej w bitwie nad Wisłą udaremniło ten plan. Monografia ma w tytule sformułowanie "zdrada", ale książka – jak napisał we wstępie do niej jej Autor – nie jest "traktatem moralnym". Nie jest usiłowaniem sądu nad twórcami polityki mocarstw cudzoziemskich, które nie mają obowiązku służyć interesom Polski. Jest wyłącznie analizą pewnego zjawiska z polityki międzynarodowej. A zjawisko to nie jest zamkniętą kartą historii. Może się ono powtórzyć w naszych czasach. Książkę może spotkać zarzut, że jest polonocentryczna. Tak wszakże nie jest, bowiem Autor ma świadomość uwarunkowań polityki brytyjskiej i zawsze stosuje zasadę audiatur et altera pars. Książka Nowaka udokumentowana została nieznanymi (lub słabo zbadanymi) archiwaliami brytyjskimi. Autor wprowadza pojęcie brytyjskiego appeasementu wobec sowieckiej Rosji w roku 1920. Daje wnikliwą rekonstrukcję podejścia elit Zachodu do odrodzonej Polski, analizuje dzieje dwudziestowiecznej wyobraźni politycznej. Ukazuje także znaczenie polskiego zwycięstwa nad Wisłą w nowym świetle. Za jego sprawą ład wersalski został ocalony i uzupełniony pokojem ryskim (1921), czego często nie dostrzega historiografia narodów Zachodu. The First Treachery of the West. On the book by Andrzej NowakThe paper is a review of the new book by Andrzej Nowak Pierwsza zdrada Zachodu. 1920 – zapomniany appeasement (2015). The monograph provides a new analysis of the international aspects of the Polish-Soviet War (1919–1920). The conflict has often been marginalised in the history of Europe, while being decisive for the future shape of the European continent, and first and foremost for the Versailles governance. A collapse of the Versailles governance and sovietisation of at least Eastern and Central Europe are difficult to imagine but would have become a reality if the Polish-Soviet War had ended with a defeat for the Polish army. Nowak proposes a study of attitude of the winning Western superpowers to that conflict rather than an analytical monograph. Among the superpowers, Great Britain had the decisive voice. The author perceives the British policy as a prefiguration of appeasement applied in the 1930s. In 1920, the government of the United Kingdom used every effort to facilitate a Polish-Soviet settlement, what in fact would have turned into Soviet hegemony over reborn Poland. The victory of the Polish army in the Battle of Warsaw thwarted the plan. In spite of the word "treachery" in the title and as mentioned by the author in the introduction, the monograph is not a "treatise on morality". No attempt is made to judge the architects of foreign policies pursued by the world's superpowers, which have no obligation to serve the interest of Poland. The author merely undertakes an analysis of a phenomenon in international relations, which does not only belong to history, but continues to resonate throughout the world today. The book may be unfairly considered too Polocentric, yet the author shows awareness of the reality in which the British foreign policy was shaped, and always applies the audiatur et altera pars principle. The work is based on unknown or little examined British archive records. The author introduces the concept of appeasement towards the Soviet Russia in 1920. The book provides a thorough analysis of the attitude of Western elites to reborn Poland, and in this sense constitutes a review of the 20th century political imagination. It casts a new light on Poland's victory in the Battle of Warsaw. Owing to this victory, the Versailles governance was saved and strengthened by the Treaty of Riga (1921) – a fact which remains unnoticed in the historiography of Western nations.
Artykuł jest komentarzem do nowej książki Andrzeja Nowaka Pierwsza zdrada Zachodu. 1920 – zapomniany appeasement (Kraków 2015). Monografia ta daje nową analizę międzynarodowych aspektów wojny polsko-sowieckiej (1919–1920). Znaczenie tej wojny było i jest bardzo często spychane na margines historii Europy, podczas gdy były to zmagania decydujące dla przyszłości kontynentu europejskiego, a przede wszystkim ładu wersalskiego. Nie sposób sobie nie wyobrazić jego załamania i sowietyzacji przynajmniej wschodniej i środkowej części Europy, gdyby wojna ta zakończyła się klęską armii polskiej. Książka Nowaka nie jest jednak analityczną monografią wojny polsko-sowieckiej, lecz studium nad ustosunkowaniem zwycięskich mocarstw Zachodu wobec tego konfliktu. Wśród tych mocarstw decydujące znaczenie odrywała Wielka Brytania. Autor doszedł do przekonania, iż w polityce tej wolno widzieć prefigurację późniejszego appeasementu z lat trzydziestych XX w. Rząd Zjednoczonego Królestwa czynił w 1920 r. wszystko, aby doprowadzić do ugody polsko-sowieckiej, która w istocie rzeczy byłaby równoznaczna z hegemonią sowiecką nad odbudowaną Polską. Zwycięstwo armii polskiej w bitwie nad Wisłą udaremniło ten plan. Monografia ma w tytule sformułowanie "zdrada", ale książka – jak napisał we wstępie do niej jej Autor – nie jest "traktatem moralnym". Nie jest usiłowaniem sądu nad twórcami polityki mocarstw cudzoziemskich, które nie mają obowiązku służyć interesom Polski. Jest wyłącznie analizą pewnego zjawiska z polityki międzynarodowej. A zjawisko to nie jest zamkniętą kartą historii. Może się ono powtórzyć w naszych czasach. Książkę może spotkać zarzut, że jest polonocentryczna. Tak wszakże nie jest, bowiem Autor ma świadomość uwarunkowań polityki brytyjskiej i zawsze stosuje zasadę audiatur et altera pars. Książka Nowaka udokumentowana została nieznanymi (lub słabo zbadanymi) archiwaliami brytyjskimi. Autor wprowadza pojęcie brytyjskiego appeasementu wobec sowieckiej Rosji w roku 1920. Daje wnikliwą rekonstrukcję podejścia elit Zachodu do odrodzonej Polski, analizuje dzieje dwudziestowiecznej wyobraźni politycznej. Ukazuje także znaczenie polskiego zwycięstwa nad Wisłą w nowym świetle. Za jego sprawą ład wersalski został ocalony i uzupełniony pokojem ryskim (1921), czego często nie dostrzega historiografia narodów Zachodu. The First Treachery of the West. On the book by Andrzej NowakThe paper is a review of the new book by Andrzej Nowak Pierwsza zdrada Zachodu. 1920 – zapomniany appeasement (2015). The monograph provides a new analysis of the international aspects of the Polish-Soviet War (1919–1920). The conflict has often been marginalised in the history of Europe, while being decisive for the future shape of the European continent, and first and foremost for the Versailles governance. A collapse of the Versailles governance and sovietisation of at least Eastern and Central Europe are difficult to imagine but would have become a reality if the Polish-Soviet War had ended with a defeat for the Polish army. Nowak proposes a study of attitude of the winning Western superpowers to that conflict rather than an analytical monograph. Among the superpowers, Great Britain had the decisive voice. The author perceives the British policy as a prefiguration of appeasement applied in the 1930s. In 1920, the government of the United Kingdom used every effort to facilitate a Polish-Soviet settlement, what in fact would have turned into Soviet hegemony over reborn Poland. The victory of the Polish army in the Battle of Warsaw thwarted the plan. In spite of the word "treachery" in the title and as mentioned by the author in the introduction, the monograph is not a "treatise on morality". No attempt is made to judge the architects of foreign policies pursued by the world's superpowers, which have no obligation to serve the interest of Poland. The author merely undertakes an analysis of a phenomenon in international relations, which does not only belong to history, but continues to resonate throughout the world today. The book may be unfairly considered too Polocentric, yet the author shows awareness of the reality in which the British foreign policy was shaped, and always applies the audiatur et altera pars principle. The work is based on unknown or little examined British archive records. The author introduces the concept of appeasement towards the Soviet Russia in 1920. The book provides a thorough analysis of the attitude of Western elites to reborn Poland, and in this sense constitutes a review of the 20th century political imagination. It casts a new light on Poland's victory in the Battle of Warsaw. Owing to this victory, the Versailles governance was saved and strengthened by the Treaty of Riga (1921) – a fact which remains unnoticed in the historiography of Western nations.
On balance the performance of the first Polish EU Council Presidency in the matter of the enlargement process of the European Union seems to be positive. The Polish Presidency effectively implemented the five main functions of a Presidency: the agenda-setting, brokerage, management, coordination and internal representation in the contacts with the governments of member states and the institutions of the European Union. The most important aspect was that it managed to implement almost all the operational objectives typically required for the enlargement process. Despite the objections and doubts expressed by the governments of many member states, conditioned mainly by the debt crisis of the Eurozone and the need for internal and external consolidation of the European Union, the Polish Presidency managed to maintain the concept of enlargement as an important element on the EU's agenda. On 5 December 2011, on the initiative of the Polish Presidency, the General Affairs Council agreed a new approach to the accession negotiations involving the earliest possible opening of the most contentious negotiation chapters, including fundamental rights and policies pertaining to the area of freedom, security and justice. Employing the agenda-setting function, the Polish Presidency was the co-author of the Group Presidency programme and the author of the country's Presidency programme and both documents provided the foundation for Poland's activity in the process of enlargement of the European Union. The most important achievements of the Polish Presidency resulting from the implementation of the brokerage, coordination and management functions concerned Croatia, Iceland, Serbia and Montenegro. The Polish government finalised the work on the text of the accession treaty with Croatia and brought about the signing of the treaty on 9 December 2011. It also accepted the agreements referring to the status of Croatia in the transition period; that is, until the treaty becomes fully effective. The Polish Presidency also gave a significant impetus to the accession negotiations with Iceland, by opening seven negotiation chapters and concluding six. The achievement of the Polish Presidency towards the endeavours of the countries of the Western Balkans to gain accession to the European Union was the opening of procedures leading to Serbia being granted candidate country status, although the formal decision was taken on 28 February 2012 by the General Affairs Council under the chairmanship of the Danish Presidency. In addition, the politically crucial enlargement conclusions of the General Affairs Council for Montenegro, on the basis of which the European Council announced that a decision would be taken on the commencement of accession negotiations in June 2012, were achieved during the Polish Presidency. Taking into account that some member states were critical of the steps taken to normalise relationships between Serbia and Kosovo, the balanced conclusions of the Council, in the part referring to Serbia, should also be taken as a success for the Polish Presidency. Although the Polish Presidency suffered a few failures it is worth emphasising that they resulted mainly from the attitude of other member states such as Greece or the negligence of the third party countries in the enlargement process – in the cases of Turkey, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo. The Polish government, like the others since 2009, failed to overcome the opposition of Greece to the commencement of accession negotiations with Macedonia, although other member states fully supported the concept. The Polish Presidency, like the Belgian and Hungarian Presidencies, was unable to open any new chapter in the accession negotiations with Turkey. However, the reasons were the lack of progress in the implementation of the process of reforms by the Turkish government, the still unsolved controversial issues with Cyprus, the growing assertiveness of Turkey in the foreign policy arena and the unfavourable attitude towards the accession of Turkey to the Union by some member states. Nonetheless, the Polish Presidency achieved an agreement with other member states for a positive agenda in the relations between the Union and Turkey, which led to a relatively balanced text relating to Turkey in the conclusions of the General Affairs Council on 5 December 2011. The reason for the lack of achievement in the enlargement process with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo was the limited progress in fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria made by these countries. Therefore, these countries still remain only as states which aspire to be members of the European Union. Balancing all the stated successes and failures it should be emphasised that the Polish Presidency gave new impetus to the enlargement process of the European Union. This was visible in the proposal by the Polish government and its acceptance by the General Affairs Council of a new methodology for conducting future accession negotiations, the significant advancement of the accession negotiations with Iceland, the opening of the procedure for granting candidate country status to Serbia and establishing the political requirements for the commencement of accession negotiations with Montenegro. In addition, the Polish government signed the accession treaty with Croatia and accepted the agreements regarding the country's status in its relationships with the European Union in the transition period until the accession treaty is fully implemented.
