Suchergebnisse

As a result, various climate change effects (3 school) often amplify mechanisms, which lead to insecurity and violence, such as political instability, weak governance structures, poor economic performance, etc. This is especially relevant for those regions where several "conflict constellations" (water and food shortage, regular natural disasters, rapid demographic change, etc.) are overlapping. Environmental change also has a certain impact to international security in terms of possible increase in the number of weak and fragile states, risks for global economic development, intensification of migration, territorial disputes, etc. Generally, environmental security research (apart from the 1 and 2 schools) is based on a broad approach to security, which is not limited to military conflicts and include various elements of sustainable development and economic welfare. On the one hand, it is understandable, as interdisciplinary character of environmental security requires complex approach to security. On the other hand, research based on the concept of human security (4 school) often equates security with economic and social well-being, thus blurring the line between security and development studies. It also undermines the assessment of the impact environmental issues can have to traditional security problems (conflicts, regime change, political instability, etc.). Finally, securization of various social problems (AIDS, migration, poverty, gender inequality, etc.) might be used for political purposes by legitimizing the use of military force or restricting human rights. Various natural disasters (5 school) have a substantial destructive power, which not only causes substantial damage (humanitarian crises, destroyed infrastructure, etc.), but also has complex socioeconomic and political effects, which affect political regimes, critical economic sectors, social stability, etc. .

The main objective of the article is a critical evaluation of the concepts of economic security which are based on the assumptionof the state as a unit of analysis, how these concepts are analysed in scholarship and used to support applied measures of economic security policy. The article also aims at answering the question what is and ought to be the concept of economic security in current Lithuanian politics. The authors do not strive to solve an old and essential problem of social sciences – the methodological choice between individualistic and collectivistic analysis. The goal of the article is just to show the main contradictions in theoretical analysis and political practices between those two approaches when dealing with the problems of economic security. The article admits the wide spread usage of the holistic approach and the fact of policies being based on this approach. However, the use of these measures often causes negative consequences – not only weakening of economic security of individuals, but, in the long run, of states as supra-individual institutions. To expose those measures and inconsistencies is another goal of the article. On the one hand, this makes the analysis more normative, on the other hand, it provides more insights on the topic. The article discusses the concept of economic security, different levels and scope of its analysis. Two different approaches – holistic and individualistic – and their interrelations are presented in more detailed way. The main focus is on how these two different approaches understand and use the concept of threats, as well as the impact of collective measures of economic security and their impact on individuals.

The main objective of the article is a critical evaluation of the concepts of economic security which are based on the assumptionof the state as a unit of analysis, how these concepts are analysed in scholarship and used to support applied measures of economic security policy. The article also aims at answering the question what is and ought to be the concept of economic security in current Lithuanian politics. The authors do not strive to solve an old and essential problem of social sciences – the methodological choice between individualistic and collectivistic analysis. The goal of the article is just to show the main contradictions in theoretical analysis and political practices between those two approaches when dealing with the problems of economic security. The article admits the wide spread usage of the holistic approach and the fact of policies being based on this approach. However, the use of these measures often causes negative consequences – not only weakening of economic security of individuals, but, in the long run, of states as supra-individual institutions. To expose those measures and inconsistencies is another goal of the article. On the one hand, this makes the analysis more normative, on the other hand, it provides more insights on the topic. The article discusses the concept of economic security, different levels and scope of its analysis. Two different approaches – holistic and individualistic – and their interrelations are presented in more detailed way. The main focus is on how these two different approaches understand and use the concept of threats, as well as the impact of collective measures of economic security and their impact on individuals.

The main objective of the article is a critical evaluation of the concepts of economic security which are based on the assumptionof the state as a unit of analysis, how these concepts are analysed in scholarship and used to support applied measures of economic security policy. The article also aims at answering the question what is and ought to be the concept of economic security in current Lithuanian politics. The authors do not strive to solve an old and essential problem of social sciences – the methodological choice between individualistic and collectivistic analysis. The goal of the article is just to show the main contradictions in theoretical analysis and political practices between those two approaches when dealing with the problems of economic security. The article admits the wide spread usage of the holistic approach and the fact of policies being based on this approach. However, the use of these measures often causes negative consequences – not only weakening of economic security of individuals, but, in the long run, of states as supra-individual institutions. To expose those measures and inconsistencies is another goal of the article. On the one hand, this makes the analysis more normative, on the other hand, it provides more insights on the topic. The article discusses the concept of economic security, different levels and scope of its analysis. Two different approaches – holistic and individualistic – and their interrelations are presented in more detailed way. The main focus is on how these two different approaches understand and use the concept of threats, as well as the impact of collective measures of economic security and their impact on individuals.

The main objective of the article is a critical evaluation of the concepts of economic security which are based on the assumptionof the state as a unit of analysis, how these concepts are analysed in scholarship and used to support applied measures of economic security policy. The article also aims at answering the question what is and ought to be the concept of economic security in current Lithuanian politics. The authors do not strive to solve an old and essential problem of social sciences – the methodological choice between individualistic and collectivistic analysis. The goal of the article is just to show the main contradictions in theoretical analysis and political practices between those two approaches when dealing with the problems of economic security. The article admits the wide spread usage of the holistic approach and the fact of policies being based on this approach. However, the use of these measures often causes negative consequences – not only weakening of economic security of individuals, but, in the long run, of states as supra-individual institutions. To expose those measures and inconsistencies is another goal of the article. On the one hand, this makes the analysis more normative, on the other hand, it provides more insights on the topic. The article discusses the concept of economic security, different levels and scope of its analysis. Two different approaches – holistic and individualistic – and their interrelations are presented in more detailed way. The main focus is on how these two different approaches understand and use the concept of threats, as well as the impact of collective measures of economic security and their impact on individuals.

The object of this Master's research paper is public relations providing environmental security within the national and international systems. The purpose of this research is to study the features of ensuring environmental security in the national (Republic of Belarus) and international law systems. The main tasks of the research are to consider the conceptualization of environmental security and its development; to study the features of the environmental security legal regulation; to consider relevant practical issues of environmental security. When using such methods as document analysis and a comparative historical method it was summarized that the definition "environmental security" has a variety of interpretations which makes it complicated to preserve the essence of the concept, which therefore hinders legal regulation of relations associated with this institution. Systematic and dialectical methods as well as analysis of documents reveal the obstacles in the environmental security legal regulation which are the absence of international and national systems of codified acts concerning environmental security in some legislative systems. The aspect of international air pollution legal regulation and its main difficulties have also been researched. Logical and systematic methods were used when studying the integration of environmental security into various sectors of human activity, such as, for instance, healthcare, nuclear industry and economy. This Master's research paper can be useful to legal scholars, law teachers and students.

The object of this Master's research paper is public relations providing environmental security within the national and international systems. The purpose of this research is to study the features of ensuring environmental security in the national (Republic of Belarus) and international law systems. The main tasks of the research are to consider the conceptualization of environmental security and its development; to study the features of the environmental security legal regulation; to consider relevant practical issues of environmental security. When using such methods as document analysis and a comparative historical method it was summarized that the definition "environmental security" has a variety of interpretations which makes it complicated to preserve the essence of the concept, which therefore hinders legal regulation of relations associated with this institution. Systematic and dialectical methods as well as analysis of documents reveal the obstacles in the environmental security legal regulation which are the absence of international and national systems of codified acts concerning environmental security in some legislative systems. The aspect of international air pollution legal regulation and its main difficulties have also been researched. Logical and systematic methods were used when studying the integration of environmental security into various sectors of human activity, such as, for instance, healthcare, nuclear industry and economy. This Master's research paper can be useful to legal scholars, law teachers and students.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Westphalian international system rests on the fundamental premise of state sovereignty, which also implies state monopoly over the means of organised violence. However, since the end of the Cold War, the notion that only the state is capable of fielding a warfighting capability has been challenged by the phenomenon of Private Military Companies (PMCs). PMCs became rather visible actors in the contemporary conflicts and also an important component in the overall military capability of the leading military powers, such as the United States or United Kingdom. The question arises as to what extent the growth of private military industry advances a more general tendency towards privatisation of security function of the state and erodes its monopoly of military force. The study seeks to investigate the consequences of the rise of PMCs to international and national defence systems through the analysis of historical, legal and strategic aspects of the activities of PMCs. It draws a distinction between the historical concept of mercenaries and contemporary understanding of private military industry and discusses the range of defence and security functions that this industry performs. Having demonstrated the strategic rationale for employing PMCs in providing consulting, training, combat support and combat service support services, or even actual warfighting capability, the study looks into the legal problems associated with the activities of the PMCs. It shows how various attempts to regulate this industry nationally and internationally are made and how this affects the PMCs. Moral and democratic accountability arguments are brought forward in this context. The paper also looks at the new opportunities which arouse for the PMCs in the post-September 11 strategic environment. Despite lucrative contracts stemming from the military involvement of the US and its allies in Iraq or Afghanistan, there are also significant disadvantages of employing the PMCs in conflict zones, which the study also addresses. The paper concludes that, despite significant benefits derived from using the PMCs to bolster national and coalition military capabilities, their inherent functional drawbacks, concerns of the states about their sovereign authority and monopoly of military force as well as limited market opportunities outside major military powers, the US and the UK, will put significant constraints on the future role of PMCs in international relations and on their potential to further privatise security functions of the state.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Westphalian international system rests on the fundamental premise of state sovereignty, which also implies state monopoly over the means of organised violence. However, since the end of the Cold War, the notion that only the state is capable of fielding a warfighting capability has been challenged by the phenomenon of Private Military Companies (PMCs). PMCs became rather visible actors in the contemporary conflicts and also an important component in the overall military capability of the leading military powers, such as the United States or United Kingdom. The question arises as to what extent the growth of private military industry advances a more general tendency towards privatisation of security function of the state and erodes its monopoly of military force. The study seeks to investigate the consequences of the rise of PMCs to international and national defence systems through the analysis of historical, legal and strategic aspects of the activities of PMCs. It draws a distinction between the historical concept of mercenaries and contemporary understanding of private military industry and discusses the range of defence and security functions that this industry performs. Having demonstrated the strategic rationale for employing PMCs in providing consulting, training, combat support and combat service support services, or even actual warfighting capability, the study looks into the legal problems associated with the activities of the PMCs. It shows how various attempts to regulate this industry nationally and internationally are made and how this affects the PMCs. Moral and democratic accountability arguments are brought forward in this context. The paper also looks at the new opportunities which arouse for the PMCs in the post-September 11 strategic environment. Despite lucrative contracts stemming from the military involvement of the US and its allies in Iraq or Afghanistan, there are also significant disadvantages of employing the PMCs in conflict zones, which the study also addresses. The paper concludes that, despite significant benefits derived from using the PMCs to bolster national and coalition military capabilities, their inherent functional drawbacks, concerns of the states about their sovereign authority and monopoly of military force as well as limited market opportunities outside major military powers, the US and the UK, will put significant constraints on the future role of PMCs in international relations and on their potential to further privatise security functions of the state.

The Republic of Belarus is the most authoritarian state in Central and Central-Eastern Europe. The international security community identifies the threats of Aleksandr Lukashenko's regime at global and regional levels. The article analyses the problem: what are the concrete threats posed to Lithuania by the Belarusian authoritarianism? The profiles of the problem presented here - the origins of authoritarianism in Belarus, the pattern of the dependence in the relations between Belarus and Russia, the international security community and Belarus, the development of the Lithuania-Belarus relationship - make it possible to identify eventual threats to Lithuania arising within political, social, economic and ecological sectors.

The Republic of Belarus is the most authoritarian state in Central and Central-Eastern Europe. The international security community identifies the threats of Aleksandr Lukashenko's regime at global and regional levels. The article analyses the problem: what are the concrete threats posed to Lithuania by the Belarusian authoritarianism? The profiles of the problem presented here - the origins of authoritarianism in Belarus, the pattern of the dependence in the relations between Belarus and Russia, the international security community and Belarus, the development of the Lithuania-Belarus relationship - make it possible to identify eventual threats to Lithuania arising within political, social, economic and ecological sectors.

The Republic of Belarus is the most authoritarian state in Central and Central-Eastern Europe. The international security community identifies the threats of Aleksandr Lukashenko's regime at global and regional levels. The article analyses the problem: what are the concrete threats posed to Lithuania by the Belarusian authoritarianism? The profiles of the problem presented here - the origins of authoritarianism in Belarus, the pattern of the dependence in the relations between Belarus and Russia, the international security community and Belarus, the development of the Lithuania-Belarus relationship - make it possible to identify eventual threats to Lithuania arising within political, social, economic and ecological sectors.

The Republic of Belarus is the most authoritarian state in Central and Central-Eastern Europe. The international security community identifies the threats of Aleksandr Lukashenko's regime at global and regional levels. The article analyses the problem: what are the concrete threats posed to Lithuania by the Belarusian authoritarianism? The profiles of the problem presented here - the origins of authoritarianism in Belarus, the pattern of the dependence in the relations between Belarus and Russia, the international security community and Belarus, the development of the Lithuania-Belarus relationship - make it possible to identify eventual threats to Lithuania arising within political, social, economic and ecological sectors.

The aim of this study – "Security Agenda of Donald J. Trump: Analysis of Security Rhetoric of the US President" – is to analyze post-inaugurational rhetoric of the U.S. President Donald J. Trump attempting to reveal the aspects of U.S. foreign policy that are securitized by the current U.S. President and how the securitization of those aspects translates to the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The main question is what aspects of U.S. foreign policy are securitized by President Donald J. Trump and how it is reflected in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America? Goals of this study are (1) to examine the existing academic literature that analyses the rhetoric of Donald J. Trump, his foreign policy goals and implemented foreign policy; (2) using Securitization theory by B. Buzan and O.Weaver understand what aspects of U.S. foreign policy are securitized in Donald J. Trump's rhetoric and (3) upon the identification of Trump's securitized U.S. foreign policy aspects examine the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, seeking to reveal which of Trump's securitized aspects are reflected in the strategy and which of those transgress the limits of securitizing move (i.e. a certain aspect of the U.S. foreign policy is not only named as a threat but also emergency measures are offered to solve that threat). In order to achieve these goals a method of qualitative content analysis was used to select the relevant material (speeches, remarks and press conferences of Donald J. Trump on national security and foreign policy) and build coding frame which allowed to identify the main threats that are securitized in Donald J. Trump's rhetoric. The identified threats fall under three main categories: existential threats (terrorism and rogue regimes i.e. Iran, North Korea, Syria); threats to the U.S. interests (bad deals and states that are not fulfilling financial obligations to international organizations) and threats that are securitized in two ways – as existential threats as well as threats to the U.S. interests (immigration). The research in this study has shown that almost all these threats (except for states that are not fulfilling financial obligations to international organizations) are included into the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. This study also reveals that the threats that were included into the National Security Strategy are securitized there in a very similar fashion to the way they are securitized in Presidential rhetoric. Finally, it is determined that emergency measures were offered to solve those threats that were securitized (at least in part) as existential threats – terrorism, rogue regimes, immigration – in the rhetoric of U.S. President Donald J. Trump while those threats that did not have an element of existential threat in their securitization remained in the realm of securitizing move, that is the measures that were offered to solve them do not constitute as emergency measures. The study ends with several suggestions for future research that would be useful and interesting. It is proposed to execute a more in-depth analysis of threats to the U.S. interests seeking to find out whether there are some threats that are securitized as threats to the U.S. interests that surpasses the limits of securitizing move or to examine which of the securitized threats reach the third step of securitization and are accepted by the public.

The aim of this study – "Security Agenda of Donald J. Trump: Analysis of Security Rhetoric of the US President" – is to analyze post-inaugurational rhetoric of the U.S. President Donald J. Trump attempting to reveal the aspects of U.S. foreign policy that are securitized by the current U.S. President and how the securitization of those aspects translates to the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The main question is what aspects of U.S. foreign policy are securitized by President Donald J. Trump and how it is reflected in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America? Goals of this study are (1) to examine the existing academic literature that analyses the rhetoric of Donald J. Trump, his foreign policy goals and implemented foreign policy; (2) using Securitization theory by B. Buzan and O.Weaver understand what aspects of U.S. foreign policy are securitized in Donald J. Trump's rhetoric and (3) upon the identification of Trump's securitized U.S. foreign policy aspects examine the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, seeking to reveal which of Trump's securitized aspects are reflected in the strategy and which of those transgress the limits of securitizing move (i.e. a certain aspect of the U.S. foreign policy is not only named as a threat but also emergency measures are offered to solve that threat). In order to achieve these goals a method of qualitative content analysis was used to select the relevant material (speeches, remarks and press conferences of Donald J. Trump on national security and foreign policy) and build coding frame which allowed to identify the main threats that are securitized in Donald J. Trump's rhetoric. The identified threats fall under three main categories: existential threats (terrorism and rogue regimes i.e. Iran, North Korea, Syria); threats to the U.S. interests (bad deals and states that are not fulfilling financial obligations to international organizations) and threats that are securitized in two ways – as existential threats as well as threats to the U.S. interests (immigration). The research in this study has shown that almost all these threats (except for states that are not fulfilling financial obligations to international organizations) are included into the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. This study also reveals that the threats that were included into the National Security Strategy are securitized there in a very similar fashion to the way they are securitized in Presidential rhetoric. Finally, it is determined that emergency measures were offered to solve those threats that were securitized (at least in part) as existential threats – terrorism, rogue regimes, immigration – in the rhetoric of U.S. President Donald J. Trump while those threats that did not have an element of existential threat in their securitization remained in the realm of securitizing move, that is the measures that were offered to solve them do not constitute as emergency measures. The study ends with several suggestions for future research that would be useful and interesting. It is proposed to execute a more in-depth analysis of threats to the U.S. interests seeking to find out whether there are some threats that are securitized as threats to the U.S. interests that surpasses the limits of securitizing move or to examine which of the securitized threats reach the third step of securitization and are accepted by the public.