For more than sixty years American grand strategy is based on the conviction that external environment is of fundamental importance for US core interests in security, prosperity and domestic liberty. There was the foundation for containment policy and after the cold war succeeding presidents on this conviction have based their deep engagement in world affairs. In XXI century as American supremacy has been steadily diminished, Washington is still ready to lead the world, but wants to share with partners the burdens of keeping it in order. The idea of partnership isn't put into words explicitly. It emphasizes burden-sharing between US and the partners, sometimes is about the transfer of crisis-management capacity and it has sought to advance American leadership as well. European states – NATO and EU members – are seen as indispensable Washington's allies, densely connected with the US through transatlantic partnership. Due to community of values and the convergence of strategic interests, and because of its own peculiarity EU is not and won't be America's strategic rival. After few years of diminished interest in old continent, when president B. Obama focused his attention on domestic policy and on problems in other world's regions, since March 2014 he has decided to take the initiative in European affairs. Russia's aggression towards Ukraine has serious consequences for Washington's European and global strategy. In Europe there is increased request for US leadership. From American point of view it might come with expectations, that the allies will be eager to strengthen their cooperation with Washington in other regions, especially in Asia.
The scholarly attractiveness of the subject has been prejudged by the fact, that the United States of America was the first country in history which had constitutionalized the principle of division of governmental power. However, this principle has hitherto found rather a humble reflex in the literature. In Chapter I the author discusses the significance of the aforementioned principle in contemporary constitutionalism, dealing at the same time with some terminological questions. Chapter II concerns the general origin of the theory of separation of power from ancient times till the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Chapter III has been dedicated to the institutional background of the doctrine of division of governmental power of the "Founding Fathers", namely, to the governmental experiences stemming out of binding of the Articles of Confederacy, the colonial constitutional charters and the state constitutions. Chapter IV regards the ideological and social background of that doctrine. Chapter V affects the motivation of constitutionalization of the principle of division of power in the views of the Framers. In Chapter VI the author presents the very doctrine of division of power of the "Founding Fathers", especially its foundations concerning the coordination of governmental powers (i.e. Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court), their functions and competences, structure, procedure of creation as well as term. Chapter VII refers to the problem of guarantees of the division principle, both formal (checks and balance system) and material ones (James Madison's conception of pluralism and social distribution of power). Chapter VIII comprises some conclusions.
A relation between USA and Egypt are especially important in the scope of the security and stabilization process in Middle East and reflects on the whole world. According to the deep changes in many countries of Middle East and North Africa, started by the Arab Spring at the beginning of 2011, US policy had to transform, and have to be adjusted to the new circumstances and Egypt is particular important for the USA interests in the area. To achieve this, a deep analysis of the situation in Egypt is needed and also clear picture of the real stance of the main powers in this country. The situation when USA bases only on the support of the despotic rulers or just the leading parties is not acceptable for the future relations between USA and Egypt. If Americans wants to keep it's influence on the Middle East, the new policy of dialogue, partner relations and respecting peoples will is have to be introduced.
Polish national parishes of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States of North America were the most important institutions in exile in this country. The greatest development occurred during farmers' emigration from Poland's land (1870-1914). The first Polish parish was created in 1854 in Panna Maria in Texas. In 1870 there were 10 such parishes, and in 1910 over 500. Each parish had from over a dozen families to several tens of thousands of the faithful. In 1880 there were around 2 thousand faithful to one priest, and in 1910 – around 4 thousand. From 1870 onwards, there were two clashing trends attempting to unify American Poles: one (Polish Roman Catholic Union of America) strove to integrate social and political activity around church institutions (parishes, Catholic associations), the other one – Polish National Alliance, did it concentrating on national organizations. Both fractions trying to maintain the cultural integrity of Poles – the Republic of Poland's independence – were very popular with Polish clergy. In December 1912, the leaders of the largest Polish organizations established the National Defense Committee. On 8 June 1913, the Polish National Council was created, 2 October 1914 – the National Council and the National Defense Committee appointed the Central Polish Committee. After 1900 two political trends developed in Poland, and each of them sought support among American Poles. Both Roman Dmowski and Józef Piłsudski attempted to receive financial aid. In the mid-1913, Dmowski established the Polish National Committee, which was later transformed into the Polish National Department. Similarly, the Polish community in the USA, due to different attitudes to Poland's independence was divided into two fractions. The National Department shared Dmowski's views while the National Defense Committee shared Piłsudski's views. Ignacy Paderewski, who came to the United States in May 1915 tried to reconcile both parties. From 1 July 1917 onwards, he was formally authorized to represent the organization of the Polish community while talking to the authorities of the United States. American Poles, irrespective of their views, tried to achieve their goals by being active in various fields and striving to influence President Thomas W. Wilson. All efforts made by Ignacy Paderewski and the Polish National Committee based in Paris proved to be effective. Polish parishes became the basis for the recruitment to the Polish Army. In November 1917, 35 395 people declared their readiness to join the army. President Wilson gave in to the pressure of the Polish community, and on 8 January 1918, he issued the fourteen-point resolution, in which the 13th point of the peace program devoted to Poland stated that: 'An independent Polish state should be erected(…)which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea.' ; Polskie parafie narodowościowe Kościoła rzymskokatolickiego w Stanach Zjednoczonych Północnej Ameryki były najważniejszą instytucją wychodźstwa polskiego w tym kraju. Największy ich rozwój nastąpił w czasie emigracji chłopskiej z ziem polskich (1870-1914). Pierwsza polska parafia powstała w r. 1854 w Pannie Marii w Teksasie. W r. 1870 takich parafii było ok. 10, w r. 1910 ponad 500. Wielkość tworzonych parafii wahała się od kilkunastu rodzin do kilkudziesięciu tys. wiernych. Na jednego duszpasterza w 1880 r. przypadało ok. 2 tys. wiernych, w 1910 r. - ok. 4 tys. Od 1870 r. wśród Polonii amerykańskiej ścierały się dwa kierunki starające się jednoczyć Polaków amerykańskich: jeden (Zjednoczenie Polskie Rzymsko Katolickie) dążyło do zintegrowania działań społeczno-politycznych wokół ośrodków kościelnych (parafii, towarzystw katolickich), drugi - Związek Narodowy Polski robił to w oparciu o organizacje narodowe. Obydwa odłamy dążąc do zachowania integralności kulturowej rodaków, ze względu na cel nadrzędy - niepodległość Rzeczpospolitej - cieszyły się poparciem polskiego duchowieństwa. W grudniu 1912 r. przywódcy największych polskich organizacji utworzyli Komitet Obrony Narodowej. 8 czerwca 1913 r. powołano Polską Radę Narodową. 2 października 1914 r. - Rada Narodowa i Komitet Obrony Narodowej powołały Centralny Komitet Polski. Po r. 1900 rozwinęły się w Polsce dwa zasadnicze nurty polityczne, z których każdy szukał poparcia wśród Polaków amerykańskich. Zarówno Roman Dmowski, jak i Józef Piłsudski zabiegali o ich wsparcie finansowe. W połowie r. 1913 Dmowski założył Komitet Narodowy Polski, który później przemianowany został na Wydział Narodowy Polski. Podobnie Polonia amerykańska ze względu na różnicę poglądów co do sprawy niepodległości Polski podzielona była na dwa zasadnicze odłamy. Wydział Narodowy podzielał pogląd Dmowskiego. Komitet Obrony Narodowej podzielał pogląd Piłsudskiego. Zwaśnionych od maja 1915 r. próbował godzić przybyły do Stanów Zjednoczonych Ignacy Paderewski. Od 1 lipca 1917 r. legitymował się on formalnym pełnomocnictwem liczących się w strukturze Polonii organizacji do reprezentowania ich wobec władz Stanów Zjednoczonych. Polacy amerykańscy bez względu na przekonania, starali się osiągnąć swoje cele poprzez rozwijanie aktywności na wielu płaszczyznach, usiłując wpłynąć na prezydenta Thomasa W. Wilsona. Skuteczne okazały się wysiłki podjęte przez Ignacego Jana Paderewskiego i Komitet Narodowy Polski z siedzibą w Paryżu. Polskie parafie stały się podstawą akcji rekrutacyjnej do Armii Polskiej. W listopadzie 1917 r. gotowość do wstąpienia do Armii Polskiej we Francji zgłosiło 35 395 osób. Prezydent Wilson ulegając presji Polonii, 8 stycznia 1918 r. sformułował czternastopunktową rezolucję, w której trzynasty punkt programu pokojowego poświęcił Polsce, stwierdzając, iż: "ma być utworzone niepodległe państwo polskie z wolnym dostępem do morza".
Artykuł przedstawia politykę USA wobec Turcji od zakończenia I wojny światowej do schyłku 1920 r. Politykę tę w zasadniczy sposób kształtowało antytureckie oraz proormiańskie nastawienie prezydenta Thomasa Woodrow Wilsona. Pomimo że USA nie były w stanie wojny z Turcją, delegacja amerykańska aktywnie uczestniczyła w dyskusjach konferencji pokojowej w Paryżu na temat przyszłości tego państwa. Amerykański prezydent miał także duży wpływ na decyzję o podziałach mandatowych Bliskiego Wschodu. The article presents the policy towards Turkey pursued by the United States in the period from the end of the Great War to the late 1920s. The policy was shaped to a large extent by anti-Turkish and pro-Armenian attitude of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson. Despite the fact that the United States were not at war with Turkey, the American delegation actively participated in talks of the Peace Conference in Paris about the future of Turkey. The American president had also great impact on the decision about mandate divisions of the Near East.
Artykuł przedstawia politykę USA wobec Turcji od zakończenia I wojny światowej do schyłku 1920 r. Politykę tę w zasadniczy sposób kształtowało antytureckie oraz proormiańskie nastawienie prezydenta Thomasa Woodrow Wilsona. Pomimo że USA nie były w stanie wojny z Turcją, delegacja amerykańska aktywnie uczestniczyła w dyskusjach konferencji pokojowej w Paryżu na temat przyszłości tego państwa. Amerykański prezydent miał także duży wpływ na decyzję o podziałach mandatowych Bliskiego Wschodu. The article presents the policy towards Turkey pursued by the United States in the period from the end of the Great War to the late 1920s. The policy was shaped to a large extent by anti-Turkish and pro-Armenian attitude of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson. Despite the fact that the United States were not at war with Turkey, the American delegation actively participated in talks of the Peace Conference in Paris about the future of Turkey. The American president had also great impact on the decision about mandate divisions of the Near East.
For the past decade the focus of the U.S. security policy has been changing. After a period of global American hegemony, which took place at the end of the Cold War, the international position of the country is declining; countries such as China, India, Brazil, Russia are moving alongside the United States and Europe as centres of power. Focusing U.S. interest on Asia and the Pacifi c ("Asia Pacifi c pivot") causes a reduction of its interests in Europe. Given these trends U.S and EU policymakers face the challenge to redefine their security and defence cooperation. This applies both to the acquisition by European allies more responsibility for their own safety as well as to develop new mechanisms for cooperation on the line US-NATO-EU relations. The article aims to answer about the current situation and perspectives of EU's place and role in U.S. security policy in the context of redistribution of power in the world politics. The analysis is carried out in the neorealistic paradigm.
Bliski Wschód zajmuje kluczowe miejsce w polityce zagranicznej USA. Jest to region realizacji amerykańskich interesów, rywalizacji z innymi aktorami areny międzynarodowej, podejmowania działań na rzecz uczynienia z państw arabskich client states, umacniania zależności z państwami regionu a także wykorzystywania przez USA siły militarnej jako środka realizacji polityki zagranicznej (wojny w Zatoce Perskiej, zaangażowanie USA w Libii i Syrii, wojna z ISIS). Istotą bliskowschodniej polityki USA stała się pewnego rodzaju sinusoidalna zmienność w sięganiu po instrumenty charakterystyczne dla polityki soft i hard wilsonianism. O ile bowiem politykę prezydenta Baracka Obamy wobec Bliskiego Wschodu cechowało odejście od The New Crusade i War on Terrorism charakterystycznych dla George'a W. Busha, o tyle Donald Trump prezentuje strategię (brak strategii?) bezkompromisowości zgodnie z przyjętym w kampanii wyborczej hasłem Make America Great Again i podejmuje działania na rzecz stworzenia American World Order również na Bliskim Wschodzie. Słowa kluczowe: Bliski Wschód, USA, Donald Trump, Barack Obama ; The Middle East, as one of the most strategic and, at the same time, conflcting areas both in the twentieth and the fi rst two decades of the 21st century, occupies a key place in the foreign policy of the United States. It is the region where, in various forms, American political, economic and military interests are being realized through competition the other actors in the international arena, taking actions to make the states clients of the United States, strengthening dependencies and links with the countries of the region (including Israel), taking initiatives to look for new allies or using military force as a means of implementing foreign policy in the Middle East, as exemplifi ed by the Gulf War, US involvement in Libya and Syria or the war with the so-called Islamic State. The essence of the Middle Eastern US policy has become a kind of sinusoidal variation in reaching for the instruments characteristic for the policy of hard and soft Wilsonianism. While the policy of Barack Obama towards the Middle East was marked by using soft power and an abandonment of the New Crusade and war on terrorism, characteristic for the administration of George W. Bush, Donald Trump presents an uncompromising strategy in accordance with the slogan Make America Great Again and the strategy of building American World Order in the Middle East. Key words: the Middle East, the United States of America, Barack Obama, Donald Trump
The primary objective of this article is to pay attention to the dominant nature of the paradigm of heteronormativity which makes it impossible for the internally diversified population of the United States to develop and manifest sexual identities that are not consistent with the images of a man and a woman established already in the colonial period. In spite of the development of societies based on the principles of democracy and broadly understood tolerance, there are still some individuals who are socially and culturally marginalized in the sanctioned pubic order, and the very idea of heteronormativity invariably determines desirable patterns of conduct. The necessity to revise the time-honored standards regulating the sexual and romantic lives of both individuals and groups is highlighted by the analysis of stereotypes concerning the members of the Hispanic minority in the United States of America. It is shown that the practices employed in everyday life which are repeated in literature, movies and mass media contribute to perpetuating the existent divisions leading to further conflicts. The problem of relations occurring between Eurocentric and religious values, on the one hand, and the plurality of forms of masculinity and femininity, on the other, is juxtaposed here with one more issue, i.e. racial relations, which have been repeatedly used to justify acts of discrimination and maintain the policy of hegemony. What is more, the article indicates that the change of the existing policy can be effected by the change of factors accompanying the process of upbringing which could function as the corrective measures leading to the acknowledgement of potential "otherness" of fellow citizens.
The primary objective of this article is to pay attention to the dominant nature of the paradigm of heteronormativity which makes it impossible for the internally diversified population of the United States to develop and manifest sexual identities that are not consistent with the images of a man and a woman established already in the colonial period. In spite of the development of societies based on the principles of democracy and broadly understood tolerance, there are still some individuals who are socially and culturally marginalized in the sanctioned pubic order, and the very idea of heteronormativity invariably determines desirable patterns of conduct. The necessity to revise the time-honored standards regulating the sexual and romantic lives of both individuals and groups is highlighted by the analysis of stereotypes concerning the members of the Hispanic minority in the United States of America. It is shown that the practices employed in everyday life which are repeated in literature, movies and mass media contribute to perpetuating the existent divisions leading to further conflicts. The problem of relations occurring between Eurocentric and religious values, on the one hand, and the plurality of forms of masculinity and femininity, on the other, is juxtaposed here with one more issue, i.e. racial relations, which have been repeatedly used to justify acts of discrimination and maintain the policy of hegemony. What is more, the article indicates that the change of the existing policy can be effected by the change of factors accompanying the process of upbringing which could function as the corrective measures leading to the acknowledgement of potential "otherness" of fellow citizens.
The article is about transatlantic cooperation between Poland and US for energy security. Energy sector is dependent on government strategy. Policy should crate protection for society and business. Global energy consumption is still growing. Developing industry especially needs natural resources to produce energy. The climate is changing and global warming is said to cause greenhouse eff ect resulting in droughts or floods. The major energy sources consumed in the United States are petroleum (oil), natural gas, coal, nuclear, and renewable energy. In the last years shale gas has been taken the most important place in the economy. US policy on energy security focuses on research and development. The main objective is to provide access to energy resources in the lowest price. Polish energy policy strategy on the diversifi cation of routes and sources of energy. The political environment supported a few projects: shale gas sectors, nuclear energy and coal sector. At present, the amount of gas deposits in Poland is being estimated. This paper consists of three sections, an introduction and conclusions. The fi rst chapter presents the energy sectors in Poland and US, and the prospects of its development. The second analyzes the nature of the areas of transatlantic cooperation Polish-American. While the third part shows the eff ects of transatlantic cooperation between the EU and the U.S., for Polish, as a member of the Community. This paper is complemented by tables, graphs, and bibliography.
The Middle East, as one of the most strategic and, at the same time, confl icting areas both in the twentieth and the fi rst two decades of the 21st century, occupies a key place in the foreign policy of the United States. It is the region where, in various forms, American political, economic and military interests are being realized through competition the other actors in the international arena, taking actions to make the states clients of the United States, strengthening dependencies and links with the countries of the region (including Israel), taking initiatives to look for new allies or using military force as a means of implementing foreign policy in the Middle East, as exemplifi ed by the Gulf War, US involvement in Libya and Syria or the war with the so-called Islamic State. The essence of the Middle Eastern US policy has become a kind of sinusoidal variation in reaching for the instruments characteristic for the policy of hard and soft Wilsonianism. While the policy of Barack Obama towards the Middle East was marked by using soft power and an abandonment of the New Crusade and war on terrorism, characteristic for the administration of George W. Bush, Donald Trump presents an uncompromising strategy in accordance with the slogan Make America Great Again and the strategy of building American World Order in the Middle East.
Region Bliskiego Wschodu jest znany z antyzachodnich nastrojów. Mimo to wiele rządów arabskich prowadzi prozachodnią politykę. Jednym z państw współpracujących z Europą i USA jest Jordania. Taka opcja polityczna monarchii haszymidzkiej ma jednak głębokie przyczyny historyczne i wynika z nietypowych uwarunkowań tego państwa. Należy przypomnieć, że samo powstanie Jordanii wynikało ze współpracy władz brytyjskich z Haszymidami. Państwo to utworzono w 1921 r. początkowo pod nazwą Transjordania, w wyniku decyzji politycznych Londynu. Od tego czasu do 1956 r. trwała współpraca Ammanu z Wielką Brytanią. Fakt, że w 1946 r. Jordania uzyskała niepodległość niewiele zmienił – państwo Haszymidów pozostawało zależne od Brytyjczyków. Symbolem tej nierównorzędnej współpracy była osoba Johna Bagota Glubba. Ten brytyjski ofi cer stał się głównodowodzącym armii jordańskiej. Arabowie uważali go za przedstawiciela imperium, on sam jednak był przekonany, że służy interesom arabskim. Mimo, że rozwój Jordanii zależał od dotacji Londynu, władze w Ammanie zachowały swobodę decyzji. W 1956 r. król Husajn I usunął z kraju J.B. Glubba i zerwał sojusz z Wielką Brytanią. Dynastia haszymidzka odrzuciła związek z Londynem, by pozyskać nacjonalistów arabskich. Jednocześnie król Husajn I nawiązał ścisły, choć nieformalny, sojusz z USA. To Waszyngton zaczął dotować skarb Jordanii i jego siły zbrojne. Współpraca ta trwa do dziś. Jednocześnie Amman potrafi ł w pewnych momentach przeciwstawić się polityce USA. Tak było w 1967 r. i w latach 1990–1991 w czasie pierwszego konfl iktu USA z Irakiem, podczas którego Amman popierał Bagdad. Generalnie jednak reżim jordański utrzymywał opcję prozachodnią. Rząd haszymidzki dąży przede wszystkim do utrzymania stabilności ustroju monarchicznego. Współpraca z USA, a wcześniej z Brytyjczykami, nie wynika z założeń ideowych, lecz służy temu podstawowemu celowi. Jednocześnie współpraca z Anglosasami ma w przypadku Haszymidów długą tradycję i dobrze służy ich założeniom politycznym. ; The Middle East is known for its anti-western attitudes. Despite that, many Arab governments pursue pro-western policy. One of the countries that cooperates with Europe and the USA is Jordan. The specifi c political stance of the Hashemite monarchy has, however, strong historical reasons and results from untypical conditions of this state. One should mention that the very formation of Jordan resulted from the cooperation of British authorities with the Hashemite. The state was formed in 1921, at fi rst under the name of Transjordan, in result of political decisions of London. In 1921–1956 Amman cooperated with Great Britain. The fact that in 1946 Jordan gained independence did not change a lot. The country of the Hashemite remained dependant on the British. The symbol of this unequal cooperation was the person of John Bagot Glubb. This British officer became the commander of the Jordan army. The Arabs considered him as a representative of the empire, but he himself was convinced that he was serving the Arab interests. Despite the fact that the development of Jordan depended on donations of London, the authorities in Amman maintained freedom of decision making. In 1956 king Hussein removed J.B. Glubb from the country and broke the alliance with the Great Britain. The Hashemite dynasty rejected the relations with London so as to win over the Arab nationalists. At the same time king Hussein I established a strict but informal alliance with the USA. It was Washington that started to donate the state treasury and its armed forces. This cooperation has continued until today. Simultaneously, Amman was able at moments to oppose the policy of the USA. It happened in 1967 and in 1990–1991 during the fi rst confl ict of the USA with Iraq, when Amman supported Baghdad. Generally speaking, however, the Jordan regime maintained its prowestern option. The Hashemite government strives fi rst and foremost to maintain stability of the monarchy system. Cooperation with the USA, and previously with the British did not result, however, from ideological reasons, but serving the basic aim. At the same time, in case of the Hashemite, cooperation with Anglo-Saxons has long tradition and serves well their political assumptions.
Poland as well as many European countries is facing demographic crisis. Aging society, changing model of the family and reduced birth rate are serious issues that demand a reaction. Above matters are beyond doubt. However, there is a doubt answering the question what do we do in order to prevent those trends and if we are effective. This paper analyses demographic threats Poland is facing, factors which have impact on birthrate, as well as pro-family and pro-social policy of state. In pursuit of alternatives, solutions from USA shall be presented. Differences in redistribution level, and relation to it will be a subject of analysis, as they should become the source of refl ection and inspiration in order to fi nd solutions for problems in Poland and Europe.
The political relationship between the United States of America and the USSR determined the international relations during the period of the "cold war". The election of Mikhail Gorbachev to general secretary of the Communist Party was a turning point in international relations. Boris Yeltsin signed the agreement to disband the Soviet Union, which according to legal regulations was then transformed into Russia. B. Clinton, who accepted all of the decisions of Russian president, and also supported financially a number of new initiatives from B. Yeltsin, continued the good relationship between Russia and the USA instigated by G. Bush. The election of W. Putin to the Russian presidency was followed by a new strategy from Russia towards western countries, particularly towards the USA. Instead of following the strategy of partnership Putin tried to limit the influence of the USA on Russian policy. The situation changed after the terrorist attack on 11th Sept. when W. Putin, President of Russia, was one of the first world leaders to assure G. Bush in an official phone call that Russia intended to support all military action taken by the USAagainst the perpetrators. If Russia intends to have a great influence on the international political relations and take part in international policy it should change its position towards USA into one of partnership and co-operation.
