Suchergebnisse

Literaturverz. S. [233] - 258. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The commonwealth on the world stage

Zsfassung in dt. Sprache u.d.T.: Die Deutsche Demokratische Republik gegenüber den westlichen Besatzungsmächten

The following article has a nature of a scientific essay and concerns the issues of "American exceptionalism" phenomenon still present in public debates. In spite of the fact that it has been permanently present in the US politics for many years and has its own premises resulting from the fist independence declarations and Constitution, it has the ups and downs.The fundamental aim of that essay is to answer the question – to what extent exceptionalism and American uniqueness connected with it is important in politics of that country and world politics. Do the phenomenon of terrorism and the attitude of the USA to human rights go hand in hand with the idea of issues raised in that text?The source basis for writing that article were the most important titles concerning the examined item and general conclusions of the Author after studying them.

The following article has a nature of a scientific essay and concerns the issues of "American exceptionalism" phenomenon still present in public debates. In spite of the fact that it has been permanently present in the US politics for many years and has its own premises resulting from the fist independence declarations and Constitution, it has the ups and downs.The fundamental aim of that essay is to answer the question – to what extent exceptionalism and American uniqueness connected with it is important in politics of that country and world politics. Do the phenomenon of terrorism and the attitude of the USA to human rights go hand in hand with the idea of issues raised in that text?The source basis for writing that article were the most important titles concerning the examined item and general conclusions of the Author after studying them.

The Role of India in the United Nations Organisation according to the Political Conception of Jawaharlal NehruIndia's accession to the international system which is the UN stemmed from the conviction that it is an organization that in the postwar world shaped international relations based on the principle of political and economic cooperation and safeguard the peace. India's membership in the United Nations gave opportunities for the dissemination of political ideology and beliefs regarding aspects such as anti–colonialism, disarmament, peacekeeping. This created the opportunity to play a significant role for India in world politics. Hence, since accession to the UN India very actively engaged in the work and activities for the organization. India offered their services to mediate between the parties to the conflict, working in support of the independence movement and for the avoidance of violence between states, also tried to mark their positions within the UN. The presence of India in the United Nations and the active involvement of the various field activities of this organization is not only an opportunity to indicate their role in the international arena and spread an ideology of non–alignment, but also the opportunity to speak in the interests of the Third World and to winning economic aid to post–colonial states.

The Role of India in the United Nations Organisation according to the Political Conception of Jawaharlal NehruIndia's accession to the international system which is the UN stemmed from the conviction that it is an organization that in the postwar world shaped international relations based on the principle of political and economic cooperation and safeguard the peace. India's membership in the United Nations gave opportunities for the dissemination of political ideology and beliefs regarding aspects such as anti–colonialism, disarmament, peacekeeping. This created the opportunity to play a significant role for India in world politics. Hence, since accession to the UN India very actively engaged in the work and activities for the organization. India offered their services to mediate between the parties to the conflict, working in support of the independence movement and for the avoidance of violence between states, also tried to mark their positions within the UN. The presence of India in the United Nations and the active involvement of the various field activities of this organization is not only an opportunity to indicate their role in the international arena and spread an ideology of non–alignment, but also the opportunity to speak in the interests of the Third World and to winning economic aid to post–colonial states.

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.

Power has been one of the key issues in the study of international relations since the famous words of Hans Morgentau that in world politics power is pitted against power for supremacy and survival. The attention given to its analysis within the last 65 years has been a product of such as Morthenthau's understandings of power which see it as the most important causal force in state interactions. However, despite the amount of research on the subject, there is little agreement among scholars as to what it is and where does it come.The author briefly examines various views on the determinants of power starting from a classical realist and strictly actor-based one to a dualist approach which emphasizes the importance of international structure. He finds that all share a similar idea that power — to some extent — comes from the material capabilities of states (material determinants). Building upon previous research conducted on the validity of the democratic peace theory he then argues that it may also stem from the political system of the state (systemic determinants).Subsequently the author analyzes the significance of various material and systemic power determinants to war outcomes using nine diff erent non-linear econometric models (polynomial logit) composed of various sets of variables relating to power determinants. He then examines the degree to which particular models explain war outcomes of interstate military conflicts between 1816 and 1991 and which of the variables seem statistically significant.The results clearly show that neither the advantage in military personnel numbers, nor in the amount of money spent on arms influences the state's chances of victory. In the case of the total value of imports the findings are similar. On the other hand the value of the states exports, as well as certain systemic parameters such as competitiveness and openness of executive recruitment and executive constraints prove to be of statistical importance.

Power has been one of the key issues in the study of international relations since the famous words of Hans Morgentau that in world politics power is pitted against power for supremacy and survival. The attention given to its analysis within the last 65 years has been a product of such as Morthenthau's understandings of power which see it as the most important causal force in state interactions. However, despite the amount of research on the subject, there is little agreement among scholars as to what it is and where does it come.The author briefly examines various views on the determinants of power starting from a classical realist and strictly actor-based one to a dualist approach which emphasizes the importance of international structure. He finds that all share a similar idea that power — to some extent — comes from the material capabilities of states (material determinants). Building upon previous research conducted on the validity of the democratic peace theory he then argues that it may also stem from the political system of the state (systemic determinants).Subsequently the author analyzes the significance of various material and systemic power determinants to war outcomes using nine diff erent non-linear econometric models (polynomial logit) composed of various sets of variables relating to power determinants. He then examines the degree to which particular models explain war outcomes of interstate military conflicts between 1816 and 1991 and which of the variables seem statistically significant.The results clearly show that neither the advantage in military personnel numbers, nor in the amount of money spent on arms influences the state's chances of victory. In the case of the total value of imports the findings are similar. On the other hand the value of the states exports, as well as certain systemic parameters such as competitiveness and openness of executive recruitment and executive constraints prove to be of statistical importance.

Zsfassung in engl. u. russ. Sprache. Engl. Zsfassung u.d.T.: The geopolitics of the Black Sea region in the post-cold war world

Europe/the European Union, with its obvious trump cards, should be an active and efficient player on the international arena. Such are the expectations of the United States, formulated especially by the administration of Barack Obama. However, from the American perspective, the EU has not proved successful as an important international actor, engaged in resolving global problems and prepared to assume greater responsibility for the course of events in the world. This inertia of the EU resulted in the marginalisation of Europe in American politics, as manifested by the latter's pivot to the Pacific Rim. It was only after the developments in the Ukraine, which resulted from Russia's imperial tendencies, that a greater activity and coherence in American and European politics was triggered, having a positive influence also on transatlantic relations. ; Europe/the European Union, with its obvious trump cards, should be an active and efficient player on the international arena. Such are the expectations of the United States, formulated especially by the administration of Barack Obama. However, from the American perspective, the EU has not proved successful as an important international actor, engaged in resolving global problems and prepared to assume greater responsibility for the course of events in the world. This inertia of the EU resulted in the marginalisation of Europe in American politics, as manifested by the latter's pivot to the Pacific Rim. It was only after the developments in the Ukraine, which resulted from Russia's imperial tendencies, that a greater activity and coherence in American and European politics was triggered, having a positive influence also on transatlantic relations.

We live in a world ruled by liberal democracy. Moreover, it is becoming commonly launched that we have reached the end of politics, as we know it, and are experiencing the beginning of postpolitics. Political life is becoming deprived of its constituents in the name of the technical approach to political processes (postpolitical). Conflict as an immanent part of politics is also becoming a thing of the past, substituted with a win-win type of politics. In our postideological and postpolitical era everyone seems to accept this central consensus. Developing this thesis, the author deliberates on the resilience of a system based on an erroneous, in his opinion, presumption – the presumption of the end of politics and the beginning of the postpolitics, of which the project of deliberative democracy is a striking example. Relating to Mouffe, the author attempts to leverage the corner stone of deliberative democracy – faith in the possibility of disqualifying the essential correlate of democracy, which is inequality, or as Mouffe describes it herself "the element of indetermination". Following the theories of Mouffe, Laclau, Chomsky, or Wallerstein, the author claims that what we really need is a contestation of the status quo, which instead of a radical change of the political system or creating a new system from scratch would consist in creating a deft sewerage system of social frustrations and the ability to manage conflicts. That is exactly what the project of agonistic democracy should serve, in which a Schmittonian oposition of friend/enemy is replaced with an opposition of friend/opponent. The inability to treat political opponents as adversaries, as I substantiate with the example of the military, following Bacevich's terminology, foreign policy of the United States, leads on to the transformation of the language of politics into a language of morality and ethics. And from this point it is not far to the Manichaean visions and managing not politics but a crusade against the evil. The essay does not provide easy answers and the author is far from moralizing. His real aim is to provoke a discussion, an encouragement of critical thinking and search for truth, the truth – as Pinter put it – hidden somewhere in our life. According to the author it is critical, if democracy is to function.