Suchergebnisse

Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America is probably one of the most oftreferred books today in the United States. It is widely seen as the best book ever written on this country, its words endlessly quoted by different political camps which claim the book as their own. This article examines the ways in which the American have read this magnum opus of the Frenchman, especially during the last few decades, on the assumption that their reading is reflecting their perceptions on contemporary American society and its future. The aim of this article is twofold. First, it tries to show that Democracy has long been read in America as an (or, in not a few cases, the) important source to reflect on a remedy for an increasingly "individualistic" and thus "despotic" American society. What the American have commonly found a solution to this problem out of reading the book is the restoration of the tradition of self-government, which is highly hailed by Tocqueville as an admirable feature of American society. Second, this article aims at showing that, although the different political views between conservatives and liberals (one of the most visible political divisions in this society today) are surely affecting the American reading of Democracy, this is only one aspect of the story. Many Americans, whatever their political tendencies are, end up calling for the revival of a self-governed American society as a consequence of studying the book. This common 'conclusion' derived from their reading could be interpreted as a proof that the image that America is the country built on citizens' active participation in public affairs is widely shared among the American themselves. In this considerably diverse society that could fragment at any time potentially, the image has thus been contributing to keeping it in unity, probably to not a small extent.

To play a key role in international arena, the European Union promotes close ties with states of different regions. The subject of the EU interests is Latin America. The strategic partnership between the two is realized in three areas, defined during EU-Latin America summits, ministerial and experts meetings. The first area is economic and technological cooperation. The second field of cooperation is devoted to education, science and culture, and the third – to social cohesion and development assistance. The responsibility for implementation of the partnership provisions lays with the European Investment Bank, working groups and with cooperation programmes such as AL-INVEST, ALFA, ALBAN/Erasmus Mundus, @LIS, EUrocLIMA, URB-AL. ; Dążąc do odgrywania kluczowej roli na arenie międzynarodowej, Unia Europejska zacieśnia więzi z państwami różnych regionów. Przedmiotem zainteresowania jest również Ameryka Łacińska, z którą ustanowiono strategiczne partnerstwo. Jest ono realizowane w trzech obszarach, wyznaczonych podczas szczytów Unia Europejska – Ameryka Łacińska, spotkań ministerialnych i spotkań grup eksperckich. Pierwszym jest współpraca gospodarcza i technologiczna. Drugi obszar dotyczy edukacji, nauki i kultury, natomiast trzeci poświęcony jest pomocy rozwojowej. Implementacja założeń partnerstwa odbywa się za pośrednictwem Europejskiego Banku Inwestycyjnego, grup roboczych oraz programów tematycznych, takich jak AL-INVEST, ALFA, ALBAN/Erasmus Mundus, @LIS, EUrocLIMA, URB-AL.

Objective: The aim of the paper is to present an analysis of the research policy of the USA, understood as the integral part of the US public policy. This is the way it has been presented in recent publications in the field.Research design and methods: Research policy might be an effective means of stimulating socio-economic development. The literature review helps to define the distinctive features of the American research policy.Reasoning: The paper starts with an overview of publications appreciating the role of new technologies. The activities of the federal government are then analyzed with the emphasis on stimulating and supporting innovations in the US. The exploration of the connections between technological progress and economic cycles completes the analysis.Findings: In contrast to some popular claims, 21st century technological progress is driven not only by the invisible hand of the market but also by the often neglected interventions of the government.Implications and recommendations: Innovations require some form of public authorities support. It is vital to remember that this support should be broadly understood, including for example even the early stages of education. ; Celem jest zaprezentowanie polityki naukowej USA jako integralnej części polityki publicznej USA, tak jak jest ona postrzegana w najnowszych publikacjach dotyczących tej problematyki.Problem i metody badawcze: Polityka naukowa może być narzędziem stymulującym rozwój społeczno‑ekonomiczny. Zastosowany przegląd literatury przedmiotu z XXI wieku pozwala na odnalezienie istotnych cech amerykańskiej polityki naukowej.Proces wywodu: Artykuł rozpoczyna omówienie publikacji podkreślających znaczenie nowoczesnych technologii. Następnie omówiono działania władz federalnych mających na celu pobudzenie i wspieranie innowacyjności w USA. Związki postępu technologicznego z cyklami gospodarczymi podsumowują znaczenie polityki naukowej.Wyniki analizy naukowej: Wbrew prezentowanym czasem opiniom – w XXI wieku o postępie technologicznym decyduje nie tylko niewidzialna ręka rynku, ale także często niedostrzegana interwencja rządu.Wnioski, rekomendacje, innowacje: Innowacyjność wymaga wsparcia ze strony władz publicznych, przy czym należy pamiętać, że wspieranie innowacyjności dotyczyć powinno szerokiego spektrum działań, obejmującego i wstępne poziomy edukacji.

The transformation of the political communication models in Venezuela and other Latin American states is related to the evolving political culture in this region, together with a bold use of media communication approached both as a means and a goal. Video-politics, defined as a process of the mediatization of the constructs of political reality, is becoming a key notion for the citizens and voters there. Using the public means of social communication Hugo Chávez has made the Aló, Presidente show an arena of political decision-making and a space focused on political personalism. An analysis of selected elements of the show provides detailed information on the rhetorical tools and other mechanisms of exerting influence applied by Hugo Chávez. On a macro-scale the media strategies applied in the show turn out to be instruments of consolidating the image of executive power in Venezuela. ; The transformation of the political communication models in Venezuela and other Latin American states is related to the evolving political culture in this region, together with a bold use of media communication approached both as a means and a goal. Video-politics, defined as a process of the mediatization of the constructs of political reality, is becoming a key notion for the citizens and voters there. Using the public means of social communication Hugo Chávez has made the Aló, Presidente show an arena of political decision-making and a space focused on political personalism. An analysis of selected elements of the show provides detailed information on the rhetorical tools and other mechanisms of exerting influence applied by Hugo Chávez. On a macro-scale the media strategies applied in the show turn out to be instruments of consolidating the image of executive power in Venezuela.

The transformation of the political communication models in Venezuela and other Latin American states is related to the evolving political culture in this region, together with a bold use of media communication approached both as a means and a goal. Video-politics, defined as a process of the mediatization of the constructs of political reality, is becoming a key notion for the citizens and voters there. Using the public means of social communication Hugo Chávez has made the Aló, Presidente show an arena of political decision-making and a space focused on political personalism. An analysis of selected elements of the show provides detailed information on the rhetorical tools and other mechanisms of exerting influence applied by Hugo Chávez. On a macro-scale the media strategies applied in the show turn out to be instruments of consolidating the image of executive power in Venezuela.

Autor wskazuje wybrane obszary priorytetowe polskiej prezydencji w Unii Europejskiej. W szczególnoœci analizie poddano przyszłość polityki rozszerzenia, Partnerstwa Wschodniego, polityki energetycznej Unii Europejskiej, a także kwestie polityki obrony, między innymi możliwoœci rozwoju zdolności militarnych, dyskusji nad ideą grup bojowych UE i ustanowienia wspólnego dowództwa, co wzmocni zdolnoœci planowania i prowadzenia operacji. ; The contribution refers to selected priority areas of the Polish Presidency in the EU. The topics include the future EU Financial Framework; future of the EU enlargement policy, Eastern Partnership; the EU Energy Policy and especially areas of defense policy during Presidency: development of military capabilities, with a focus on pooling and sharing and the revival of the discussion on the increase of usefulness and flexibility of EU Battle Groups and strengthening EU capabilities, reform of its command structure, in particular improvement of planning capabilities and conducting operations at strategic level.

Publikacja recenzowana / Peer-reviewed publication ; Artykuł prezentuje analizę porównawczą aktualnych strategii Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki oraz Chińskiej Republiki Ludowej względem Azji Centralnej pod kątem ich konsekwencji dla bezpieczeństwa w regionie. Zbadano zawartość merytoryczną tychże strategii oraz przedstawiono wyzwania i zagrożenia dla bezpieczeństwa w Azji Centralnej. Autorzy przeanalizowali implikacje obu strategii dla bezpieczeństwa w regionie, odpowiadając w artykule na pytania: Czy strategie mocarstw w realny i wiarygodny sposób adresują wskazane problemy bezpieczeństwa w Azji Centralnej? Czy strategie USA i ChRL sprzyjają konfliktowi, kooperacji czy koegzystencji między tymi państwami w sprawach regionalnych? Czy cele strategii naruszają interesy innych aktorów polityki w regionie (przede wszystkim Federacji Rosyjskiej oraz państw Azji Centralnej), sprzyjając w ten sposób powstawaniu sporów międzynarodowych? ; The article assesses a role played by the United States of America and Peoples Republic of China in a Central Asian security by taking a comparative analysis of theirs regional strategies as a point of departure. In subsequent parts of the research authors: scrutinize a content of the strategies (especially both great powers' policy aims and instruments); analyze threats and challenges to the regional security in the region and degree to which both strategies allow to address them; and examine an impact of the strategies on the security environment in the Central Asia, particularly their potential to induce a (great power) conflict between actors involved in the regional politics. ; В статье дан сравнительный анализ стратегий Соединенных Штатов Америки и Китайской Народной Республики в Центральной Азии с точки зрения их влияния на безопасность в регионе. Рассмотрено содержание этих стратегий, указаны вызовы и угрозы для безопасности в Центральной Азии. Авторы проанализировали последствия обеих стратегий для безопасности в регионе и пытаются дать ответ на следующие вопросы: На сколько реально и правильно определены в стратегии великих держав проблемы безопасности Центральной Азии? В какой мере стратегии США и КНР вызывают конфликты или же благоприятствуют сотрудничеству и сосуществованию этих двух государств в решении региональных вопросов? Каким образом цели стратегии затрагивают интересы других субъектов политики в регионе (главным образом Российской Федерации и стран Центральной Азии), тем самым вызывая международные споры?

The US — Jordan relations, both during and after the Cold War, can be described as close, based on the pursuit of common goals and mutual respect. Although the United States of America and the Kingdom of Jordan have never concluded a formal treaty with each other, they cooperated on many levels, in the Middle‑Eastern region and internationally, both during the second half of the 20th century and in the first two decades of the 21st century. Despite the complex geopolitical situation in the Middle East, re‑occurring threats and challenges that may have weakened the bilateral relations between the two states, the informal alliance between the US and Jordan have survived, which is indicative of the importance of these relations and the strength of the partnership. The place and role of Amman in the foreign policy of Washington have many aspects and dimensions. One can observe certain evolution of the position that consecutive American governments attributed to Jordan depending on conditions that have been both extra‑regional (the Cold War rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union) and intra‑regional (the three Gulf Wars, the Middle‑Eastern peace process). It is also important to emphasize that after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, the mutual relations have gained a different, more strategic dimension. Hence, it can be argued that Jordan's importance in the US foreign policy has only reached its pinnacle during the post‑Cold War era. The present article seeks to pinpoint the place and role of the Kingdom of Jordan in the US policy towards the Middle East after the Cold War and to define the character of the relationship between the two states. Its main goal is to identify and describe both positive and negative factors determining the US — Jordan relations. The article will also attempt to answer the questions about the extent to which the Arab Spring has influenced the shape of the mutual links between Washington and Amman.