Suchergebnisse

This paper criticizes the realistic approach to international relations. Due to the essence of the main categories of realism (such as state, sovereignty, nation), the realism paradigm is presented as non-optimal and defective, and it is explained by interpretation of the social contract. Following the latter interpretation, the social contract does not eliminate anarchy completely and anarchy can still appear at the international level. Because of the globalization processes, the world has grown tiny and the states are closely interrelated, this means that in the 21st century for an individual international anarchy is as dangerous as anarchy on the state level. For this reason the national state becomes a source of insecurity for the individual and, therefore, the transformation of the state becomes a necessity. This paper supports the statement that the international order should be organized by creating global and unified governance. The European Union has introduced a most impressive integration project, which has the potential to establish a political unity not only in Europe, but also in the whole world. Since a sudden transition from one status (national state system) to another (supranational global governance) is hardly possible and the consequences are unpredictable, a gradual transition is recommended and it is more in favour by the EU. In other words, the EU integration process is a strategy aimed at "destruction" of the national state, which seeks full compliance with the terms of the social contract and the complete elimination of the anarchy. This strategy might be a new task or function of Europe. ; Straipsnyje kritikuojamas realistinis požiūris į tarptautinius santykius. Ontologizuotas valstybės, suvereniteto, tautos kategorijas laikant būdingais realizmo teorijos bruožais teigiama, kad pagal realizmo paradigmą aiškinama ir organizuojama pasaulio tvarka yra ne tik neoptimali, bet ir ydinga. Tai atskleisti padeda visuomenės sutarties kaip fundamentalaus potencialaus aiškinimo metodas. Jo diktuojama logika teigia, kad visuomenės sutartis nepanaikino anarchijos. Nors vidiniu nacionaliniu valstybės lygmeniu visų karo prieš visus padėtis įveikta, anarchija išliko tarpvalstybiniu lygmeniu. Kadangi dėl globalizacijos procesų pasaulis tapo mažas, o valstybės tarpusavyje labai susijusios – tarptautinė anarchija XXI amžiuje individui ne ką mažiau pavojinga nei anarchija valstybiniu lygmeniu. Dėl šios priežasties nacionalinė valstybė tampa individų nesaugumo šaltiniu. Todėl būtina nacionalinės valstybės ir tarptautinės sistemos transformacija. Straipsnyje siūloma tarptautinę tvarką organizuoti kuriant globalią, vieną valdžią. Kadangi Europos Sąjunga pateikė įspūdingiausią valstybių integracijos projektą, siūloma nauja Europos funkcija – laipsniškas viršnacionalinės, "etatistiškai" ir civilizaciniu atžvilgiu neutralios valdžios steigimas per integraciją. Ši Europos funkcija traktuojama kaip viena iš galimybių įtvirtinti Europos politikos dominavimą visame pasaulyje.

The European Union has introduced a most impressive integration project, which has the potential to establish a political unity not only in Europe, but also in the whole world. Since a sudden transition from one status (national state system) to another (supranational global governance) is hardly possible and the consequences are unpredictable, a gradual transition is recommended and it is more in favour by the EU. In other words, the EU integration process is a strategy aimed at "destruction" of the national state, which seeks full compliance with the terms of the social contract and the complete elimination of the anarchy. This strategy might be a new task or function of Europe.

The European Union has introduced a most impressive integration project, which has the potential to establish a political unity not only in Europe, but also in the whole world. Since a sudden transition from one status (national state system) to another (supranational global governance) is hardly possible and the consequences are unpredictable, a gradual transition is recommended and it is more in favour by the EU. In other words, the EU integration process is a strategy aimed at "destruction" of the national state, which seeks full compliance with the terms of the social contract and the complete elimination of the anarchy. This strategy might be a new task or function of Europe.

The article presents the theoretical framework that could be used in analyzing the opposition of state sovereignty and human rights in international relations. As the methodological tool is chosen the English School of international relations, which is known as a via media, a third way between realism and liberalism. The English School is generally divided into two major camps – pluralism and solidarism, distinguishable by their positions on the role of values in international society. The pluralistic variant of English School is closer to realism, and the solidarist variant – to liberalism. The main concept which represents the English School is the international society. According to the definition by H. Bull and A. Watson, international society is a "group of states (or, more generally, a group of independent political communities) which not merely form a system, in the sense that the behaviour of each is a necessary factor in the calculations of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognise their common interest in maintaining these arrangements". Pluralists and solidarists perceive the concept of international society differently. The pluralist concept of international society refers to the positivist tradition of international law. According to that tradition, international law is the law between states only and exclusively. The statement that only sovereign states can become members of the international society is of fundamental importance in the pluralist approach. The scope of pluralist international society is fairly minimal, centered on shared concerns about international order under anarchy, and thus largely confined to agreement about sovereignty, diplomacy, and non-intervention.[.].

The article presents the theoretical framework that could be used in analyzing the opposition of state sovereignty and human rights in international relations. As the methodological tool is chosen the English School of international relations, which is known as a via media, a third way between realism and liberalism. The English School is generally divided into two major camps – pluralism and solidarism, distinguishable by their positions on the role of values in international society. The pluralistic variant of English School is closer to realism, and the solidarist variant – to liberalism. The main concept which represents the English School is the international society. According to the definition by H. Bull and A. Watson, international society is a "group of states (or, more generally, a group of independent political communities) which not merely form a system, in the sense that the behaviour of each is a necessary factor in the calculations of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognise their common interest in maintaining these arrangements". Pluralists and solidarists perceive the concept of international society differently. The pluralist concept of international society refers to the positivist tradition of international law. According to that tradition, international law is the law between states only and exclusively. The statement that only sovereign states can become members of the international society is of fundamental importance in the pluralist approach. The scope of pluralist international society is fairly minimal, centered on shared concerns about international order under anarchy, and thus largely confined to agreement about sovereignty, diplomacy, and non-intervention.[.].

The article presents the theoretical framework that could be used in analyzing the opposition of state sovereignty and human rights in international relations. As the methodological tool is chosen the English School of international relations, which is known as a via media, a third way between realism and liberalism. The English School is generally divided into two major camps – pluralism and solidarism, distinguishable by their positions on the role of values in international society. The pluralistic variant of English School is closer to realism, and the solidarist variant – to liberalism. The main concept which represents the English School is the international society. According to the definition by H. Bull and A. Watson, international society is a "group of states (or, more generally, a group of independent political communities) which not merely form a system, in the sense that the behaviour of each is a necessary factor in the calculations of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognise their common interest in maintaining these arrangements". Pluralists and solidarists perceive the concept of international society differently. The pluralist concept of international society refers to the positivist tradition of international law. According to that tradition, international law is the law between states only and exclusively. The statement that only sovereign states can become members of the international society is of fundamental importance in the pluralist approach. The scope of pluralist international society is fairly minimal, centered on shared concerns about international order under anarchy, and thus largely confined to agreement about sovereignty, diplomacy, and non-intervention.[.].

The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The author suggests to replace the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society". It is demonstrated that A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. The author also criticise H. Bull's concept of international society because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. Paper includes a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII-XV centuries. It focuses on the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. Adapted from the source document.

The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The application of the neorealist theory in such research is blocked by its assumption that its subject is international system, consisting of sovereign national states. However, there were no such states (and nations) in medieval Europe and most other places in premodern times. The concept of international society of H. Bull is not applicable to premodern polities because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. In the first part of the article, the corrections to remove these modernist and europocentric deformations are suggested. They include the replacement of the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society", and the distinction between "sovereign politikes system/society" and "suzerain (imperial) polity system/society", borrowed (with modifications) from M. Wight. Second part and third parts together constitute a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII–XV centuries. The second part is about the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. According to the unconventional account of the so-called "feudal war" (1431–1453) in the Great Duchy of Moscow by Alexander Zimin, there was real possibility to establish at least two Russian states in the lands ruled by the Muscovite princes. Great Novgorod was viable polity too, bearing promise of the protobourgeois and protodemocratic Russia. Another viable polity was created in Kazan by Tatars who have changed to sedentary life of agriculturalists, and were about to become the power, filling out the geopolitical space that in older times was held by Volga Bulgaria. However, mainly due to the pursuit by Jagiellonian rulers of GDL and Poland of the dynastic politics in the Central Europe, at least three windows of opportunity to preserve this interpolity system from its annihilation by rising Moscow empire were not used. Last of them was the opportunity to re-establish the independence of Great Novgorod in 1480. These failures of the Lithuanian statesmanship sealed the fate of the Eastern European interpolity system: its disappearance in the Moscow empire. So the history of Eastern European interpolity politics in the XIII–XVIII centuries is another case proving the finding of the recent research by Stuart J. Kaufman, William C. Wohlforth, Richard Little, David Kangi, Charles Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, Williams Brenner that a long-lasting balance of power in a interpolity system is rather an exception than rule, the rule being the displacement of the multipolar or bipolar balance of power interpolity systems by empires.

The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The application of the neorealist theory in such research is blocked by its assumption that its subject is international system, consisting of sovereign national states. However, there were no such states (and nations) in medieval Europe and most other places in premodern times. The concept of international society of H. Bull is not applicable to premodern polities because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. In the first part of the article, the corrections to remove these modernist and europocentric deformations are suggested. They include the replacement of the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society", and the distinction between "sovereign politikes system/society" and "suzerain (imperial) polity system/society", borrowed (with modifications) from M. Wight. Second part and third parts together constitute a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII–XV centuries. The second part is about the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. According to the unconventional account of the so-called "feudal war" (1431–1453) in the Great Duchy of Moscow by Alexander Zimin, there was real possibility to establish at least two Russian states in the lands ruled by the Muscovite princes. Great Novgorod was viable polity too, bearing promise of the protobourgeois and protodemocratic Russia. Another viable polity was created in Kazan by Tatars who have changed to sedentary life of agriculturalists, and were about to become the power, filling out the geopolitical space that in older times was held by Volga Bulgaria. However, mainly due to the pursuit by Jagiellonian rulers of GDL and Poland of the dynastic politics in the Central Europe, at least three windows of opportunity to preserve this interpolity system from its annihilation by rising Moscow empire were not used. Last of them was the opportunity to re-establish the independence of Great Novgorod in 1480. These failures of the Lithuanian statesmanship sealed the fate of the Eastern European interpolity system: its disappearance in the Moscow empire. So the history of Eastern European interpolity politics in the XIII–XVIII centuries is another case proving the finding of the recent research by Stuart J. Kaufman, William C. Wohlforth, Richard Little, David Kangi, Charles Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, Williams Brenner that a long-lasting balance of power in a interpolity system is rather an exception than rule, the rule being the displacement of the multipolar or bipolar balance of power interpolity systems by empires.

The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The application of the neorealist theory in such research is blocked by its assumption that its subject is international system, consisting of sovereign national states. However, there were no such states (and nations) in medieval Europe and most other places in premodern times. The concept of international society of H. Bull is not applicable to premodern polities because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. In the first part of the article, the corrections to remove these modernist and europocentric deformations are suggested. They include the replacement of the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society", and the distinction between "sovereign politikes system/society" and "suzerain (imperial) polity system/society", borrowed (with modifications) from M. Wight. Second part and third parts together constitute a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII–XV centuries. The second part is about the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. According to the unconventional account of the so-called "feudal war" (1431–1453) in the Great Duchy of Moscow by Alexander Zimin, there was real possibility to establish at least two Russian states in the lands ruled by the Muscovite princes. Great Novgorod was viable polity too, bearing promise of the protobourgeois and protodemocratic Russia. Another viable polity was created in Kazan by Tatars who have changed to sedentary life of agriculturalists, and were about to become the power, filling out the geopolitical space that in older times was held by Volga Bulgaria. However, mainly due to the pursuit by Jagiellonian rulers of GDL and Poland of the dynastic politics in the Central Europe, at least three windows of opportunity to preserve this interpolity system from its annihilation by rising Moscow empire were not used. Last of them was the opportunity to re-establish the independence of Great Novgorod in 1480. These failures of the Lithuanian statesmanship sealed the fate of the Eastern European interpolity system: its disappearance in the Moscow empire. So the history of Eastern European interpolity politics in the XIII–XVIII centuries is another case proving the finding of the recent research by Stuart J. Kaufman, William C. Wohlforth, Richard Little, David Kangi, Charles Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, Williams Brenner that a long-lasting balance of power in a interpolity system is rather an exception than rule, the rule being the displacement of the multipolar or bipolar balance of power interpolity systems by empires.

The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The application of the neorealist theory in such research is blocked by its assumption that its subject is international system, consisting of sovereign national states. However, there were no such states (and nations) in medieval Europe and most other places in premodern times. The concept of international society of H. Bull is not applicable to premodern polities because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. In the first part of the article, the corrections to remove these modernist and europocentric deformations are suggested. They include the replacement of the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society", and the distinction between "sovereign politikes system/society" and "suzerain (imperial) polity system/society", borrowed (with modifications) from M. Wight. Second part and third parts together constitute a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII–XV centuries. The second part is about the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. According to the unconventional account of the so-called "feudal war" (1431–1453) in the Great Duchy of Moscow by Alexander Zimin, there was real possibility to establish at least two Russian states in the lands ruled by the Muscovite princes. Great Novgorod was viable polity too, bearing promise of the protobourgeois and protodemocratic Russia. Another viable polity was created in Kazan by Tatars who have changed to sedentary life of agriculturalists, and were about to become the power, filling out the geopolitical space that in older times was held by Volga Bulgaria. However, mainly due to the pursuit by Jagiellonian rulers of GDL and Poland of the dynastic politics in the Central Europe, at least three windows of opportunity to preserve this interpolity system from its annihilation by rising Moscow empire were not used. Last of them was the opportunity to re-establish the independence of Great Novgorod in 1480. These failures of the Lithuanian statesmanship sealed the fate of the Eastern European interpolity system: its disappearance in the Moscow empire. So the history of Eastern European interpolity politics in the XIII–XVIII centuries is another case proving the finding of the recent research by Stuart J. Kaufman, William C. Wohlforth, Richard Little, David Kangi, Charles Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, Williams Brenner that a long-lasting balance of power in a interpolity system is rather an exception than rule, the rule being the displacement of the multipolar or bipolar balance of power interpolity systems by empires.