Suchergebnisse

Анализируется роль Германии в военной миссии Европейского союза в Демократической Республике Конго (2006) на предмет соответствия миссии национальным интересам, участия в формировании повестки дня и процессе принятия решений, участия в планировании и проведении операции, военного и финансового участия. Делается вывод о том, что лидерство ФРГ в операции было формальным, а ее роль в практике общей политики безопасности и обороны ЕС периферийна ; It is well known that the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) of the European Union (EU) is an intergovernmental component of European integration. It means that the CSDP is determined by the EU member states. Therefore understanding of the CDSP is conditioned by the understanding of the different member states positions. Many scholars argue that Germany being an EU driving force plays a leading role in the CSDP too. The author revises this thesis by analyzing German foreignpolicy behavior during one of the practical ESDP challenges the EU military mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, EUFOR RD Congo (2006). He finds out whether the mission met German national interests, to what degree Germany participated in the agendasetting and decision-making process, what Germany's military and financial contribution was. The author comes to a conclusion that Germany's role in the operation was twofold. On the one hand, it proved itself as a real leader nation by assuming the responsibility for planning and strategic management of the mission as well as contributing 1/3 of the military contingent and covering 1/5 of the expenses incurred. On the other hand, a practical dimension demonstrated Germany's weak points and secondary role played in the CSDP. The Congo mission was put on the European agenda by France and Belgium, not Germany. In contrast to the both ex-colonial powers, EUFOR RD Congo was not in Germany's national interest, but in spite of this Berlin got involved in the mission. The formal leadership and military participation resulted solely from the strong diplomatic and informal pressure exerted by partners. At the same time Germany's internal political controversy and difficult procedural questions considerably restrained preparation for the operation, threatened with its frustration and thereupon blocked its logical prolongation. German headquarters in Potsdam faced difficulties in planning and coordination of EUFOR RD Congo. German armed forces had problems with supplies and training of personnel, its practical contribution to general success was minimal inter alia owing to the national limitations of its application geography. The author concludes, that partners' as well as some scholars' expectations in relation to Germany's contribution to the CSDP are higher than German political willingness and real military potential.

Рассматриваются возможные теоретические объяснения феномена Общей политики безопасности и обороны Европейского союза через призму теорий европейской интеграции, а также традиционных и альтернативных теорий международных отношений. Делается вывод о том, что ни одна из существующих школ не обладает достаточной убедительностью, и научные исследования нуждаются в интегративном подходе. ; Sustainable development of integration process in the postwar Europe promoted emergence of a new scientific discipline known as European studies, which pools social sciences and humanities for investigation of different aspects of European integration. One of the most dynamical developing schools of European studies is studying Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union (EU), affected by consistent development of integration in this sphere in the 1990-2000s. As author notes, the phenomenon of the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) of the EU is difficult to explain for political science and thats why the majority of its scientific/pseudoscientific studies has a descriptive character. According to that, author puts a question: How and to which degree can existing integration theories and international relations and foreign policy theories explain the CSDP and thereby become a theoretical basis for its scientific analysis? As classic European integration theories federalism and neofunctionalism are reviewed: the first considers the CSDP to be an end of European integration in itself but doesnt explain its institutional development and failures while remaining an influential political philosophy; the second explains the endogenous logic of integration, focusing on supranational institutions, and therefore doesnt examine the CSDP. Neorealism is skeptical about the future of the CSDP, but interprets its emergence via the change of the system of international relations and serves as ideological basis for intergovernmentalism, upon which the majority of CSDP studies is rested. Neoliberal theories dont consider the military aspects of the CSDP, but explain its civil dimension as well as only little progress in the CSDP in relation to economic spheres and coexistence of different security institutions. Liberal intergovernmentalism, equally with neofunctionalism, is focused on delegation of authority and doesnt account for the CSDP, but helps to understand the change of positions at intergovernmental negotiations. Historical institutionalism interprets the CSDP as a result of historical development of the European security institutions as well as causes of European foreign policy change, but doesnt take procedural and system factors into account. Social constructivism explains the CSDP via Europeanization of the foreign policies of member states, as well as its failures via multiplicity of national identities. Author comes to a conclusion that no one of the reviewed theories can completely explain the phenomenon of the CSDP, however everyone can be used to explain some aspects of the CSDP and partly its logic. Therefore a convincing CSDP study needs an approach integrating their strong points into an analytical model corresponding to its subject matter.

Определены границы гражданского общества: теоретические посредством трех измерений понятия «гражданское общество», аналитические посредством концепции посредничества интересов, практические посредством концепции негативной и позитивной свободы на примере Центрально-Восточной Европы и Запада. Авторы приходят к выводу о существовании разных границ у организаций гражданского общества, действующих в демократических и преддемократических условиях. ; Civil society continues to be one of the central topics in modern social sciences and tends to become a popular subject of interdisciplinary research. But the theme is also important in political actuality of democratic states, that partly explains the wide range of public debates. The authors try to answer such controversial questions as: What do we understand by civil society? Can civil society be comprehended analytically? Where does civil society begin and end? In order to answer these and other questions they outline the theoretical, analytical and practical limits of civil society. The theoretical limits are set by the sum of philosophical, political and sociological dimensions of the civil society concept. According to the philosophical-normative concept, civil society is a perfect type of social order being settled in Modern time. In political practice the concept is being used as slogan of political movements and parties in their struggle for power, thereupon its meaning varies with political goals of individual groups. As analytical concept of social sciences civil society has three interpretations: institutional level of political sociology, phenomenon in the region of values and convictions, descriptive-analytical concept of political science being applied to all the collective citizen activities of public utility in private sector. The analytical limits are concluded from the concept of interest intermediation. Guided by U. Alemann's interest groups classification supplemented with a category of material and immaterial interests, the authors figure a four-sector model of interest intermediation. A nonpolitical, social sector of associations pursuing both material and immaterial interests is a civil society sector. The practical limits are exposed by analysis of civil society history carried out by means of negative and positive freedom concept applied to the Central-East European and Western countries. As the authors argue, the civil society history springs from the second half of the 19th century and is linked to the rise of bourgeoisie. Using the concept of negative and positive freedom, the authors analyze different progress of civil society in West and East. They conclude, that the limits of civil society organizations operating under democratic conditions are different from those operating under pre-democratic conditions. Organizations striving for negative freedom break down after having prevailed, while the limits of those enjoying positive freedom are defined by social interests in the pre-political area.

Отталкиваясь от текущей ситуации, авторы ставят вопрос о будущем партийной демократии в ФРГ. Анализируя роль партий в государстве и обществе, партийную систему и посредническую роль партий, авторы констатируют сохранение важной формальной роли партий при одновременной потере легитимности и фрагментации партийного ландшафта и делают вывод о необходимости демократизации общества в целом. ; Today, the most common form of democratic governing is representative democracy. Its distinction is that political declaration of will occurs indirectly, through at regular intervals elected representatives. One of its brand is so-called party democracy, in which political parties in fact have an exclusive right to nominate candidates for elective offices and dominate in representative bodies. It means that political parties play the leading role in the decision-making process. The rawest spot of this form of democratic governing is the great distance between the power and society, which appears in limitation of a citizen's legal capacity not only to influence party politics during the term of mandate (for example, by recalling of delegates), but also to choose their representatives directly, who (by proportional electoral systems) are determined by party tickets, i.e. inner-party procedures closed for electors. Along with the risk of non-fulfillment of election pledges it creates a favorable environment to lobbyism and corruption and thereby threatens the power with the loss of legitimacy. On the other side, the growing differentiation of modern society and therefore the diversity of interests in need of accumulation lead to fragmentation of a party landscape, which can threaten the stability of a political system. Not only continuity of government policy is at hazard, but also formation of governments able to function in principle, especially in federated states. The authors of this article tally up an intermediate total of the 60-year-old history of party democracy in the FRG, concentrating on its evolution at three levels: federal, regional and local. In consideration of above-mentioned threats they put a question about the future of party democracy in Germany by analyzing four aspects: parties role in the state, parties role in society, parties and party system, mediators role of parties. Stating the unshakeable formal role of parties and the lack of political expression of anti-party sentiments at the federal and regional level, the authors note the problem of recruitment of candidates at the local level. By analyzing the dynamics of: membership size and age structure of parties, participation of young people in party politics, voter turnout, percentage of constant electors, public opinion, they come to conclusion that legitimacy of parties has been falling. Analyzing the dynamics of power concentration the authors state the evolution from a two-party system to a fluid five-party system. They note the crisis of mediators role of parties and party system in whole. The authors see the solution in further democratization of parties themselves and society in general and bind the future of German democracy with direct civil participation.