Suchergebnisse

This article focuses upon the most recent trends in nuclear deterrence and strategic stability. It addresses the contemporary developments in three interconnected domains: first-strike, crisis and arms race stability. It traces the evolution of strategic stability studies, highlights the most fundamental contribution in the three above-mentioned study areas, and attempts to explain the change in contemporary nuclear deterrence. During the Cold War the superpowers developed international practices and unwritten rules of nuclear deterrence. Political practices emerged together with extensive studies of nuclear deterrence, which were based on a rational choice approach and game modelling. Contemporary international relations (IR) faces revival of nuclear deterrence studies. While some scholars are rediscovering the Cold War IR analysis models and adapting them to contemporary realities, others are looking for new analytical possibilities. This article focuses upon interlinkages between first-strike, crisis and arms race stability, and attempts to explain how changes in strategic environment can help better understanding the contemporary nuclear deterrence. It discusses whether and under what conditions nuclear parity, first-strike stability, arms control and crisis equilibrium can guarantee the strategic stability and military balance. It also addresses the qualitative or quantitative change in the conflict or crisis perception, and its implications on contemporary deterrence.

This article focuses upon the most recent trends in nuclear deterrence and strategic stability. It addresses the contemporary developments in three interconnected domains: first-strike, crisis and arms race stability. It traces the evolution of strategic stability studies, highlights the most fundamental contribution in the three above-mentioned study areas, and attempts to explain the change in contemporary nuclear deterrence. During the Cold War the superpowers developed international practices and unwritten rules of nuclear deterrence. Political practices emerged together with extensive studies of nuclear deterrence, which were based on a rational choice approach and game modelling. Contemporary international relations (IR) faces revival of nuclear deterrence studies. While some scholars are rediscovering the Cold War IR analysis models and adapting them to contemporary realities, others are looking for new analytical possibilities. This article focuses upon interlinkages between first-strike, crisis and arms race stability, and attempts to explain how changes in strategic environment can help better understanding the contemporary nuclear deterrence. It discusses whether and under what conditions nuclear parity, first-strike stability, arms control and crisis equilibrium can guarantee the strategic stability and military balance. It also addresses the qualitative or quantitative change in the conflict or crisis perception, and its implications on contemporary deterrence.

This article focuses upon the most recent trends in nuclear deterrence and strategic stability. It addresses the contemporary developments in three interconnected domains: first-strike, crisis and arms race stability. It traces the evolution of strategic stability studies, highlights the most fundamental contribution in the three above-mentioned study areas, and attempts to explain the change in contemporary nuclear deterrence. During the Cold War the superpowers developed international practices and unwritten rules of nuclear deterrence. Political practices emerged together with extensive studies of nuclear deterrence, which were based on a rational choice approach and game modelling. Contemporary international relations (IR) faces revival of nuclear deterrence studies. While some scholars are rediscovering the Cold War IR analysis models and adapting them to contemporary realities, others are looking for new analytical possibilities. This article focuses upon interlinkages between first-strike, crisis and arms race stability, and attempts to explain how changes in strategic environment can help better understanding the contemporary nuclear deterrence. It discusses whether and under what conditions nuclear parity, first-strike stability, arms control and crisis equilibrium can guarantee the strategic stability and military balance. It also addresses the qualitative or quantitative change in the conflict or crisis perception, and its implications on contemporary deterrence.

This article focuses upon the most recent trends in nuclear deterrence and strategic stability. It addresses the contemporary developments in three interconnected domains: first-strike, crisis and arms race stability. It traces the evolution of strategic stability studies, highlights the most fundamental contribution in the three above-mentioned study areas, and attempts to explain the change in contemporary nuclear deterrence. During the Cold War the superpowers developed international practices and unwritten rules of nuclear deterrence. Political practices emerged together with extensive studies of nuclear deterrence, which were based on a rational choice approach and game modelling. Contemporary international relations (IR) faces revival of nuclear deterrence studies. While some scholars are rediscovering the Cold War IR analysis models and adapting them to contemporary realities, others are looking for new analytical possibilities. This article focuses upon interlinkages between first-strike, crisis and arms race stability, and attempts to explain how changes in strategic environment can help better understanding the contemporary nuclear deterrence. It discusses whether and under what conditions nuclear parity, first-strike stability, arms control and crisis equilibrium can guarantee the strategic stability and military balance. It also addresses the qualitative or quantitative change in the conflict or crisis perception, and its implications on contemporary deterrence.

This article focuses upon the most recent trends in nuclear deterrence and strategic stability. It addresses the contemporary developments in three interconnected domains: first-strike, crisis and arms race stability. It traces the evolution of strategic stability studies, highlights the most fundamental contribution in the three above-mentioned study areas, and attempts to explain the change in contemporary nuclear deterrence. During the Cold War the superpowers developed international practices and unwritten rules of nuclear deterrence. Political practices emerged together with extensive studies of nuclear deterrence, which were based on a rational choice approach and game modelling. Contemporary international relations (IR) faces revival of nuclear deterrence studies. While some scholars are rediscovering the Cold War IR analysis models and adapting them to contemporary realities, others are looking for new analytical possibilities. This article focuses upon interlinkages between first-strike, crisis and arms race stability, and attempts to explain how changes in strategic environment can help better understanding the contemporary nuclear deterrence. It discusses whether and under what conditions nuclear parity, first-strike stability, arms control and crisis equilibrium can guarantee the strategic stability and military balance. It also addresses the qualitative or quantitative change in the conflict or crisis perception, and its implications on contemporary deterrence.

Abstract
The paper addresses the security threat perception and securitization of existential threats in Lithuania. It focuses upon the securitization theory and its ability to explain the change of national security agendas as affected by the changes in national identity and existential security threats. It takes into account the internal and external factors that are shaping the objective and subjective national threat perception. The paper applies O. Waever's securitization theory with an aim to explain how the national security threats are being addressed and perceived in Lithuania. Moreover, the paper is developed against the backdrop of the most recent developments in securitization theory and evolution of its theoretical perceptions of identity, existential threats, and legitimacy. It also discusses the possibility of inclusion of hybrid security threats into an analysis of securitization. The empirical part of the article assesses the most recent security challenges, provides evaluation of changes in national security perception, and portrays the dynamics of national security threats as defined in the National Security Strategies and the Military Doctrine. The paper focuses upon the most recent dynamics in security policy of Lithuania. It also takes into account the hybrid nature of security threats and the reaction to hybrid security elements such as: cyber security, information security, and international terrorism.

Constructivism is one of the best developed and one of the most popular theoretical approaches in Foreign Policy analysis. The analytical tools of constructivism with its normative elements as values, norms, national identity are of fundamental importance for the deep and thorough foreign policy analysis. Constructivism helps to merge national and international analysis levels; it provides possibility to analyze and value foreign policy dynamics and to indicate the interdependence among foreign policy and national identity. While applying social constructivism, this article looks into the change of Lithuanian foreign policy and its ties with national identity, through the development and institutionalization of certain values and norms, as well as their inclusion into/and exclusion from foreign policy agenda. Evolution of Lithuanian foreign policy is seen through the lens of four periods: sovereignty period (1990-1994), period of integration into Euro-atlantic institutions (1994-2004), period of euphoria, when crucial foreign policy goals are reached and country starts to position itself in Euro-atlantic institutions (2004-2010), and the period of pragmatism and specialization (since 2010), when mainstreams, interests and goals within regional organizations are defined, and country can bring more attention to the process of specialized interest setting (energy security, nuclear safety and security, cybersecurity, ect.) within EU and NATO, including by closer cooperation with sub-regional countries Nordic, Baltic, as well as keeping in foreign policy agenda the promotion of Eastern European integration into EU and NATO. In the context of foreign policy dynamics, the perception of "we" and "the other" is one of the most interesting for constructivist scholars. The article identifies the dynamics of "we" category and basic trend in defining "the other" in Lithuanian foreign policy.[.]

Constructivism is one of the best developed and one of the most popular theoretical approaches in Foreign Policy analysis. The analytical tools of constructivism with its normative elements as values, norms, national identity are of fundamental importance for the deep and thorough foreign policy analysis. Constructivism helps to merge national and international analysis levels; it provides possibility to analyze and value foreign policy dynamics and to indicate the interdependence among foreign policy and national identity. While applying social constructivism, this article looks into the change of Lithuanian foreign policy and its ties with national identity, through the development and institutionalization of certain values and norms, as well as their inclusion into/and exclusion from foreign policy agenda. Evolution of Lithuanian foreign policy is seen through the lens of four periods: sovereignty period (1990-1994), period of integration into Euro-atlantic institutions (1994-2004), period of euphoria, when crucial foreign policy goals are reached and country starts to position itself in Euro-atlantic institutions (2004-2010), and the period of pragmatism and specialization (since 2010), when mainstreams, interests and goals within regional organizations are defined, and country can bring more attention to the process of specialized interest setting (energy security, nuclear safety and security, cybersecurity, ect.) within EU and NATO, including by closer cooperation with sub-regional countries Nordic, Baltic, as well as keeping in foreign policy agenda the promotion of Eastern European integration into EU and NATO. In the context of foreign policy dynamics, the perception of "we" and "the other" is one of the most interesting for constructivist scholars. The article identifies the dynamics of "we" category and basic trend in defining "the other" in Lithuanian foreign policy.[.]

Constructivism is one of the best developed and one of the most popular theoretical approaches in Foreign Policy analysis. The analytical tools of constructivism with its normative elements as values, norms, national identity are of fundamental importance for the deep and thorough foreign policy analysis. Constructivism helps to merge national and international analysis levels; it provides possibility to analyze and value foreign policy dynamics and to indicate the interdependence among foreign policy and national identity. While applying social constructivism, this article looks into the change of Lithuanian foreign policy and its ties with national identity, through the development and institutionalization of certain values and norms, as well as their inclusion into/and exclusion from foreign policy agenda. Evolution of Lithuanian foreign policy is seen through the lens of four periods: sovereignty period (1990-1994), period of integration into Euro-atlantic institutions (1994-2004), period of euphoria, when crucial foreign policy goals are reached and country starts to position itself in Euro-atlantic institutions (2004-2010), and the period of pragmatism and specialization (since 2010), when mainstreams, interests and goals within regional organizations are defined, and country can bring more attention to the process of specialized interest setting (energy security, nuclear safety and security, cybersecurity, ect.) within EU and NATO, including by closer cooperation with sub-regional countries Nordic, Baltic, as well as keeping in foreign policy agenda the promotion of Eastern European integration into EU and NATO. In the context of foreign policy dynamics, the perception of "we" and "the other" is one of the most interesting for constructivist scholars. The article identifies the dynamics of "we" category and basic trend in defining "the other" in Lithuanian foreign policy.[.]

The scientific research had been made in order to analyse the legal regulation of the free movement of persons in Lithuania after entering the European Union and accesing to the Schengen acquis. There was identified and investigated problems, associated with the Union citizens and their family members and other persons having the status of EU citizens, and with their movement and stay in the union's territory. The author using the method of document's analysis explored the main legal regulations of European Union and also the laws of Lithuanian Republic on the matter of implementation of free movement of persons. According to the observations of practitioners and experts the author described existing situation in the area of freedom of movement in Lithuania, which appeared to be innapropriate. Although the internal borders are considered to be not controled, on the basis of statistic, checks on persons are carried out quite often. Moreover, Lithuanian legislation is lacking the rule of reasonable time period for the persons who do not carry the right documents to prove that they have the right for the free movement of persons. In addition, individuals who do not carry the appropriate travel documents are not admitted to the territory, expeled or fined in accordance with such provisions which are intended for external border regime and its illegal crossing, as well as persons from third countries lawlessly crossed external borders. First of all, there should be made amendments of the main definitions and provisions in Lithuanian laws, which are misleading on the basis of the European Union legislation. Moreover, there should be harmonized functions between police and border guards, to avoid immodrate border controles and govermental expences. And at last, there should emerge the policy of free movement of persons at the level of Ministry of Home Affairs. The problems mentioned above lead to restrictions on free movement of persons, idem quod the human rights violation. The implication should be made on it - these problems should be solved as soon as possible.

The scientific research had been made in order to analyse the legal regulation of the free movement of persons in Lithuania after entering the European Union and accesing to the Schengen acquis. There was identified and investigated problems, associated with the Union citizens and their family members and other persons having the status of EU citizens, and with their movement and stay in the union's territory. The author using the method of document's analysis explored the main legal regulations of European Union and also the laws of Lithuanian Republic on the matter of implementation of free movement of persons. According to the observations of practitioners and experts the author described existing situation in the area of freedom of movement in Lithuania, which appeared to be innapropriate. Although the internal borders are considered to be not controled, on the basis of statistic, checks on persons are carried out quite often. Moreover, Lithuanian legislation is lacking the rule of reasonable time period for the persons who do not carry the right documents to prove that they have the right for the free movement of persons. In addition, individuals who do not carry the appropriate travel documents are not admitted to the territory, expeled or fined in accordance with such provisions which are intended for external border regime and its illegal crossing, as well as persons from third countries lawlessly crossed external borders. First of all, there should be made amendments of the main definitions and provisions in Lithuanian laws, which are misleading on the basis of the European Union legislation. Moreover, there should be harmonized functions between police and border guards, to avoid immodrate border controles and govermental expences. And at last, there should emerge the policy of free movement of persons at the level of Ministry of Home Affairs. The problems mentioned above lead to restrictions on free movement of persons, idem quod the human rights violation. The implication should be made on it - these problems should be solved as soon as possible.

The purpose of this article is the analysis of security situation in the South Asian region. It is constructed by using the combination of three theories – Regional security complex, Securitization, and New regionalism. The combination of those theories forms the basis for security analysis within the region. Analysis of security threats is constructed by combining postmodern discursive – subjective and objective security perceptions. The article also takes into consideration the globalization's impact on transnational security threats within the region. The security dynamics of South Asian regional security complex are determined by historical, geographical, geopolitical, ethnical and religion related aspects. The basic problem that impedes the development of the region, and determines security dynamics – is conflicts within South Asia. Those conflicts are followed by vast flows of refugees, and tensions among regional countries. South Asia is a standard regional security complex with the bipolar division of power between India and Pakistan. The level of regional security complex is strongly determined by Kashmir'S conflict that gives the key feature for regional transformation to a higher level of regioness - regional society. Obviously the elimination of tensions between those two countries would strengthen the regionalization processes. The possible transition from standard to central regional security complex is also determined by India's ambitions, outward orientation and weakness of Pakistan. In South Asian regional security complex exist traditional model of power balance and an anarchic structure, that means that countries have securitized each other as potential security threats and there are no clear improvements towards cooperation in security sphere (except economic cooperation).[.].