This article aims to examine the importance of an often overlooked argument when it comes to explaining why great powers go to war against a weaker actor. This argument involves great power status considerations. The article argues that states care deeply about their status, especially states which are current and former great powers, and would opt to go to war to preserve this status even if the political and military consequences of such intervention are negligible to objective observers. To illustrate this argument, I will be looking at why the British decided to reestablish their sovereignty over the Falklands in 1982. The empirical part of the analysis is based on formerly secret documents declassified by the British government. This qualitative primary analysis of British documents provides new insights about the crisis and suggests that status considerations played a large role in the British decision to re-conquer the Falklands. ; This article aims to examine the importance of an often overlooked argument when it comes to explaining why great powers go to war against a weaker actor. This argument involves great power status considerations. The article argues that states care deeply about their status, especially states which are current and former great powers, and would opt to go to war to preserve this status even if the political and military consequences of such intervention are negligible to objective observers. To illustrate this argument, I will be looking at why the British decided to reestablish their sovereignty over the Falklands in 1982. The empirical part of the analysis is based on formerly secret documents declassified by the British government. This qualitative primary analysis of British documents provides new insights about the crisis and suggests that status considerations played a large role in the British decision to re-conquer the Falklands.
The purpose of this article is to capture one of the key features of the political thought that developed in the United States of America. Assuming that the USA's political culture is indeed exceptional, the author attempts to find the common denominator that would reflect the singularity of the American political mind. The author states that such a feature is the radical anti-historicality of the American mode of thinking about politics. It is a phenomenon that is deeply-rooted in the political and spiritual past of the United States and seems to be crucial because it never developed to such an extent in other traditions. Furthermore, even today to a large extent it defines both the American left and right. It is also very much present in academic discussion as well as in ordinary political activities. By anti-historicality the author means the rejection of the thesis that politics within a given society depends on that society's past experience. The phenomenon defies simple normative assessments. On the one hand, it protects American politics from the perils of radical historicism; on the other hand, it hinders the USA's contacts with other political bodies. However, the author concludes that understanding American anti-historicality is crucial when entering into any relations with the USA. Celem artykułu jest porównanie i przeciwstawienie brytyjskiej polityki wobec kryzysu w Libii i w Syrii odpowiednio w 2011 i w 2013 roku. Szuka się w nim odpowiedzi na pytanie, dlaczego parlament brytyjski, który w 2011 roku tak zdecydowanie poparł użycie siły przeciwko Libii, wstrzymał swoje poparcie dla akcji militarnej w Syrii w sierpniu 2013 roku. Autor wskazuje, że perspektywa masakry w libańskim mieście Benghazi przekonała brytyjskiego premiera, że akcja międzynarodowa była pilną koniecznością. Rezolucja Rady Bezpieczeństwa ONZ pozwalająca na akcję militarną w celu ochrony libijskiej ludności cywilnej oraz fakt, iż interwencję poparło kilka rządów na Bliskim Wschodzie, również przyczyniły się do uznania jej przez rząd brytyjski za w pełni uprawnioną. Jednakże dwa lata później brytyjski parlament skutecznie zawetował udział Wielkiej Brytanii w atakach powietrznych przeciwko Syrii. Było to skutkiem, jak argumentuje autor, braku rezolucji ONZ w tej kwestii i wsparcia rządów w regionie dla Syrii oraz wątpliwości co do skuteczności akcji militarnej. W artykule podejmowane jest również pytanie, czy brak brytyjskiej interwencji w Syrii oznacza początek zwrotu w brytyjskiej polityce zagranicznej.
The article describes the analysis of the modern British party system in the age of changes and transformations. In particular, it analyzes the changes in the electorate as well as the legal-institutional conditions which, in consequence, led to a shift in the balance of power between the political parties on the parliamentary level that occurred after the 2010 general election. Forming a coalition in the Parliament and the Cabinet marked the beginning of an ideologically and politically difficult rule of two parties which both politicians and voters alike had to learn. I argue that the above circumstances led to a certain "crisis" not only in the way administration is handled but also in the society's political participation. Simultaneously, it relates to what I view as a change in the British party system. The present article largely focuses on the transformations within the British party system that occurred in the early 21st century, on the genesis of the processes which affects the transformations in the above system, as well as on the causes and effects of these phenomena.
The article describes the analysis of the modern British party system in the age of changes and transformations. In particular, it analyzes the changes in the electorate as well as the legal-institutional conditions which, in consequence, led to a shift in the balance of power between the political parties on the parliamentary level that occurred after the 2010 general election. Forming a coalition in the Parliament and the Cabinet marked the beginning of an ideologically and politically difficult rule of two parties which both politicians and voters alike had to learn. I argue that the above circumstances led to a certain "crisis" not only in the way administration is handled but also in the society's political participation. Simultaneously, it relates to what I view as a change in the British party system. The present article largely focuses on the transformations within the British party system that occurred in the early 21st century, on the genesis of the processes which affects the transformations in the above system, as well as on the causes and effects of these phenomena.
The aim of the article is to illustrate the attitude of British diplomacy during the negotiations on the Fiume issue during the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference in Paris, where the most important decisions concerning the fate of post-war Europe were made. Prime Minister Lloyd George's behavior towards the general problem of the Adriatic and the Italian-American dispute was analyzed. The most important interests of Great Britain, which determined the course taken in this matter, were presented. The attitude of the heads of British diplomacy towards the most important events in Fiume in 1919 was also outlined. ; Celem artykułu jest zobrazowanie postawy brytyjskiej dyplomacji podczas negocjacji na temat kwestii Fiume w czasie obrad Rady Najwyższej Konferencji Pokojowej w Paryżu, na której zapadały najważniejsze decyzje dotyczące losów powojennej Europy. Analizie poddano zachowanie premiera Lloyda George'a wobec ogółu problemu kwestii adriatyckiej oraz sporu włosko-amerykańskiego. Zaprezentowano najważniejsze interesy Wielkiej Brytanii, które determinowały obrany kurs wobec tej sprawy. Zarysowano także stosunek szefów dyplomacji brytyjskiej do najważniejszych wydarzeń w Fiume w 1919 r.
The aim of the article is to illustrate the attitude of British diplomacy during the negotiations on the Fiume issue during the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference in Paris, where the most important decisions concerning the fate of post-war Europe were made. Prime Minister Lloyd George's behavior towards the general problem of the Adriatic and the Italian-American dispute was analyzed. The most important interests of Great Britain, which determined the course taken in this matter, were presented. The attitude of the heads of British diplomacy towards the most important events in Fiume in 1919 was also outlined. ; Celem artykułu jest zobrazowanie postawy brytyjskiej dyplomacji podczas negocjacji na temat kwestii Fiume w czasie obrad Rady Najwyższej Konferencji Pokojowej w Paryżu, na której zapadały najważniejsze decyzje dotyczące losów powojennej Europy. Analizie poddano zachowanie premiera Lloyda George'a wobec ogółu problemu kwestii adriatyckiej oraz sporu włosko-amerykańskiego. Zaprezentowano najważniejsze interesy Wielkiej Brytanii, które determinowały obrany kurs wobec tej sprawy. Zarysowano także stosunek szefów dyplomacji brytyjskiej do najważniejszych wydarzeń w Fiume w 1919 r.
U ovom radu nastojim ispitati osnovnu tezu o nastanku prezidencijaliziranih stranaka koje se pojavljuju kao poseban historijsko-empirijski model stranačke organizacije. Model prezidencijaliziranih stranaka ne predstavlja sljedeću fazu u postojećoj razvojnoj teoriji političkih stranaka koja bi označila kretanje prema još jednomu novom tipu stranke, niti mu se mogu pridodati značenja i vrijednosti novoga razvojnog tipa. Valjan je samo kao analitički model kojim se na historijskoj i empirijskoj razini može pratiti prilagodba suvremenih političkih stranaka zahtjevima socijalnih i političkih čimbenika za sve većom individualizacijom političkog života. Ono što prezidencijalizirane stranke čini specifičnim modelom upravo su ključne karakteristike snažne koncentracije moći u rukama stranačkog vođe i centralizacije procesa političkog odlučivanja, iz čega proizlaze njegova autonomija u formuliranju stranačkih politika, programa i izbornih strategija, neupitna dominacija nad svim razinama stranačke organizacije te rigidna hijerarhijska stranačka struktura. Komparativna analiza britanske Laburističke stranke, Španjolske socijalističke radničke stranke i Hrvatske demokratske zajednice nedvosmisleno je potvrdila glavnu hipotezu kojom je uspostavljena uzročna veza između složene kombinacije strukturnih i kontekstualnih čimbenika, koji su identificirani kao glavni pokretači prezidencijalizacijskih procesa, i nastanka prezidencijaliziranih stranaka koje se organizacijski prilagođavaju izazovima suvremenih demokracija. ; In this dissertation I test the hypothesis on the origin of presidentialized parties that appear as the specific historical and empirical model of party organization. The model of presidentialized parties does not represent the next phase in the existing developmental theory of political parties, which would indicate movement towards another new type of party organization, nor can it be attributed with the meaning and value of a new developmental type. It is valid only as an analytical model which follows the adaptation of modern political parties to the challenges of social and political factors for the increasing individualization of political life on the historical and empirical level. What makes presidentialized parties a specific model are the key characteristics of the strong concentration of power in the hands of party leader and the centralization of decision-making process, from which derive his autonomy in the formulation of party policies, programs and electoral strategies, unquestioned supremacy over all levels of the party organization and the rigid hierarchical party structure. A comparative analysis of the British Labour party, the Spanish socialist worker's party and the Croatian democratic union unambiguously confirmed the main hypothesis which established a causal relationship between the complex combination of structural and contextual factors that are identified as the main drivers of the process of presidentialization, on one hand, and the emergence of the presidentialized parties which organizationally adapt to the challenges of modern democracies, on the other. In this dissertation I test the hypothesis on the origin of presidentialized parties that appear as the specific historical and empirical model of party organization. The model of presidentialized parties does not represent the next phase in the existing developmental theory of political parties, which would indicate movement towards another new type of party organization, nor can it be attributed with the meaning and value of a new developmental type. It is valid only as an analytical model which follows the adaptation of modern political parties to the challenges of social and political factors for the increasing individualization of political life on the historical and empirical level. What makes presidentialized parties a specific model are the key characteristics of the strong concentration of power in the hands of party leader and the centralization of decision-making process, from which derive his autonomy in the formulation of party policies, programs and electoral strategies, unquestioned supremacy over all levels of the party organization and the rigid hierarchical party structure. A comparative analysis of the British Labour party, the Spanish socialist worker's party and the Croatian democratic union unambiguously confirmed the main hypothesis which established a causal relationship between the complex combination of structural and contextual factors that are identified as the main drivers of the process of presidentialization, on one hand, and the emergence of the presidentialized parties which organizationally adapt to the challenges of modern democracies, on the other.
For a growing group of voters the UKIP party ceases to be a second choice, and it becomes a main party. But, contrary to popular belief, its electoral success is only partly due to its Eurosceptic program. Its growing support is rather the result of disappointment in policies of the main parties and a sense of alienation of a growing social group, failing to find its way in a liberal, multicultural society. Note, however, that the UK electoral system rewards parties that have geographically concentrated support, yet in case of UKIP it is distributed fairly evenly. For this reason, even a significant popular support will translate only in a small degree into the seats in the House of Commons. UKIP electoral successes has forced the major political parties to modify their policies, which manifested mainly in radicalization of their programs in the area of immigration and asylum policy, as well as their attitude towards the UK's membership in the European Union.
For a growing group of voters the UKIP party ceases to be a second choice, and it becomes a main party. But, contrary to popular belief, its electoral success is only partly due to its Eurosceptic program. Its growing support is rather the result of disappointment in policies of the main parties and a sense of alienation of a growing social group, failing to find its way in a liberal, multicultural society. Note, however, that the UK electoral system rewards parties that have geographically concentrated support, yet in case of UKIP it is distributed fairly evenly. For this reason, even a significant popular support will translate only in a small degree into the seats in the House of Commons. UKIP electoral successes has forced the major political parties to modify their policies, which manifested mainly in radicalization of their programs in the area of immigration and asylum policy, as well as their attitude towards the UK's membership in the European Union.
By means of a comparative analysis of the available data, we can divide intelligence organizations into three groups of models, provisionally called American, British, & (the former) Soviet. These models have at the same time served as a basis for building intelligence systems in other states. Unlike the other two systems, the co-called British model of intelligence organization includes the central organization that coordinates the operation of all the others. The British intelligence system is made up of independent services located within different ministries, whose activities are coordinated by the cabinet or its working bodies. 1 Diagram, 23 References. Adapted from the source document.
Region Bliskiego Wschodu jest znany z antyzachodnich nastrojów. Mimo to wiele rządów arabskich prowadzi prozachodnią politykę. Jednym z państw współpracujących z Europą i USA jest Jordania. Taka opcja polityczna monarchii haszymidzkiej ma jednak głębokie przyczyny historyczne i wynika z nietypowych uwarunkowań tego państwa. Należy przypomnieć, że samo powstanie Jordanii wynikało ze współpracy władz brytyjskich z Haszymidami. Państwo to utworzono w 1921 r. początkowo pod nazwą Transjordania, w wyniku decyzji politycznych Londynu. Od tego czasu do 1956 r. trwała współpraca Ammanu z Wielką Brytanią. Fakt, że w 1946 r. Jordania uzyskała niepodległość niewiele zmienił – państwo Haszymidów pozostawało zależne od Brytyjczyków. Symbolem tej nierównorzędnej współpracy była osoba Johna Bagota Glubba. Ten brytyjski ofi cer stał się głównodowodzącym armii jordańskiej. Arabowie uważali go za przedstawiciela imperium, on sam jednak był przekonany, że służy interesom arabskim. Mimo, że rozwój Jordanii zależał od dotacji Londynu, władze w Ammanie zachowały swobodę decyzji. W 1956 r. król Husajn I usunął z kraju J.B. Glubba i zerwał sojusz z Wielką Brytanią. Dynastia haszymidzka odrzuciła związek z Londynem, by pozyskać nacjonalistów arabskich. Jednocześnie król Husajn I nawiązał ścisły, choć nieformalny, sojusz z USA. To Waszyngton zaczął dotować skarb Jordanii i jego siły zbrojne. Współpraca ta trwa do dziś. Jednocześnie Amman potrafi ł w pewnych momentach przeciwstawić się polityce USA. Tak było w 1967 r. i w latach 1990–1991 w czasie pierwszego konfl iktu USA z Irakiem, podczas którego Amman popierał Bagdad. Generalnie jednak reżim jordański utrzymywał opcję prozachodnią. Rząd haszymidzki dąży przede wszystkim do utrzymania stabilności ustroju monarchicznego. Współpraca z USA, a wcześniej z Brytyjczykami, nie wynika z założeń ideowych, lecz służy temu podstawowemu celowi. Jednocześnie współpraca z Anglosasami ma w przypadku Haszymidów długą tradycję i dobrze służy ich założeniom politycznym. ; The Middle East is known for its anti-western attitudes. Despite that, many Arab governments pursue pro-western policy. One of the countries that cooperates with Europe and the USA is Jordan. The specifi c political stance of the Hashemite monarchy has, however, strong historical reasons and results from untypical conditions of this state. One should mention that the very formation of Jordan resulted from the cooperation of British authorities with the Hashemite. The state was formed in 1921, at fi rst under the name of Transjordan, in result of political decisions of London. In 1921–1956 Amman cooperated with Great Britain. The fact that in 1946 Jordan gained independence did not change a lot. The country of the Hashemite remained dependant on the British. The symbol of this unequal cooperation was the person of John Bagot Glubb. This British officer became the commander of the Jordan army. The Arabs considered him as a representative of the empire, but he himself was convinced that he was serving the Arab interests. Despite the fact that the development of Jordan depended on donations of London, the authorities in Amman maintained freedom of decision making. In 1956 king Hussein removed J.B. Glubb from the country and broke the alliance with the Great Britain. The Hashemite dynasty rejected the relations with London so as to win over the Arab nationalists. At the same time king Hussein I established a strict but informal alliance with the USA. It was Washington that started to donate the state treasury and its armed forces. This cooperation has continued until today. Simultaneously, Amman was able at moments to oppose the policy of the USA. It happened in 1967 and in 1990–1991 during the fi rst confl ict of the USA with Iraq, when Amman supported Baghdad. Generally speaking, however, the Jordan regime maintained its prowestern option. The Hashemite government strives fi rst and foremost to maintain stability of the monarchy system. Cooperation with the USA, and previously with the British did not result, however, from ideological reasons, but serving the basic aim. At the same time, in case of the Hashemite, cooperation with Anglo-Saxons has long tradition and serves well their political assumptions.
