The forgotten epilogue of the Autumn of Nations. Remarks on Nicaragua's political transformation The article is devoted to political, social and economic situation in Nicaragua in the 1980s and 1990s. It concerns specificity of the state's political transformation's course. Interestingly enough, the process in question seems in many ways analogous to the events in Central and Eastern Europe in 1989. Despite significant differences at the point of departure, the mechanism of transition from totalitarian regime to democracy in Nicaragua displays surprisingly many similarities to the process observed at this time in Poland. It turns out that regardless of dissimilar histories and socio-demographic circumstances, geographic remoteness and total mutual isolation of both countries' societies, as well as incongruity of the two types of conflict (civil war in Nicaragua and an non-violent movement in Poland) — the political transformation in both countries took rather similar course. It clearly shows the existence of strong rules that are gone by communist states in the process of political transformation.
The objective of this paper was to analyze the sociocultural and personal reasons pivotal to the openness of the conflicting parties to a dialogue in the framework of family mediation. In the quest to answer the question what factors can influence the development of the family mediation in Poland and its acceptance both by the society and the families in conflict, the author presented the results of international and Polish research on the efficacy of the family mediation process and the readiness of the parties to use the mediation in family conflicts. Two theoretical concepts characterizing the sociocultural origins of resistance to mediation were analyzed in detail, namely that of the social resistance proposed by B. Mayer and that of the moral resistance by R. Benjamin. Moreover, the paper addressed the issue of the promotion of mediation together with the unrealistic expectations as to what can be achieved through mediation, mythologization of mediation and dilemma connected with the neutrality of the mediator. Finally, an integrated systemic approach to family mediation was proposed, which could enhance the chances of acceptance of the mediation by the parties in conflict. In essence it is proposed that the promotion of mediation should be exercised on three levels: (1) general societal level (to promote the winwin solutions in family conflicts), (2) level of specific educational activities for the conflicted parties (e.g. organization of premediation consultative meetings), and (3) level of specific actions targeted at various professional groups (e.g. judges, lawyers, probation officer, employees of the family support centres, etc).
According to UN report Azerbaijan is ranked as one of the top countries with the vast majority of refugees and internally displaced persons- every eight Azerbaijani citizen belongs to one of these groups. What makes that matter worse is that 79% of IDP`s suffers from poverty or social discrimination. That situation is a result of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorny Karabakh which broke out in the end of 80s`. The first migrations started in 1987 and finished in 1991 and concerned mainly Azerbaijanis and Armenians going back to their motherlands(around 500.000 people all together). In 1988 situation in the region was getting very serious and hardly nobody killed in Sumgait and in Baku. In 1992-1994 a regular war broke out between Armenia and Azerbaijan. That is when the biggest migrations took place- Azerbaijanis and Kurds had to leave their homes because of the Armenian invasion on Shushi and Khodzaly. The most traumatic event occurred in 1993- Azerbaijan lost 13% of its territory and all people leaving there were forced to move out. In may 1994 a ceasefire under auspicious of CIS was signed between these two former-Soviet countries. Since then, something what might be called "a peace-war state" between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been existing. The peacemaking process is still in progress- there are OSCE Minsk Group (with Russia, USA, France) and UN working on that- unsuccessfully. The potential IDP`s comeback will be impossible even in next decade. That is connected with unsettled status of Nagorny Karabakh and Lachin corridor (which is a buffer zone) ; Według rankingu ONZ Azerbejdżan jest jednym z czołowych państw, na których terenie występuje wysoki odsetek przesiedleńców. Mniej więcej co ósmy Azerbejdżanin przynależy do jednej z tych grup. Sprawę pogarsza fakt, że ok. 79 % przesiedleńców cierpi z powodu ubóstwa lub społecznej dyskryminacji. Sytuacja ta jest rezultatem konfliktu między Armenią a Azerbejdżanem o Górski Karabach, który rozpoczął się u schyłku lat 80- tych. Pierwsze migracje rozpoczęły się w 1987 roku, a zakończyły w 1991 i dotyczyły głównie Azerów i Ormian powracających do ojczyzny (około 500.000 wszystkich razem). W 1988 sytuacja w regionie była już bardzo groźna i prawie nikt nie potrafił przejąć nad nią kontroli. Zaczęło dochodzić do pogromów, w wyniku których zginęło wielu ludzi w Sumgait i Baku. W latach 1992-94 doszło do regularnej wojny między Armenią i Azerbejdżanem. Gdy miały miejsce największe migracje, wielu Azerów i Kurdów musiało opuścić swe domy z powodu ormiańskiej inwazji w Szuszi i Chodżali. Najbardziej traumatyczne wydarzenia miały miejsce w roku 1993, podczas których Azerbejdżan utracił 13% swego terytorium, a wszystkich ludzi stamtąd zmuszono do wyniesienia się. W maju 1994, pod auspicjami WNP, podpisano zawieszenie broni między tymi dwoma poradzieckimi państwami. Od tego czasu między Azerbejdżanem i Armenią ma miejsce coś, co można nazwać "stanem pokojowo-wojennym". Prace nad przywróceniem pokoju, w które zaangażowane są Mińska grupa OBWE (z Rosją, USA, Francją) oraz ONZ, wciąż trwają bez powodzenia. Niemożliwy będzie potencjalny powrót przesiedleńców nawet w następnej dekadzie. Jest to związane z nieuregulowanym statusem Górskiego Karabachu i Korytarza Laczyńskiego (stanowiącego strefę buforową
The analysis of the issue of political culture shows the spectrum of the functioning of society. In Poland, the process of changing the political culture has been visible since 1989. The perspective of integration and conflict shows the dynamics of social changes in Poland after 1989. Review of Karol B. Janowski book is a set of subjective assessments by the author. The ratings relate to the reading experience. The assessments were supplemented with comments on the occurrences that Karol B. Janowski treats as crucial for Polish political culture.
Operations under the auspices of the Security Council mandate span over 70 years. Repeatedly involved in resolving armed conflicts, they have made a significant contribution to ensuring security and stability around the world. In practice, they have taken the form of operations by individual states, coalitions, other international organizations or simply as United Nations missions composed of contingents provided by Troop Contribution Countries (TCC). While operations under the auspices of the United Nations have been involved on several occasions in offensive activities under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and the question of responsibility for these actions has been the subject of many legal analyses and judgments, missions organized by the United Nations are always recognized as neutral, and their activities as conciliatory and focused on monitoring the cessation of hostilities, or supervising the disengagement between the parties of the conflict, with the use of force limited to self-defence. Thus, such operations benefited from legal protection, and any action against them was considered a violation of international law. The current engagement of United Nations goes far beyond the traditional understanding of peacekeeping operations. UN missions are frequently authorized to employ all necessary means, up to and including the use of lethal force or even neutralization of the armed group. This creates a situation where in the light of International Humanitarian Law, such actions can be recognized as involvement in armed conflict. This article is intended to show the problems that the international community will soon face to in using United Nations' missions as an instrument for resolving armed conflicts and as a tool for restoring peace and providing stability and securityin the area of operations. It presents the processes of decision-making and subordination, which in some circumstances might result in the United Nations missions being deprived of legal protection and, in addition, made liable for non-compliance with the provisions of International Humanitarian Law. ; Operations under the auspices of the Security Council mandate span over 70 years. Repeatedly involved in resolving armed conflicts, they have made a significant contribution to ensuring security and stability around the world. In practice, they have taken the form of operations by individual states, coalitions, other international organizations or simply as United Nations missions composed of contingents provided by Troop Contribution Countries (TCC). While operations under the auspices of the United Nations have been involved on several occasions in offensive activities under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and the question of responsibility for these actions has been the subject of many legal analyses and judgments, missions organized by the United Nations are always recognized as neutral, and their activities as conciliatory and focused on monitoring the cessation of hostilities, or supervising the disengagement between the parties of the conflict, with the use of force limited to self-defence. Thus, such operations benefited from legal protection, and any action against them was considered a violation of international law. The current engagement of United Nations goes far beyond the traditional understanding of peacekeeping operations. UN missions are frequently authorized to employ all necessary means, up to and including the use of lethal force or even neutralization of the armed group. This creates a situation where in the light of International Humanitarian Law, such actions can be recognized as involvement in armed conflict. This article is intended to show the problems that the international community will soon face to in using United Nations' missions as an instrument for resolving armed conflicts and as a tool for restoring peace and providing stability and securityin the area of operations. It presents the processes of decision-making and subordination, which in some circumstances might result in the United Nations missions being deprived of legal protection and, in addition, made liable for non-compliance with the provisions of International Humanitarian Law.
Operations under the auspices of the Security Council mandate span over 70 years. Repeatedly involved in resolving armed conflicts, they have made a significant contribution to ensuring security and stability around the world. In practice, they have taken the form of operations by individual states, coalitions, other international organizations or simply as United Nations missions composed of contingents provided by Troop Contribution Countries (TCC). While operations under the auspices of the United Nations have been involved on several occasions in offensive activities under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and the question of responsibility for these actions has been the subject of many legal analyses and judgments, missions organized by the United Nations are always recognized as neutral, and their activities as conciliatory and focused on monitoring the cessation of hostilities, or supervising the disengagement between the parties of the conflict, with the use of force limited to self-defence. Thus, such operations benefited from legal protection, and any action against them was considered a violation of international law. The current engagement of United Nations goes far beyond the traditional understanding of peacekeeping operations. UN missions are frequently authorized to employ all necessary means, up to and including the use of lethal force or even neutralization of the armed group. This creates a situation where in the light of International Humanitarian Law, such actions can be recognized as involvement in armed conflict. This article is intended to show the problems that the international community will soon face to in using United Nations' missions as an instrument for resolving armed conflicts and as a tool for restoring peace and providing stability and securityin the area of operations. It presents the processes of decision-making and subordination, which in some circumstances might result in the United Nations missions being deprived of legal protection and, in addition, made liable for non-compliance with the provisions of International Humanitarian Law.
The transformation of the Russian foreign and security policy based on a more courageous use of military potential is a fact. Over the past several years, Russia has moved from articulating its interests to their enforcement with the use of military force. This article focuses on analyzing this process and identifying its potential consequences for global security. The conclusions drawn by the author, based on the conducted research, allow to state that the armed forces are and will be an important instrument of the Russian foreign and security policy. This does not mean, however, that the Russian Federation will strive for an armed conflict posing a threat to international security.
Peacekeeping operations are nowadays an important phenomenon in international relations and especially in conflict-ridden regions. The concept and framework of such operations has been constantly evolving in the past and one of the milestones of this evolution was the fall of the communist system and the end of the cold war. In Europe, this historic moment coincided with establishment by the Maastricht Treaty of the new organism within the process of western Europe's integration: the European Union. Both these facts triggered a reaction of the somewhat passive and hardly visible European defence organisation of the Western European Union. Its Petersberg Declaration of 1992 redefined security and sought to change peace obligations of the member states of WEU, as they accepted a broader responsibility and a broader concept of security in the European region. This was an important first step in making defence integration a part of the mainstream integration process. On the legal basis of the Petersberg Declaration, six operations were carried out. The paper discusses them, showing striking similarities, which actually comprise a special philosophy of intervention by WEU. This philosophy reflects both strengths and weaknesses of WEU's role in the European integration.
Peacekeeping operations are nowadays an important phenomenon in international relations and especially in conflict-ridden regions. The concept and framework of such operations has been constantly evolving in the past and one of the milestones of this evolution was the fall of the communist system and the end of the cold war. In Europe, this historic moment coincided with establishment by the Maastricht Treaty of the new organism within the process of western Europe's integration: the European Union. Both these facts triggered a reaction of the somewhat passive and hardly visible European defence organisation of the Western European Union. Its Petersberg Declaration of 1992 redefined security and sought to change peace obligations of the member states of WEU, as they accepted a broader responsibility and a broader concept of security in the European region. This was an important first step in making defence integration a part of the mainstream integration process. On the legal basis of the Petersberg Declaration, six operations were carried out. The paper discusses them, showing striking similarities, which actually comprise a special philosophy of intervention by WEU. This philosophy reflects both strengths and weaknesses of WEU's role in the European integration.
The main objective of the article is to show that the temporary symbiosis between centres of political power and organized crime leads to the development of permanent, corrupt and opaque networks. Focusing on the countries of the Western Balkans, the author points to the reasons for the development of organized crime in the region and then to the conditions created in the post-conflict period that resulted in the failure of effective attempts to stop organized crime and the corruption that facilitates it in the these countries. The article also points out that the creation of symbiotic relationships between political elites and organized crime groups leads to a 'state capture.' The unresolved problems of corruption and organized crime, in turn, have a direct impact on these countries' EU-integration processes.
The aim of the article is historical, political analysis and analysis of scientific discourse on the direction of decommunization transition since Ukraine's independence. The main research question concerns the effectiveness of the process. When describing the decommunization of public space in Ukraine, it should be stressed that it was characterized by varying intensity and regionality. The process can be divided into two main phases – 1990- 2014 and after 2015. The first period was determined by the historical policy pursued by the presidents of Ukraine. During the presidency of Yushchenko, with the increasing interest in historical politics, and especially the theme of Holodomor 1932/33, the names and monuments in honor of those responsible for these events were removed. The last phase of decommunization involves four acts passed in April 2015. The pace and consistency with which the laws were implemented, especially 317-VIII on communist symbolism, was linked to the Ukrainian-Russian conflict. It determined the need for radical steps towards the Ukrainian state taking control of its own symbolic space. A parliamentary majority and a social atmosphere have made the implementation of the laws effective and today Ukraine can be considered to have decommunized public space. This does not apply, of course, to occupied areas.
The article explains the mechanisms leading to achieving the Russian Federation's dominance in the regional and global security environment. To solve the research problems, a systemic approach was applied and methods of literary analysis and critique, non-participant observation, and uncategorized interviews were used. In the research process, it was established that the dominance of the Russian Federation in the international arena is based on force. The key factors enabling its achievement are displayed by the quantitative and qualitative superiority of the armed forces, expressed by force correlation coefficients, strategic forecasting, and operational prediction as well as the modern forms and methods of using armed forces. The Russian Federation balances the existing international disparities with the use of adaptive strategy, blackmail of conflict escalation with the use of nuclear weapons, modern and technologically advanced operational capabilities, and offensive asymmetric activities.
It seemed that after the end of the Cold War the democratization process would spread freely ensuring world peace. However, a number of worrying events occurring in international relations have not confirmed these hopes. Robert Kagan asserts that the announcement about world peace in the early nineties of the twentieth century did not come true. In fact, the states have never stopped competing each other just like before the fall of communism. Kagan emphasizes that the characteristic feature in international relations is a rivalry between democratic and authoritarian states. He fears the growing importance of autocracy, especially in China and Russia. Therefore, he urges to promote of democracy and even to build a league of democratic nations as a forum where international disputes could be resolved. On the other hand, there are opinions saying that the importunate promotion of democracy, especially in the form of the "preventive war" in the region reluctant to adopt Western values, such as the countries of the Middle East, may cause more conflicts and no less. Democratic system is a hallmark of the West and not a universal truth. The success of the stabilization of democracy in countries with different culture can't be the results of "preventive war" but a long process. Benjamin R. Barber proposes a noninvasive method to disseminate democracy. He believes that the best way to stabilize democracy in non-Western countries is a civic education. Development of education can eliminate those who may in the future become terrorists. Education reduces the strength of prejudice and moderates hate. Moreover, Barber stresses that support for local democracy through teaching is less costly than the force of arms. When Barack Obama took over power in the United States, it seemed that the strategy of "preventive war", supported by neoconservatives, would be rejected. But the new president's actions indicate that he doesn't intend to negotiate with the enemies of freedom. It has turned out that Obama continues the tradition of American "democratic imperialism". The implementation of neoconservative strategy ignoring the principle of "preventive democracy" portends a permanent conflict, which dismisses the prospect of world peace.
It seemed that after the end of the Cold War the democratization process would spread freely ensuring world peace. However, a number of worrying events occurring in international relations have not confirmed these hopes. Robert Kagan asserts that the announcement about world peace in the early nineties of the twentieth century did not come true. In fact, the states have never stopped competing each other just like before the fall of communism. Kagan emphasizes that the characteristic feature in international relations is a rivalry between democratic and authoritarian states. He fears the growing importance of autocracy, especially in China and Russia. Therefore, he urges to promote of democracy and even to build a league of democratic nations as a forum where international disputes could be resolved. On the other hand, there are opinions saying that the importunate promotion of democracy, especially in the form of the "preventive war" in the region reluctant to adopt Western values, such as the countries of the Middle East, may cause more conflicts and no less. Democratic system is a hallmark of the West and not a universal truth. The success of the stabilization of democracy in countries with different culture can't be the results of "preventive war" but a long process. Benjamin R. Barber proposes a noninvasive method to disseminate democracy. He believes that the best way to stabilize democracy in non-Western countries is a civic education. Development of education can eliminate those who may in the future become terrorists. Education reduces the strength of prejudice and moderates hate. Moreover, Barber stresses that support for local democracy through teaching is less costly than the force of arms. When Barack Obama took over power in the United States, it seemed that the strategy of "preventive war", supported by neoconservatives, would be rejected. But the new president's actions indicate that he doesn't intend to negotiate with the enemies of freedom. It has turned out that Obama continues the tradition of American "democratic imperialism". The implementation of neoconservative strategy ignoring the principle of "preventive democracy" portends a permanent conflict, which dismisses the prospect of world peace.
An American model of peace in the Middle East, which evolved from Kissinger's 'little steps' to the separatist agreements of Camp David, was to serve the purpose of regulating the Arab-Israeli conflict and strengthening Washington's influence. In the address delivered on January 23, 1980 (that provided the foundation for the so called 'J. Carter doctrine') the US President said that every "attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America" and thus it "will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force". The abandonment of the Nasserian tradition did not help A. Sadat to win supporters in internal matters. The protest of Nasserists and the Association of Muslim Brothers against the reconciliation with Israel resulted in a tragic attack against the Egyptian president. A. Sadat's death on October 6, 1981 was a blow for the advocates of the peace process. Whether to continue the separatist policy towards Israel or not was up to the will of the new political authorities in Egypt. ; An American model of peace in the Middle East, which evolved from Kissinger's 'little steps' to the separatist agreements of Camp David, was to serve the purpose of regulating the Arab-Israeli conflict and strengthening Washington's influence. In the address delivered on January 23, 1980 (that provided the foundation for the so called 'J. Carter doctrine') the US President said that every "attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America" and thus it "will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force". The abandonment of the Nasserian tradition did not help A. Sadat to win supporters in internal matters. The protest of Nasserists and the Association of Muslim Brothers against the reconciliation with Israel resulted in a tragic attack against the Egyptian president. A. Sadat's death on October 6, 1981 was a blow for the advocates of the peace process. Whether to continue the separatist policy towards Israel or not was up to the will of the new political authorities in Egypt.
