Suchergebnisse

One of the fundamental categories of general sociology concerns power. Regardless of differences in interpretation, power can be defined as the dependence between subordinator and subordinated. This relation is unidirectional. When discussing influence, this property is significant, as otherwise it could be reciprocal, or an influence could be exerted by many other entities that are not bound by the relationship of subordination. The nature of international relations is too specific to allow a simple transfer of power-related phenomena from the realm of domestic relations. One can indicate the presence of delegated power, resulting from the mutual assignment of subordination rights to international decision- making bodies. The processes of international power are divided into procedures of hard power, soft power and smart power, the latter signifying the manifestation of effective power, making use of the mechanisms of the former two. It is also important to take into account the specificity of the legitimization of international power and manifestations of accountability. Also not without significance is the capacity for the implementation of international power, equipped with the relevant enforcement instruments. ; One of the fundamental categories of general sociology concerns power. Regardless of differences in interpretation, power can be defined as the dependence between subordinator and subordinated. This relation is unidirectional. When discussing influence, this property is significant, as otherwise it could be reciprocal, or an influence could be exerted by many other entities that are not bound by the relationship of subordination. The nature of international relations is too specific to allow a simple transfer of power-related phenomena from the realm of domestic relations. One can indicate the presence of delegated power, resulting from the mutual assignment of subordination rights to international decision- making bodies. The processes of international power are divided into procedures of hard power, soft power and smart power, the latter signifying the manifestation of effective power, making use of the mechanisms of the former two. It is also important to take into account the specificity of the legitimization of international power and manifestations of accountability. Also not without significance is the capacity for the implementation of international power, equipped with the relevant enforcement instruments.

In this paper Author has defined and classified a "militarized non-state actor" pointing that this term comprises many different non-state actors like for example: political parties with their military wings, international criminal groups, terrorist organizations, private military companies or independence movements. It is also a disputable issue if armed forces deployed within governmental organizations (like theUNorNATO) are treated as militarized non-state actors or not.Lebanese Hizballah has been used here as an example to describe the specificity of a militarized non-state actor. Hizballah has its own armed forces and has been active in international relations. As a result of the analysis, such actors like Hizballah are well adoptable to new phenomena and processes which occurred in international relations, they are challenging states in their activities, moreover: they are used in many cases by states to achieve their goals. It shows the ambiguity in functioning of such a non-state actor. ; In this paper Author has defined and classified a "militarized non-state actor" pointing that this term comprises many different non-state actors like for example: political parties with their military wings, international criminal groups, terrorist organizations, private military companies or independence movements. It is also a disputable issue if armed forces deployed within governmental organizations (like theUNorNATO) are treated as militarized non-state actors or not.Lebanese Hizballah has been used here as an example to describe the specificity of a militarized non-state actor. Hizballah has its own armed forces and has been active in international relations. As a result of the analysis, such actors like Hizballah are well adoptable to new phenomena and processes which occurred in international relations, they are challenging states in their activities, moreover: they are used in many cases by states to achieve their goals. It shows the ambiguity in functioning of such a non-state actor.

Contemporary Polish-Russian relations are examined, taking into consideration the broad internal conditions in Poland and in Russia. Negative mutual stereotypes prevail in both countries, shaped in the course of a complicated history of mutual relations, while the concepts of international policies in both states are underdeveloped and divergent. Polish-Russian relations are increasingly more influenced by external conditions, such as the profound change Europe is going through and the evolution of the entire international order. The most important modern issues in Polish-Russian relations concern the persistent differences in the perception of the history of mutual relations, dissimilar concepts of the European security system, and energy security. The conditions of relations between Poland and Russia affect Poland's ability to pursue its international interests in many areas: in relations with Russia and the CIS, in the forum of international organizations (NATO, EU, Council of Europe, OSCE and the UN), in relations with Poland's closest allies and partners (Germany, France, U.S. and Ukraine). Finally, Polish-Russian relations influence the position and international role of Poland, limiting it when these relations are bad or augmenting it when they are good. Since late 2007 Poland has been trying to conduct a pragmatic policy and normalize its relations with Russia. In general, Polish-Russian reconciliation seems feasible. ; Contemporary Polish-Russian relations are examined, taking into consideration the broad internal conditions in Poland and in Russia. Negative mutual stereotypes prevail in both countries, shaped in the course of a complicated history of mutual relations, while the concepts of international policies in both states are underdeveloped and divergent. Polish-Russian relations are increasingly more influenced by external conditions, such as the profound change Europe is going through and the evolution of the entire international order. The most important modern issues in Polish-Russian relations concern the persistent differences in the perception of the history of mutual relations, dissimilar concepts of the European security system, and energy security. The conditions of relations between Poland and Russia affect Poland's ability to pursue its international interests in many areas: in relations with Russia and the CIS, in the forum of international organizations (NATO, EU, Council of Europe, OSCE and the UN), in relations with Poland's closest allies and partners (Germany, France, U.S. and Ukraine). Finally, Polish-Russian relations influence the position and international role of Poland, limiting it when these relations are bad or augmenting it when they are good. Since late 2007 Poland has been trying to conduct a pragmatic policy and normalize its relations with Russia. In general, Polish-Russian reconciliation seems feasible.

An element which should be analysed was the underestimation by Poland of the fears of Belarus concerning Polonisation and the activities of the Catholic Church. Initially, issues which were of slight importance to Poland later became the main reason for serious divergences in bilateral understanding. Also of importance is the question of the awareness on the Polish side of the change in the geopolitical future of Belarus following Poland's accession to NATO. Political changes in Belarus in the years 1994-1996 were analysed in this work as well as their influence on the deterioration of mutual relations. It was also important to answer the question about the reasons for the ineffectiveness of the policy of critical dialogue with Belarus and the causes of the conflict concerning the Polish minority in 2005.

W artykule podjęto się próby zdefiniowania i sklasyfikowania "zmilitaryzowanego aktora niepaństwowego" wskazując przy tym, że termin ten obejmuje szeroka grupę podmiotów niepaństwowych takich jak: partie polityczne ze swoim skrzydłem zbrojnym, międzynarodowe grupy przestępcze, organizacje terrorystyczne, prywatne firmy wojskowe czy ruchy narodowo- wyzwoleńcze. Dyskusyjna pozostaje obecność w tej grupie kontyngentów wojskowych rządowych organizacji międzynarodowych. Posługując się przykładem libańskiego Hezbollahu, który od początku swojego istnienia dysponuje własnymi siłami zbrojnymi i wykazuje dużą aktywność w stosunkach międzynarodowych, dokonano próby charakterystyki zmilitaryzowanego aktora niepaństwowego. Okazało się, że tego typu aktorzy jak Hezbollah dobrze adaptują się do nowych zjawisk i procesów międzynarodowych ; stanowią spore wyzwanie dla państw, które dysponują zaawansowanymi siłami zbrojnymi oraz jednocześnie są wykorzystywani przez inne państwa do realizacji swoich celów. Zatem rola takiego uczestnika we współczesnych stosunkach międzynarodowych ma charakter złożony. ; In this paper Author has defined and classified a "militarized non-state actor" pointing that this term comprises many different non-state actors like for example: political parties with their military wings, international criminal groups, terrorist organizations, private military companies or independence movements. It is also a disputable issue if armed forces deployed within gov - ernmental organizations (like the UN or NATO) are treated as militarized non-state actors or not. Lebanese Hizballah has been used here as an example to describe the specificity of a milita - rized non-state actor. Hizballah has its own armed forces and has been active in international re - lations. As a result of the analysis, such actors like Hizballah are well adoptable to new phenomena and processes which occurred in international relations, they are challenging states in their activities, moreover: they are used in many cases by states to achieve their goals. It shows the ambiguity in functioning of such a non-state actor.

It is impossible to sum up the character of mutual relations between journalists and PR specialists, who frequently act as spokesmen, in a single statement. These relations are multidimensional and have both positive and negative aspects. Both parties voice their opinions on each other, some justified, other grossly exaggerated. Both parties commit sins, but they also have a very important role to play. Journalists should serve society, and on behalf of this society they should exercise control over public authorities. Journalists are mainly supposed to provide their recipients with reliable and true information. PR specialists are also supposed to provide information, yet that concern th business. Public opinion and its role in the liberal-democratic political system are of crucial significance this relation. Both parties want to mold public opinion, to win its interest, they both function thanks to it and depend on it. They are also indispensably related, as evidenced by both the theory and practice of ther relations, which also necessitates that care is taken their appropriate quality. ; It is impossible to sum up the character of mutual relations between journalists and PR specialists, who frequently act as spokesmen, in a single statement. These relations are multidimensional and have both positive and negative aspects. Both parties voice their opinions on each other, some justified, other grossly exaggerated. Both parties commit sins, but they also have a very important role to play. Journalists should serve society, and on behalf of this society they should exercise control over public authorities. Journalists are mainly supposed to provide their recipients with reliable and true information. PR specialists are also supposed to provide information, yet that concern th business. Public opinion and its role in the liberal-democratic political system are of crucial significance this relation. Both parties want to mold public opinion, to win its interest, they both function thanks to it and depend on it. They are also indispensably related, as evidenced by both the theory and practice of ther relations, which also necessitates that care is taken their appropriate quality.

Contemporary Polish-Russian relations are examined, taking into consideration the broad internal conditions in Poland and in Russia. Negative mutual stereotypes prevail in both countries, shaped in the course of a complicated history of mutual relations, while the concepts of international policies in both states are underdeveloped and divergent. Polish-Russian relations are increasingly more influenced by external conditions, such as the profound change Europe is going through and the evolution of the entire international order. The most important modern issues in Polish-Russian relations concern the persistent differences in the perception of the history of mutual relations, dissimilar concepts of the European security system, and energy security. The conditions of relations between Poland and Russia affect Poland's ability to pursue its international interests in many areas: in relations with Russia and the CIS, in the forum of international organizations (NATO, EU, Council of Europe, OSCE and the UN), in relations with Poland's closest allies and partners (Germany, France, U.S. and Ukraine). Finally, Polish-Russian relations influence the position and international role of Poland, limiting it when these relations are bad or augmenting it when they are good. Since late 2007 Poland has been trying to conduct a pragmatic policy and normalize its relations with Russia. In general, Polish-Russian reconciliation seems feasible.

This article raises the issue of how the Russian Federation could benefit from the instrumental use of ethnic heterogeneity to pursue its geopolitical interests. The paper focuses on the recent case of a Polish-Ukrainian historical memory dispute which affected relations between Warsaw and Kyiv. The research focus is on how vulnerable Poland and Ukraine are to Russian active measures which potentially target not only national minorities but also groups of people who are only temporarily present in these states, such as economic migrants and tourists. An analysis is conducted of Russia's geopolitical objectives and its strategy toward Polish-Ukrainian relations in the broader context of the rivalry between Russia and the West. The analysis is conducted within the framework of the neorealist theory of international relations. The case study of specific events discloses how Russia could exacerbate tensions between nations and the role of ethnic heterogeneity in this regard. Against this backdrop, the author shows how Russia may challenge other states of the Euro-Atlantic community with similar active measures.

Unia Europejska odgrywa na arenie międzynarodowej wiele ról, a jednym z priorytetowych kierunków w jej polityce zagranicznej jest region śródziemnomorski. Od połowy lat 90. XX wieku UE stara się odgrywać jednocześnie kilka ról wobec państw w nim położonych. Najważniejszymi z nich są role: aktywnego aktora w rozwiązywaniu konfliktu arabsko-izraelskiego; promotora środków budowy zaufania, partnerstwa, bezpieczeństwa i rozbrojenia; promotora reform rynkowych i zrównoważonego rozwoju; propagatora demokracji i praw człowieka oraz dialogu międzykulturowego.Efektywność ról międzynarodowych, analizowana na przykładzie unijnej polityki śródziemnomorskiej, jest jednak niska, ze względu na konflikt między rolami deklarowanymi, rzeczywistymi i oczekiwanymi. W konsekwencji region śródziemnomorski nie został przekształcony w obszar pokoju, stabilności, dobrobytu i porozumienia międzykulturowego, co od 1995 roku było deklarowanym przez Unię Europejską celem. ; The European Union acts in numerous capacities on the international arena, and one of its priorities in foreign policy involves the Mediterranean. Since the mid-1990s, the EU has been trying to play several roles in its relations with countries in this region, the most significant being: an active participant in solving the Arab-Israeli conflict; a promoter of measures to build trust, partnership, security and disarmament; a promoter of market reforms and sustainable development; an advocate of democracy and human rights as well as cross-cultural dialogue.Assessed on the basis of its Mediterranean policy, the efficiency of the EU's international roles, however, is poor, on account of the conflict between the roles the EU declares to be playing, and its actual and expected roles. As a consequence, the Mediterranean has not transformed into the area of peace, stability, welfare and cross-cultural understanding which has been declared as the EU's objective since 1995.

Unia Europejska odgrywa na arenie międzynarodowej wiele ról, a jednym z priorytetowych kierunków w jej polityce zagranicznej jest region śródziemnomorski. Od połowy lat 90. XX wieku UE stara się odgrywać jednocześnie kilka ról wobec państw w nim położonych. Najważniejszymi z nich są role: aktywnego aktora w rozwiązywaniu konfliktu arabsko-izraelskiego; promotora środków budowy zaufania, partnerstwa, bezpieczeństwa i rozbrojenia; promotora reform rynkowych i zrównoważonego rozwoju; propagatora demokracji i praw człowieka oraz dialogu międzykulturowego. Efektywność ról międzynarodowych, analizowana na przykładzie unijnej polityki śródziemnomorskiej, jest jednak niska, ze względu na konflikt między rolami deklarowanymi, rzeczywistymi i oczekiwanymi. W konsekwencji region śródziemnomorski nie został przekształcony w obszar pokoju, stabilności, dobrobytu i porozumienia międzykulturowego, co od 1995 roku było deklarowanym przez Unię Europejską celem. ; The European Union acts in numerous capacities on the international arena, and one of its priorities in foreign policy involves the Mediterranean. Since the mid-1990s, the EU has been trying to play several roles in its relations with countries in this region, the most significant being: an active participant in solving the Arab-Israeli conflict; a promoter of measures to build trust, partnership, security and disarmament; a promoter of market reforms and sustainable development; an advocate of democracy and human rights as well as cross-cultural dialogue. Assessed on the basis of its Mediterranean policy, the efficiency of the EU's international roles, however, is poor, on account of the conflict between the roles the EU declares to be playing, and its actual and expected roles. As a consequence, the Mediterranean has not transformed into the area of peace, stability, welfare and cross-cultural understanding which has been declared as the EU's objective since 1995. ; 8 ; 49 ; 61 ; 4 ; Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej

Celem artykułu jest próba ukazania mocy eksplanacyjnej i prognostycznej teorii stosunków międzynarodowych (neorealizm, neoliberalny instytucjonalizm i konstruktywizm społeczny) w sytuacji widocznych problemów z przewidzeniem końca zimnej wojny i wyjaśnieniem procesu demokratyzacji w państwach Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej oraz innych częściach świata. W obliczu istotnych przemian, które miały wpływ na kształtowanie się nowego pozimnowojennego porządku międzynarodowego, należy zastanowić się nad znaczeniem teorii w przyjmowaniu odpowiednich strategii badawczych, aby z jednej strony, można było z jakimś stopniem prawdopodobieństwa przewidzieć bieg wydarzeń oraz z drugiej, wyjaśnić ich istotę i znaczenie. Koniec zimnej wojny oraz proces transformacji państw Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej stawiają więc generalne i niezwykle istotne pytanie o możliwość rozwijania naukowego podejścia do analizy stosunków międzynarodowych, które wychodzi poza jedynie krótkoterminową obserwację bieżących wydarzeń. W artykule poddane są analizie najważniejsze podejścia teoretyczne w kontekście przyjęcia takiej strategii badawczej, dzięki której można by odchodzić od dominacji skrajnych wykluczających się wzajemnie stanowisk. Toczone do tej pory wielkie debaty pokazały, że bogactwo w nauce wynika nie z jednostronnego podejścia, nawet jeżeli w pewnym momencie, czy okresie mamy do czynienia z supremacją określonej teorii czy podejścia metodologicznego. Fiasko nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych w przewidzeniu końca zimnej wojny ukazało konieczność podjęcia takich działań, których zadaniem byłoby łączenie a nie wykluczanie. Koniec zimnej wojny i proces transformacji Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej są więc traktowane jako studia przypadku pomocne w testowaniu teorii stosunków międzynarodowych jako adekwatnych narzędzi do analizy zmieniającej się sytuacji międzynarodowej. ; The aim of the article is to show the explanatory and prognostic power of theories of international relations (neorealism, neo-liberal institu¬tionalism and social constructivism) in the situation of visible problems with predicting the end of the Cold War and explaining the democratization pro¬cess in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and other parts of the world. In the face of significant changes that have influenced the formation of a new post-Cold War international order, it is necessary to consider the im¬portance of the theory in adopting appropriate research strategies so that on the one hand, it is possible to predict the course of events with some degree of probability and on the other, to explain their essence and importance. The end of the Cold War and the process of transforming the countries of Central and Eastern Europe thus pose a general and extremely important question about the possibility of developing a scientific approach to the analysis of international relations, which goes beyond only short-term observation of cur¬rent events. The article analyzes the most important theoretical approaches in the context of adopting such a research strategy, thanks to which one could depart from the dominance of extreme, mutually exclusive positions. The great debates that have been held so far have shown that wealth in science is not a one-sided approach, even if at some point or time we are dealing with the supremacy of a particular theory or a methodological approach. The fiasco of the science of international relations in predicting the end of the Cold War has shown the necessity of undertaking such activities whose task would be to combine rather than exclude. The end of the Cold War and the trans¬formation process of Central and Eastern Europe are therefore treated as case studies that help in testing the theory of international relations as adequate instruments for analyzing the changing international situation.

Celem artykułu jest próba ukazania mocy eksplanacyjnej i prognostycznej teorii stosunków międzynarodowych (neorealizm, neoliberalny instytucjonalizm i konstruktywizm społeczny) w sytuacji widocznych problemów z przewidzeniem końca zimnej wojny i wyjaśnieniem procesu demokratyzacji w państwach Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej oraz innych częściach świata. W obliczu istotnych przemian, które miały wpływ na kształtowanie się nowego pozimnowojennego porządku międzynarodowego, należy zastanowić się nad znaczeniem teorii w przyjmowaniu odpowiednich strategii badawczych, aby z jednej strony, można było z jakimś stopniem prawdopodobieństwa przewidzieć bieg wydarzeń oraz z drugiej, wyjaśnić ich istotę i znaczenie. Koniec zimnej wojny oraz proces transformacji państw Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej stawiają więc generalne i niezwykle istotne pytanie o możliwość rozwijania naukowego podejścia do analizy stosunków międzynarodowych, które wychodzi poza jedynie krótkoterminową obserwację bieżących wydarzeń. W artykule poddane są analizie najważniejsze podejścia teoretyczne w kontekście przyjęcia takiej strategii badawczej, dzięki której można by odchodzić od dominacji skrajnych wykluczających się wzajemnie stanowisk. Toczone do tej pory wielkie debaty pokazały, że bogactwo w nauce wynika nie z jednostronnego podejścia, nawet jeżeli w pewnym momencie, czy okresie mamy do czynienia z supremacją określonej teorii czy podejścia metodologicznego. Fiasko nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych w przewidzeniu końca zimnej wojny ukazało konieczność podjęcia takich działań, których zadaniem byłoby łączenie a nie wykluczanie. Koniec zimnej wojny i proces transformacji Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej są więc traktowane jako studia przypadku pomocne w testowaniu teorii stosunków międzynarodowych jako adekwatnych narzędzi do analizy zmieniającej się sytuacji międzynarodowej. ; The aim of the article is to show the explanatory and prognostic power of theories of international relations (neorealism, neo-liberal institu¬tionalism and social constructivism) in the situation of visible problems with predicting the end of the Cold War and explaining the democratization pro¬cess in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and other parts of the world. In the face of significant changes that have influenced the formation of a new post-Cold War international order, it is necessary to consider the im¬portance of the theory in adopting appropriate research strategies so that on the one hand, it is possible to predict the course of events with some degree of probability and on the other, to explain their essence and importance. The end of the Cold War and the process of transforming the countries of Central and Eastern Europe thus pose a general and extremely important question about the possibility of developing a scientific approach to the analysis of international relations, which goes beyond only short-term observation of cur¬rent events. The article analyzes the most important theoretical approaches in the context of adopting such a research strategy, thanks to which one could depart from the dominance of extreme, mutually exclusive positions. The great debates that have been held so far have shown that wealth in science is not a one-sided approach, even if at some point or time we are dealing with the supremacy of a particular theory or a methodological approach. The fiasco of the science of international relations in predicting the end of the Cold War has shown the necessity of undertaking such activities whose task would be to combine rather than exclude. The end of the Cold War and the trans¬formation process of Central and Eastern Europe are therefore treated as case studies that help in testing the theory of international relations as adequate instruments for analyzing the changing international situation.

The article concerns German discussions and plans regarding the future of the European Union and its international role. The fi rst part discusses confl icts or diff erences that burden relations between EU Member States regarding refugee policy, energy policy, the euro currency and arms policy. In addition, phenomena and processes such as nationalism and populism, Brexit and separatism are emphasized. Then the global changes are presented with which the European Union is confronted: the end of Eurocentrism, the US exit from the INF treaty, the future of the nuclear agreement with Iran and the US trade war with China. The rest of the article presents briefl y reactions in Germany, which fall into the mainstream of opinion formation, as well as concepts to overcome crises and shape the role of the European Union: democratization of the EU, the EU as a social union and a new policy of relaxation. ; Artykuł dotyczy niemieckich dyskusji i planów odnośnie przyszłości Unii Europejskiej i jej roli międzynarodowej. W pierwszej części omawiane są konfl ikty względnie różnice, które obciążają stosunki między państwami członkowskimi UE, tyczące się polityki uchodźczej, polityki energetycznej, waluty euro i polityki zbrojeniowej. Ponadto akcentowane są takie zjawiska i procesy, jak nacjonalizm i populizm, Brexit i separatyzm. Następnie prezentowane są globalne zmiany, z którymi konfrontowana jest Unia Europejska: koniec eurocentryzmu, wyjście USA z traktatu INF, przyszłość porozumienia atomowego z Iranem i wojna handlowa USA z Chinami. W dalszej części artykułu przedstawiono pokrótce reakcje w Niemczech, które mieszczą się w głównym nurcie kształtowania opinii, jak również koncepcje pozwalające przezwyciężyć kryzysy i kształtować rolę Unii Europejskiej: demokratyzacja UE, UE jako unia społeczna i nowa polityka odprężania.