Suchergebnisse

500 years ago both a doctrine and institution of sovereignty were created; both were changed frequently in order to meet contemporaneous political demands. After World War I a system of sovereign nation-states was formed, which has become extremely conservative and suspicious towards any change in the status quo. If history has taught us anything, it is to doubt any theory or ideology that claims to have knowledge of the end of sovereignty. Globalization processes have raised many challenges never before seen by nation states: the loss of control of both global and local economies; migration and technological advancement taking away the monopoly of information flows in and out the countries; global issues forcing states to introduce supranational organizations such as the EU and NATO. Anti-global movements arise within the frames of globalism, and therefore a paradox emerges: anti-global processes work in the global field. With this in mind we can say that they will not change the world's tendencies towards globalism, but they can change the sources of global flows and disassociate Western capitalism and Westernism from globalization. While nation-states remain an important political structure, attention should be drawn to discussions about decreasing control and increasing the economic information and human flows that fall outside of the purview of states. The doctrine of state sovereignty has never been so ideologically – as well as legally – weak, and the limits of sovereignty are becoming more and more visible in contemporary politics. Globalization processes have raised many challenges never before seen by nation states: the loss of control of both global and local economies; migration and technological advancement taking away the monopoly of information flows in and out the countries; global issues forcing states to introduce supranational organizations such as the EU and NATO. Anti-global movements arise within the frames of globalism, and therefore a paradox emerges: anti-global processes work in the global field. With this in mind we can say that they will not change the world's tendencies towards globalism, but they can change the sources of global flows and disassociate Western capitalism and Westernism from globalization. While nation-states remain an important political structure, attention should be drawn to discussions about decreasing control and increasing the economic information and human flows that fall outside of the purview of states. The doctrine of state sovereignty has never been so ideologically – as well as legally – weak, and the limits of sovereignty are becoming more and more visible in contemporary politics. This work contains history of sovereignty, history of the globalization processes, the limits of sovereignty of nation-states and challenges of the globalization. Work consists of 8 parts: English and Lithuanian summary, Preface, History of sovereignty, Survey of globalization and its processes, Limits of suvereignty, Conclusion, Literature

500 years ago both a doctrine and institution of sovereignty were created; both were changed frequently in order to meet contemporaneous political demands. After World War I a system of sovereign nation-states was formed, which has become extremely conservative and suspicious towards any change in the status quo. If history has taught us anything, it is to doubt any theory or ideology that claims to have knowledge of the end of sovereignty. Globalization processes have raised many challenges never before seen by nation states: the loss of control of both global and local economies; migration and technological advancement taking away the monopoly of information flows in and out the countries; global issues forcing states to introduce supranational organizations such as the EU and NATO. Anti-global movements arise within the frames of globalism, and therefore a paradox emerges: anti-global processes work in the global field. With this in mind we can say that they will not change the world's tendencies towards globalism, but they can change the sources of global flows and disassociate Western capitalism and Westernism from globalization. While nation-states remain an important political structure, attention should be drawn to discussions about decreasing control and increasing the economic information and human flows that fall outside of the purview of states. The doctrine of state sovereignty has never been so ideologically – as well as legally – weak, and the limits of sovereignty are becoming more and more visible in contemporary politics. Globalization processes have raised many challenges never before seen by nation states: the loss of control of both global and local economies; migration and technological advancement taking away the monopoly of information flows in and out the countries; global issues forcing states to introduce supranational organizations such as the EU and NATO. Anti-global movements arise within the frames of globalism, and therefore a paradox emerges: anti-global processes work in the global field. With this in mind we can say that they will not change the world's tendencies towards globalism, but they can change the sources of global flows and disassociate Western capitalism and Westernism from globalization. While nation-states remain an important political structure, attention should be drawn to discussions about decreasing control and increasing the economic information and human flows that fall outside of the purview of states. The doctrine of state sovereignty has never been so ideologically – as well as legally – weak, and the limits of sovereignty are becoming more and more visible in contemporary politics. This work contains history of sovereignty, history of the globalization processes, the limits of sovereignty of nation-states and challenges of the globalization. Work consists of 8 parts: English and Lithuanian summary, Preface, History of sovereignty, Survey of globalization and its processes, Limits of suvereignty, Conclusion, Literature

500 years ago both a doctrine and institution of sovereignty were created; both were changed frequently in order to meet contemporaneous political demands. After World War I a system of sovereign nation-states was formed, which has become extremely conservative and suspicious towards any change in the status quo. If history has taught us anything, it is to doubt any theory or ideology that claims to have knowledge of the end of sovereignty. Globalization processes have raised many challenges never before seen by nation states: the loss of control of both global and local economies; migration and technological advancement taking away the monopoly of information flows in and out the countries; global issues forcing states to introduce supranational organizations such as the EU and NATO. Anti-global movements arise within the frames of globalism, and therefore a paradox emerges: anti-global processes work in the global field. With this in mind we can say that they will not change the world's tendencies towards globalism, but they can change the sources of global flows and disassociate Western capitalism and Westernism from globalization. While nation-states remain an important political structure, attention should be drawn to discussions about decreasing control and increasing the economic information and human flows that fall outside of the purview of states. The doctrine of state sovereignty has never been so ideologically – as well as legally – weak, and the limits of sovereignty are becoming more and more visible in contemporary politics. Globalization processes have raised many challenges never before seen by nation states: the loss of control of both global and local economies; migration and technological advancement taking away the monopoly of information flows in and out the countries; global issues forcing states to introduce supranational organizations such as the EU and NATO. Anti-global movements arise within the frames of globalism, and therefore a paradox emerges: anti-global processes work in the global field. With this in mind we can say that they will not change the world's tendencies towards globalism, but they can change the sources of global flows and disassociate Western capitalism and Westernism from globalization. While nation-states remain an important political structure, attention should be drawn to discussions about decreasing control and increasing the economic information and human flows that fall outside of the purview of states. The doctrine of state sovereignty has never been so ideologically – as well as legally – weak, and the limits of sovereignty are becoming more and more visible in contemporary politics. This work contains history of sovereignty, history of the globalization processes, the limits of sovereignty of nation-states and challenges of the globalization. Work consists of 8 parts: English and Lithuanian summary, Preface, History of sovereignty, Survey of globalization and its processes, Limits of suvereignty, Conclusion, Literature

The article argues that universitas or Academia Europeana is, first and foremost, a category of value and not an economic, professional or political entity. Axiological structure that unites the university habitat is threefold. It consists of the three clusters of values coming from the different epochs. First, polylogue of the Middle Ages based on the principle of multicentrism and unmediated, face to face sharing of competence. Second, modern statism and scientism founded in the national monocentrism and a combination of mediated, written, and unmediated, verbal, sharing of competence. Third, modern economism and globalism supported by the national monocentrism and the instrumentation of mediated sharing of competence. It has been showed that Vilnius University possesses all three value clusters, while the idea of the millennium of Lithuania serves as an impetus to conceptually recapture the historic experiences of Vilnius University. The article shows that the three value formations of the Academia Europeana in the history of Vilnius University, which is posited as the extreme edge of the European university habitat, underwent an essential, even extreme, radicalization. It has been argued, that sustainable development of university education is unthinkable without the consonant development of all three historically formed clusters of values, the most important of which still continues to be centered around the tradition of classical polylogue – unmediated search for existential values that is carefully passed on from hands to hands and from generation to generation.

The article argues that universitas or Academia Europeana is, first and foremost, a category of value and not an economic, professional or political entity. Axiological structure that unites the university habitat is threefold. It consists of the three clusters of values coming from the different epochs. First, polylogue of the Middle Ages based on the principle of multicentrism and unmediated, face to face sharing of competence. Second, modern statism and scientism founded in the national monocentrism and a combination of mediated, written, and unmediated, verbal, sharing of competence. Third, modern economism and globalism supported by the national monocentrism and the instrumentation of mediated sharing of competence. It has been showed that Vilnius University possesses all three value clusters, while the idea of the millennium of Lithuania serves as an impetus to conceptually recapture the historic experiences of Vilnius University. The article shows that the three value formations of the Academia Europeana in the history of Vilnius University, which is posited as the extreme edge of the European university habitat, underwent an essential, even extreme, radicalization. It has been argued, that sustainable development of university education is unthinkable without the consonant development of all three historically formed clusters of values, the most important of which still continues to be centered around the tradition of classical polylogue – unmediated search for existential values that is carefully passed on from hands to hands and from generation to generation.

The article argues that universitas or Academia Europeana is, first and foremost, a category of value and not an economic, professional or political entity. Axiological structure that unites the university habitat is threefold. It consists of the three clusters of values coming from the different epochs. First, polylogue of the Middle Ages based on the principle of multicentrism and unmediated, face to face sharing of competence. Second, modern statism and scientism founded in the national monocentrism and a combination of mediated, written, and unmediated, verbal, sharing of competence. Third, modern economism and globalism supported by the national monocentrism and the instrumentation of mediated sharing of competence. It has been showed that Vilnius University possesses all three value clusters, while the idea of the millennium of Lithuania serves as an impetus to conceptually recapture the historic experiences of Vilnius University. The article shows that the three value formations of the Academia Europeana in the history of Vilnius University, which is posited as the extreme edge of the European university habitat, underwent an essential, even extreme, radicalization. It has been argued, that sustainable development of university education is unthinkable without the consonant development of all three historically formed clusters of values, the most important of which still continues to be centered around the tradition of classical polylogue – unmediated search for existential values that is carefully passed on from hands to hands and from generation to generation.

The article argues that universitas or Academia Europeana is, first and foremost, a category of value and not an economic, professional or political entity. Axiological structure that unites the university habitat is threefold. It consists of the three clusters of values coming from the different epochs. First, polylogue of the Middle Ages based on the principle of multicentrism and unmediated, face to face sharing of competence. Second, modern statism and scientism founded in the national monocentrism and a combination of mediated, written, and unmediated, verbal, sharing of competence. Third, modern economism and globalism supported by the national monocentrism and the instrumentation of mediated sharing of competence. It has been showed that Vilnius University possesses all three value clusters, while the idea of the millennium of Lithuania serves as an impetus to conceptually recapture the historic experiences of Vilnius University. The article shows that the three value formations of the Academia Europeana in the history of Vilnius University, which is posited as the extreme edge of the European university habitat, underwent an essential, even extreme, radicalization. It has been argued, that sustainable development of university education is unthinkable without the consonant development of all three historically formed clusters of values, the most important of which still continues to be centered around the tradition of classical polylogue – unmediated search for existential values that is carefully passed on from hands to hands and from generation to generation.

The paper presents an overview of M. Weber's modelling paradigm assessing it against the opportunities of using the models in modern science of public policy and administration. Two types of research problems requiring modelling of different levels are identified. The paper defines the static and the dialectic methods of modelling, the limits and possibilities of their application are defined. The novelty and relevance of the paper lies in the substantiation of advantages and drawbacks of static modelling and in the proving of the importance of normative character of science, which contradicts the traditional Weber's methodology. In public administration one may not rely only upon formal procedures, forms and rules, because this will not reveal the functions of the State and the interests underlying them. A public administration model must be characterised by normative content. Models of social processes must not necessarily reflect the reality exactly, however, they may serve as a tool for simplifying the mechanisms of social reality and for attempting to understand its mechanisms. Modelling may be static or dialectic. Static modelling is simpler since the number of variables it takes account of is smaller. In certain cases static modelling may be presented or desirable due to value considerations raised by the idealistic world. Idealistic philosophy gives rise to relevant phenomena, which can be neither confirmed nor rejected. Such models may be desirable as the given required by a peculiar belief and as components of the given. As far as social science is a value and "humanitarian" science, to such extent metaphysics, the static given and static modelling may yield results. Philosophical idealism is often presented as a source of political and economic liberalism, or a sign of equality Is placed between them. This is not entirely correct since state and social policy studies in the liberal social sciences are based on formal concepts without any normative content. Liberal sociological definitions designed for a parliamentary-democratic constitutional state usually cover only procedures, forms, rules and state activity instruments, avoiding a definition of the State's functions completely or partially. Not only the functions of the State remain unsubstantiated; possible consequences of manifestation of these functions or the interests of those who defend them or any backstairs interests behind the declared interests arc not explained. The Weberian methodological concept of democracy turns liberal democracy and pluralist theory into a sheer arsenal of technical means, which is unpredictable and incapable of explaining the deep phenomena of public administration and the more so - of social policy. It is not only in the West, but also in Eastern Europe including Lithuania, individual politicians and public administration experts wish to reduce the principle of social welfare to the constitutional and legal level, absolutising the legal aspect. Dialectic modelling is a kind of opposite to static modelling, or modelling that may supplement the latter substantially. And this is not just because it is able to "see the context". Using the dialectic relationship one may examine such historical dichotomies as belief and science, nationality and globalism, central and local government, private and public interest etc. In the most general sense, dialectic modelling is focussed on the determination of the content, form, contradiction between content and form, and finding of the place of this relationship in the world's development process. The methodology of dialectic modelling asserts that the dialectic relationship is a universal means of modelling of qualitative processes and may be used for the modelling of the processes for which sufficient qualitative exceptionality may be determined as compared with the previous qualitative stage. Eastern Europe encounters difficulties in social modelling due to a distinct transformational nature of social systems of these countries as well as due to frequent changes in the laws governing social security and tax policy. The latter factor also poses problems for Eastern European social scientists in processing the material and in modelling socio-economic development on its basis.

The paper presents an overview of M. Weber's modelling paradigm assessing it against the opportunities of using the models in modern science of public policy and administration. Two types of research problems requiring modelling of different levels are identified. The paper defines the static and the dialectic methods of modelling, the limits and possibilities of their application are defined. The novelty and relevance of the paper lies in the substantiation of advantages and drawbacks of static modelling and in the proving of the importance of normative character of science, which contradicts the traditional Weber's methodology. In public administration one may not rely only upon formal procedures, forms and rules, because this will not reveal the functions of the State and the interests underlying them. A public administration model must be characterised by normative content. Models of social processes must not necessarily reflect the reality exactly, however, they may serve as a tool for simplifying the mechanisms of social reality and for attempting to understand its mechanisms. Modelling may be static or dialectic. Static modelling is simpler since the number of variables it takes account of is smaller. In certain cases static modelling may be presented or desirable due to value considerations raised by the idealistic world. Idealistic philosophy gives rise to relevant phenomena, which can be neither confirmed nor rejected. Such models may be desirable as the given required by a peculiar belief and as components of the given. As far as social science is a value and "humanitarian" science, to such extent metaphysics, the static given and static modelling may yield results. Philosophical idealism is often presented as a source of political and economic liberalism, or a sign of equality Is placed between them. This is not entirely correct since state and social policy studies in the liberal social sciences are based on formal concepts without any normative content. Liberal sociological definitions designed for a parliamentary-democratic constitutional state usually cover only procedures, forms, rules and state activity instruments, avoiding a definition of the State's functions completely or partially. Not only the functions of the State remain unsubstantiated; possible consequences of manifestation of these functions or the interests of those who defend them or any backstairs interests behind the declared interests arc not explained. The Weberian methodological concept of democracy turns liberal democracy and pluralist theory into a sheer arsenal of technical means, which is unpredictable and incapable of explaining the deep phenomena of public administration and the more so - of social policy. It is not only in the West, but also in Eastern Europe including Lithuania, individual politicians and public administration experts wish to reduce the principle of social welfare to the constitutional and legal level, absolutising the legal aspect. Dialectic modelling is a kind of opposite to static modelling, or modelling that may supplement the latter substantially. And this is not just because it is able to "see the context". Using the dialectic relationship one may examine such historical dichotomies as belief and science, nationality and globalism, central and local government, private and public interest etc. In the most general sense, dialectic modelling is focussed on the determination of the content, form, contradiction between content and form, and finding of the place of this relationship in the world's development process. The methodology of dialectic modelling asserts that the dialectic relationship is a universal means of modelling of qualitative processes and may be used for the modelling of the processes for which sufficient qualitative exceptionality may be determined as compared with the previous qualitative stage. Eastern Europe encounters difficulties in social modelling due to a distinct transformational nature of social systems of these countries as well as due to frequent changes in the laws governing social security and tax policy. The latter factor also poses problems for Eastern European social scientists in processing the material and in modelling socio-economic development on its basis.