Suchergebnisse

The model of cooperative leadership is an alternative solution to leadership understood in terms of domination, hegemony or imposing its own political will on other entities participating in the system of mutual connections. The specificity of the political system of the European Union gives great importance to both intergovernmental and supranational mechanisms, while the key role in shaping this system is still played by the Member States. Although the treaty provisions ensured formal equality of states, the importance of Germany as an informal leader of the Community is increasingly becoming the subject of political debate about the EU. Taking into account the assumptions of neoliberal institutionalism related to both the key position of states and the great importance of institutions guaranteeing the transparency of their activities, as well as taking into account the long-term benefits of cooperation, the article defines the concept of leadership in the context of state cooperative behavior. The adopted methodological and theoretical framework allowed for a detailed analysis of Germany's influence in the EU, especially in the field of diplomatic activities. The aim of the article was to define the main determinants of the role of Germany as the EU leader, which bases its leadership on cooperation with other Member States, recognizing and respecting institutional solutions that limit the possibility of implementing individual priorities and guarantee transparency of actions for common interests, and in the long run legitimize the role of the state as an informal leader who represents a common position negotiated in the forum of the institutions. Using the institutional and legal method, the method of existing research and a case study (peace negotiations under the Normandy format), the main assumptions were verified and it was confirmed that the determinant of Germany's leadership is not only its political and economic potential, but also the ability to cooperate and provide information to EU institutions on activities in the implementation of the priorities of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The approach based on respect for common interests and transparency of actions strengthened Germany's image as a leader. ; Model przywództwa kooperatywnego jest rozwiązaniem alternatywnym wobec przywództwa rozumianego w kategoriach dominacji, hegemonii czy narzucania własnej woli politycznej pozostałym podmiotom uczestniczącym w układzie wzajemnych powiązań. Specyfika systemu politycznego Unii Europejskiej nadaje duże znaczenie zarówno mechanizmom międzyrządowym, jak i ponadnarodowym, natomiast kluczową rolę w kształtowaniu tego systemu nadal odgrywają państwa członkowskie. Mimo że postanowienia traktatowe zagwarantowały formalną równość państw, znaczenie Niemiec jako nieformalnego lidera Wspólnoty staje się coraz częściej przedmiotem politycznej debaty o UE. Uwzględniając założenia neoliberalnego instytucjonalizmu związane zarówno z kluczową pozycją państw, jak i dużym znaczeniem instytucji gwarantujących przejrzystość ich działań, a także biorąc pod uwagę długotrwałe korzyści ze współpracy, w artykule zdefiniowano pojęcie przywództwa w kontekście zachowań kooperacyjnych państwa. Przyjęte ramy metodologiczno-teoretyczne pozwoliły na szczegółową analizę wpływu Niemiec w UE, zwłaszcza na polu działań dyplomatycznych. Celem artykułu było określenie głównych wyznaczników roli Niemiec jako lidera UE, który swoje przewodnictwo opiera na współpracy z innymi państwami członkowskimi, uznając i respektując rozwiązania instytucjonalne, które ograniczają możliwość realizacji indywidualnych priorytetów i gwarantują przejrzystość działań na rzecz wspólnych interesów, a w dłuższej perspektywie legitymizują rolę państwa jako nieformalnego lidera, który reprezentuje wynegocjowane na forum instytucji wspólne stanowisko. Wykorzystując metodę instytucjonalno-prawną, metodę badań zastanych oraz studium przypadku (negocjacje pokojowe w ramach formatu normandzkiego), zweryfikowano główne założenia i potwierdzono, że wyznacznikiem przywództwa Niemiec jest nie tylko potencjał polityczny i gospodarczy, ale także zdolność do współpracy i dostarczanie informacji instytucjom UE na temat działań w zakresie realizacji priorytetów Wspólnej Polityki Zagranicznej i Bezpieczeństwa. Podejście oparte na respektowaniu wspólnych interesów i przejrzystości działań wzmocniło wizerunek Niemiec jako lidera UE.

This article examines the reasons for adopting a non‑institutional character of the Visegrad cooperation in the years 1991‑1992. Its focus concerns two causes of the initial reluctance to institutionalise the Visegrad Group: the high level of unpredictability in Central Europe after the collapse of Communism and the symbolic role the Group was expected to play outside the region. These issues are considered through the prism of two theories in International Relations: neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism. Both provide theoreti‑ cal grounds to support the research hypothesis which assumes that the infor‑ mal character of the Visegrad cooperation was a pragmatic choice of its found‑ ing members. However, neorealist and neoliberal explanations of how the political background and security issues could have influenced their decision vary. The article concludes that the neorealist approach holds more explana‑ tory power in this regard, suggesting that the choice of the Visegrad states was dictated by the preservation of their national interests and subjected to ex‑ ternal limitations, rather than motivated by a common intention to facilitate their regional cooperation. ; Arkadiusz Nyzio

Argues that neoliberal institutionalism misconstructs the realist analysis of international anarchy and therefore it misunderstands realism's analysis of the inhibiting effects of anarchy on the willingness of states to cooperate. Highlights the profound divergences between realism and the newest liberal institutionalism. Argues that the former is likely to be proven analytically superior to the latter. (Abstract amended)

AbstractThis is a complement to Anne Haila's critique of institutionalism in Chinese urbanism. This is understood as an extension of Ronald Coase's transaction cost economics in urban space. The focus is well‐defined property rights which, extended to both urban land and intellectual property, allow monopoly competition and internalise public goods — whether social or environmental — into the logic of the neoliberal commoditized transaction. This ('Washington‐Consensus') notion of rights is contrasted to the blurred ('Beijing‐Consensus') property rights arrangements of today's China. Here property is a 'bundle of rights', in which different legal persons have rights in the same unit of urban space. In this property is not well defined but instead a 'boundary object'. I draw on Francois Jullien to describe such relational property, which is coloured, less by individualism, than by Taoist‐like relations. These comprise a long‐time horizon, an ongoing never completed, never actualized character of transacting or exchange. They comprise rights‐sharing, obligation‐sharing and risk‐sharing. Parallels are drawn with, not Roman and Continental a priorist, but with English a posteriorist notions of property.Résumé À l'appui de la critique d'Anne Haila sur l'institutionnalisme dans l'urbanisme chinois, ce texte l'appréhende comme une extension, à l'espace urbain, de l'économie des coûts de transaction selon Ronald Coase. Le propos s'attache aux droits de propriété bien définis qui, étendus aux terrains urbains et à la propriété intellectuelle, permettent une concurrence monopolistique et une internalisation des biens publics, qu'ils soient sociaux ou environnementaux, dans la logique de la transaction néolibérale banalisée. Cette notion des droits (dans l'axe du Consensus de Washington) est opposée aux dispositifs flous (au sens d'un 'Consensus de Beijing') propres aux droits de propriété dans la Chine d'aujourd'hui. La propriété y est constituée d'un 'lot de droits', par lequel plusieurs personnes morales ont des droits dans la même unité d'espace urbain; la propriété n'y est pas définie avec précision, constituant plutôt un 'objet‐frontière'. François Jullien éclaire la description de cette propriétérelationnelle, moins empreinte d'individualisme que de rapports d'inspiration taoïste; ceux‐ci correspondent à un type de transaction ou d'échange suivi, à longue échéance, jamais terminé, jamais actualisé– tout en englobant le partage des droits, des obligations et des risques. Par comparaison, cette conception de la propriété se rapproche, non pas des a priori de la notion romaine ou continentale, mais de l'a posteriori de la notion anglaise.

The newest liberal institutionalism asserts that, although it accepts a major realist proposition that international anarchy impedes cooperation among states, it can nevertheless affirm the central tenets of the liberal institutionalist tradition that states can achieve cooperation and that international institutions can help them work together. However, this essay's principal argument is that neoliberal institutionalism misconstrues the realist analysis of international anarchy and therefore it misunderstands realism's analysis of the inhibiting effects of anarchy on the willingness of states to cooperate. This essay highlights the profound divergences between realism and the newest liberal institutionalism. It also argues that the former is likely to be proven analytically superior to the latter.

Enter any additional information or requests for the Library here. ; This article presents and argues for a collaborative model for disaster risk management in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The research employed a qualitative study through a literature review and empirical research through focus group interviews to realize its objectives. As a key theory of multinational collaboration, neoliberal institutionalism—a subset of the international relations theory—was used to develop the SADC institutional collaborative model. The model combined the theoretical, political, and technical dimensions of collaboration to enhance buy-in for the disaster risk management and reduction function of governments. The model demonstrates the need for a multidisciplinary approach to achieving disaster risk management and reduction in the SADC and elsewhere, if the developmental objectives of disaster risk reduction are to be realized without interference in the domestic affairs of the member countries. This model is therefore grounded in seeking consensus and cooperation among cooperating states in a quest to ensure national implementation of the regional framework on disaster risk reduction.

Enter any additional information or requests for the Library here. ; This article presents and argues for a collaborative model for disaster risk management in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The research employed a qualitative study through a literature review and empirical research through focus group interviews to realize its objectives. As a key theory of multinational collaboration, neoliberal institutionalism—a subset of the international relations theory—was used to develop the SADC institutional collaborative model. The model combined the theoretical, political, and technical dimensions of collaboration to enhance buy-in for the disaster risk management and reduction function of governments. The model demonstrates the need for a multidisciplinary approach to achieving disaster risk management and reduction in the SADC and elsewhere, if the developmental objectives of disaster risk reduction are to be realized without interference in the domestic affairs of the member countries. This model is therefore grounded in seeking consensus and cooperation among cooperating states in a quest to ensure national implementation of the regional framework on disaster risk reduction.

As an emerging geopolitical hotspot, will the future of the Arctic be dominated by conflict or cooperation among states? With the potential for vast natural resources and the promise of transpolar shipping, the opening Arctic may be the new frontier for global competition. This thesis uses two theories of international relations, neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism, to evaluate the geopolitical landscape of an opening Arctic. This thesis argues that the characterization of the Arctic as a zone of either competition or cooperation is overly simplistic. While structural neorealist theory can accurately account for some of the Arctic countries' behavior, it is unable to explain forms of cooperation existing and emerging among them. In addition to laying out the overall state of cooperation and conflict among the Arctic countries, this thesis also examines two cases in detail: conflicts between Russia and Norway over the Barents Sea, and the United States and Canada over the Northwest Passage. Neorealism fails to account fully for the emergence of cooperation in the form of an equitable treaty on the maritime delimitation line between Russian and Norway. The international regimes were enablers of inter-state cooperation in the U.S.-Canadian case, and were a contributing factor in dispute settlement. ; http://archive.org/details/arcticsovereignt1094510589 ; US Navy (USN) author

Neoliberal institutionalism, developed by Robert Keohane, & liberal theory of international relations elaborated by Andrew Moravcsik, nowadays represent two grand International Relations (IR) theories drawing on liberalism as one of the main theoretical approaches in this discipline. However, Keohane conceived of neoliberal institutionalism as a synthesis of realism & liberalism & Moravcsik proceeds from a specific understanding of liberalism & defines liberalism by the criteria of empirical social science. This essay examines, therefore, whether neoliberal institutionalism & liberal theory indeed involve & assemble together the main ideas of liberalism. The perspective applied in the essay is based on the intellectual history of liberalism and, in this way, regards the assumptions about the most fundamental actor in international relations & about the evolution of international relations as the intellectual core of liberalism. According to liberalism, individuals & collective social actors constituted by individuals (social & bureaucratic groups) are the most fundamental actors in international relations & international relations undergo transformation, in the course of which cooperation gradually prevails over conflict. Neoliberal institutionalism considers the state to be the most fundamental actor in international relations & assumes that the nature of international relations transforms & they acquire a more cooperative character. Liberal theory claims that individuals & social groups are the most fundamental actors & that international relations undergo transformation that is marked by the growth of cooperation. Consequently, whereas neoliberal institutionalism involves the intellectual core of liberalism only to some extent, liberal theory implies that there is a grand theory that subsumes the main ideas of liberalism. Adapted from the source document.

Der Autor führt neoliberale und realistische Ansichten zur Bedeutung von Bündnissen zusammen und bietet einen ergänzenden Ansatz für eine Theorie der internationalen Beziehungen. Seine These ist, daß unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen Bündnisse die Konflikte ihrer Mitglieder verschärfen können. Sein Testfall sind die sicherheitspolitischen Beziehungen zwischen der Türkei und Griechenland, insbesondere der Zypernkonflikt, im Kontext der NATO Mitgliedschaft.(SWP-Plb)

Frontmatter --Contents --Tables --Acknowledgments --1. Anarchy and Cooperation among Nations --2. Realism, Neoliberal Institutionalism, and the Problem of International Cooperation --3. The Tokyo Round Regime on Non-tariff Barriers to Trade --4. Rule Compliance and Dispute Settlement in the Tokyo Round NTB Regime, 1980-1987 --5. Rule Construction in the Tokyo Round NTB Regime, 1980-1987 --6. The Tokyo Round NTB Regime and Neoliberal Institutionalism --7. The Tokyo Round NTB Regime and Realist International Theory --8. Realism and Cooperation among Nations --Appendixes --Index

"Authority in World Politics" published on by Oxford University Press.