Suchergebnisse

However, due to their opposition Lithuania's achievements were not significant at the international level.

However, due to their opposition Lithuania's achievements were not significant at the international level.

However, due to their opposition Lithuania's achievements were not significant at the international level.

The main problem of this thesis is the ability of the international regime theory to explain the international regime to solve the climate change problem. The object of this thesis is the international regime theory and its explanation of the international climate change negotiations. The purpose of this thesis is to test the neorealistic and neoliberalistic international regime formation theories on the case of global climate change negotiations. The research is being carried out on the basis of two main assumptions: firstly, that United States of America is the hegemon of international system; such position was especially revealed at the beginning of the last decade of XX century, when Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended. These events coincided with the first attempts to form an international regime to solve the climate change problem. It is assumed that only USA – the hegemon – had the ability and power to form such a regime. Secondly, the need to form such a regime arose because the essential problem was identified – global climate change. Since this problem will be negatively affecting the well-being of the all states around the world, it is their common interest to reduce its destructive consequences. During the research the definition of an international regime, created by Stephen Krasner and modified by the Tübingen research team, was used to identify the global climate change negotiations as an international regime. This regime was established in February, 2005, when the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force. When discussing for the Kyoto protocol, the negotiation positions of the states were in conflict on means to tackle the climate change problem most often. But when discussing for the extension of the climate change regime (for the new period of commitments of the states to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere of the Earth), the conflict on means was overwhelmed by the conflict of interest about relatively assessed goods. All of the main state-actors were relating their actions to the policy of their opponents. In the context of climate change problem, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per year is being measured as power. The more emissions, the greater power and influence a state has. It was found out that USA was a clear hegemon in terms of military, economic and carbon dioxide emissions in the last decade of the XX century. But at the second part of the first decade of the XXI century, economic hegemony of this state has diminished, while climate change related hegemony has dissolved. During the course of analysis in this thesis two hypotheses were formulated. Hegemonic stability one: USA, possessing hegemonic relative and climate change related power in the international system, having an interest to form an international regime to solve the climate problem, determines the formation and functioning of such a regime. Problem-structural one: conflict of negotiation positions of states about means to tackle the climate change problem determines medium regime-conduciveness, while conflict of negotiation positions of states about relatively assessed goods determines low regime-conduciveness. When tested on the case of climate change negotiations, the former hypothesis is rejected, while the latter is confirmed. The problem-structural hypothesis is additionally tested on the case of the ozone layer protection regime, thus consolidating the explanatory power of the problem-structural model. That does not imply that the variable of power should not be considered in international regimes. The role of state power is very important, but does not explain the formation and functioning of regimes alone.

The main problem of this thesis is the ability of the international regime theory to explain the international regime to solve the climate change problem. The object of this thesis is the international regime theory and its explanation of the international climate change negotiations. The purpose of this thesis is to test the neorealistic and neoliberalistic international regime formation theories on the case of global climate change negotiations. The research is being carried out on the basis of two main assumptions: firstly, that United States of America is the hegemon of international system; such position was especially revealed at the beginning of the last decade of XX century, when Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended. These events coincided with the first attempts to form an international regime to solve the climate change problem. It is assumed that only USA – the hegemon – had the ability and power to form such a regime. Secondly, the need to form such a regime arose because the essential problem was identified – global climate change. Since this problem will be negatively affecting the well-being of the all states around the world, it is their common interest to reduce its destructive consequences. During the research the definition of an international regime, created by Stephen Krasner and modified by the Tübingen research team, was used to identify the global climate change negotiations as an international regime. This regime was established in February, 2005, when the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force. When discussing for the Kyoto protocol, the negotiation positions of the states were in conflict on means to tackle the climate change problem most often. But when discussing for the extension of the climate change regime (for the new period of commitments of the states to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere of the Earth), the conflict on means was overwhelmed by the conflict of interest about relatively assessed goods. All of the main state-actors were relating their actions to the policy of their opponents. In the context of climate change problem, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per year is being measured as power. The more emissions, the greater power and influence a state has. It was found out that USA was a clear hegemon in terms of military, economic and carbon dioxide emissions in the last decade of the XX century. But at the second part of the first decade of the XXI century, economic hegemony of this state has diminished, while climate change related hegemony has dissolved. During the course of analysis in this thesis two hypotheses were formulated. Hegemonic stability one: USA, possessing hegemonic relative and climate change related power in the international system, having an interest to form an international regime to solve the climate problem, determines the formation and functioning of such a regime. Problem-structural one: conflict of negotiation positions of states about means to tackle the climate change problem determines medium regime-conduciveness, while conflict of negotiation positions of states about relatively assessed goods determines low regime-conduciveness. When tested on the case of climate change negotiations, the former hypothesis is rejected, while the latter is confirmed. The problem-structural hypothesis is additionally tested on the case of the ozone layer protection regime, thus consolidating the explanatory power of the problem-structural model. That does not imply that the variable of power should not be considered in international regimes. The role of state power is very important, but does not explain the formation and functioning of regimes alone.

The main problem of this thesis is the ability of the international regime theory to explain the international regime to solve the climate change problem. The object of this thesis is the international regime theory and its explanation of the international climate change negotiations. The purpose of this thesis is to test the neorealistic and neoliberalistic international regime formation theories on the case of global climate change negotiations. The research is being carried out on the basis of two main assumptions: firstly, that United States of America is the hegemon of international system; such position was especially revealed at the beginning of the last decade of XX century, when Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended. These events coincided with the first attempts to form an international regime to solve the climate change problem. It is assumed that only USA – the hegemon – had the ability and power to form such a regime. Secondly, the need to form such a regime arose because the essential problem was identified – global climate change. Since this problem will be negatively affecting the well-being of the all states around the world, it is their common interest to reduce its destructive consequences. During the research the definition of an international regime, created by Stephen Krasner and modified by the Tübingen research team, was used to identify the global climate change negotiations as an international regime. This regime was established in February, 2005, when the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force. When discussing for the Kyoto protocol, the negotiation positions of the states were in conflict on means to tackle the climate change problem most often. But when discussing for the extension of the climate change regime (for the new period of commitments of the states to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere of the Earth), the conflict on means was overwhelmed by the conflict of interest about relatively assessed goods. All of the main state-actors were relating their actions to the policy of their opponents. In the context of climate change problem, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per year is being measured as power. The more emissions, the greater power and influence a state has. It was found out that USA was a clear hegemon in terms of military, economic and carbon dioxide emissions in the last decade of the XX century. But at the second part of the first decade of the XXI century, economic hegemony of this state has diminished, while climate change related hegemony has dissolved. During the course of analysis in this thesis two hypotheses were formulated. Hegemonic stability one: USA, possessing hegemonic relative and climate change related power in the international system, having an interest to form an international regime to solve the climate problem, determines the formation and functioning of such a regime. Problem-structural one: conflict of negotiation positions of states about means to tackle the climate change problem determines medium regime-conduciveness, while conflict of negotiation positions of states about relatively assessed goods determines low regime-conduciveness. When tested on the case of climate change negotiations, the former hypothesis is rejected, while the latter is confirmed. The problem-structural hypothesis is additionally tested on the case of the ozone layer protection regime, thus consolidating the explanatory power of the problem-structural model. That does not imply that the variable of power should not be considered in international regimes. The role of state power is very important, but does not explain the formation and functioning of regimes alone.

The main problem of this thesis is the ability of the international regime theory to explain the international regime to solve the climate change problem. The object of this thesis is the international regime theory and its explanation of the international climate change negotiations. The purpose of this thesis is to test the neorealistic and neoliberalistic international regime formation theories on the case of global climate change negotiations. The research is being carried out on the basis of two main assumptions: firstly, that United States of America is the hegemon of international system; such position was especially revealed at the beginning of the last decade of XX century, when Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended. These events coincided with the first attempts to form an international regime to solve the climate change problem. It is assumed that only USA – the hegemon – had the ability and power to form such a regime. Secondly, the need to form such a regime arose because the essential problem was identified – global climate change. Since this problem will be negatively affecting the well-being of the all states around the world, it is their common interest to reduce its destructive consequences. During the research the definition of an international regime, created by Stephen Krasner and modified by the Tübingen research team, was used to identify the global climate change negotiations as an international regime. This regime was established in February, 2005, when the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force. When discussing for the Kyoto protocol, the negotiation positions of the states were in conflict on means to tackle the climate change problem most often. But when discussing for the extension of the climate change regime (for the new period of commitments of the states to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere of the Earth), the conflict on means was overwhelmed by the conflict of interest about relatively assessed goods. All of the main state-actors were relating their actions to the policy of their opponents. In the context of climate change problem, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per year is being measured as power. The more emissions, the greater power and influence a state has. It was found out that USA was a clear hegemon in terms of military, economic and carbon dioxide emissions in the last decade of the XX century. But at the second part of the first decade of the XXI century, economic hegemony of this state has diminished, while climate change related hegemony has dissolved. During the course of analysis in this thesis two hypotheses were formulated. Hegemonic stability one: USA, possessing hegemonic relative and climate change related power in the international system, having an interest to form an international regime to solve the climate problem, determines the formation and functioning of such a regime. Problem-structural one: conflict of negotiation positions of states about means to tackle the climate change problem determines medium regime-conduciveness, while conflict of negotiation positions of states about relatively assessed goods determines low regime-conduciveness. When tested on the case of climate change negotiations, the former hypothesis is rejected, while the latter is confirmed. The problem-structural hypothesis is additionally tested on the case of the ozone layer protection regime, thus consolidating the explanatory power of the problem-structural model. That does not imply that the variable of power should not be considered in international regimes. The role of state power is very important, but does not explain the formation and functioning of regimes alone.

It has been known for several decades that a constantly growing asymmetry of the military power between the US and their NATO allies complicates transatlantic security relations. If allies cannot communicate in military terms, the risk of political split appears. Therefore one of the main priorities is the necessity to ensure that the allies are able to make their substantial military contribution. Lithuania also contributes to it by taking part in missions together with its allies. Missions are of military (using weapons, executing military operations and performing police functions) and civil character (providing help in case of natural disasters, sending humanitarian aid to voluntary soldiers). This paper focuses mainly on military missions. The subject of the paper: The participation of Lithuania in foreign military missions. The relevance of the topic: More and more often articles appear in Lithuania and abroad criticising the participation of the Western countries in peace missions, including Afghanistan; casualties, moral validity of these missions and heavy expenses are questioned; a more and more prevailing idea of Neorealism is mentioned. The goals of the paper: • To introduce the main trends of the theories of international relations; • To analyse the participation of Lithuania in foreign military missions with reference to the theories; • To introduce a geopolitical context of the participation of Lithuania in foreign missions; • To review Lithuanian foreign military missions; • To discuss the perspectives of the participation of Lithuania in foreign military missions. The method of work: The work is carried out using a descriptive analytical method, a comparative method and the analysis of scientific literature. The aim of the paper: This papers aims to review the participation of Lithuania in peace missions, to discuss its political and military aspects, paying the greatest attention to theoretical aspects. Among many existing theories of international relations, Neorealism and Constructivism are the most appropriate ones to explain the participation of Lithuania in international missions. Although the main conceptions of those theories are contradictory, in Lithuania's case they complement one another. Supporting the power of the US, Lithuania operates in the field of Neorealism theory as well as a common system of values in line with Western countries (especially the US) operates in the field of Constructivism and historic experience with Russia. Since the international system is anarchic, the dominant countries are those having the greatest power. Therefore Lithuania's support of the superpower is an entirely logical behaviour. Moreover, Lithuania is linked with the US by the common identity, which was formed by the US consistent denial of Lithuania's occupation in 1940 and 1944, supporting the restoration of independence and providing help for Lithuanian emigrants. Therefore in Lithuania's case both theories should be applied in analysing the support for the US and NATO and the participation in their foreign military missions. The examination of Lithuania's foreign military missions should not be restricted to the theories of international relations. The geopolitical context, which has a great influence on the country's behaviour, should be taken into consideration as well. The historical context of relations is connected with the current behaviour and the attitude towards such countries as Russia and it also has influence on choosing allies and the support to the policy they execute, including the military one. Attention should also be paid to the reliability of the potential allies and the reality of threats, for instance, whether a real conflict with Russia is possible. Russia should be the starting point since it is the main factor which influences the choice and behaviour of Lithuania. It is impossible to analyse Lithuania's international policy and its participation in missions without taking into consideration Russia, which is the greatest and most powerful neighbour. This country owns some of the biggest natural resources and one of the most powerful armies with the arsenal of almost 4000 nuclear heads. Therefore its influence on Lithuania cannot be neglected. Russian threat is not unreal. Its current behaviour might raise serious concerns. Russian military doctrine, issued in 2000, claims that the possibility of a military conflict with any country or a bloc of countries is very slight and no country is considered as its potential enemy. The main current threats to Russian security and its territorial integrity are international terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and drug smuggling. Other threats are "territorial claims on Russian Federation" and "the expansion of military blocs and alliances which can endanger the security of Russian Federation". According to the military doctrine, Russia does not intend to fight with any country or a bloc of countries. However, it prepares for defence. At the press conference held at the end of January, Russian president Vladimir Putin once again noted that Russia has tested a new complex of ballistic missiles which is not owned by any other country. The warheads of those missiles can outfight any missile defence systems. The ballistic missiles have maneuvering heads. This can already be treated as the nuclear-weapon threat. Unconditional support of the US can be observed not only during the military missions, but also during military programs, such as the missile defence system and its dislocation in Europe. Lithuanian foreign policy has been traditionally oriented towards transatlantic relations and the consolidation of strategic partnership with the US. There is no doubt that such an attitude has been influenced by the US itself because currently it is the only power in the geopolitical arena which can influence Russia in the Baltic Sea region. The amplification of the US influence in the region, the neutralisation of new threats and a greater influence of Lithuania in foreign policy are the main factors that induce Lithuania to support Euro-Atlantism. Also, Lithuanian choice is influenced by the unwillingness to become the object of "exchange". It would become possible if the spheres of influence between Russia and the US or between the EU and Russia changed. It would be much more possible if the Lithuanian priority were Euro-continental security system. Inability to transform the EU and keep balance with Russia may lead Germany and France to the Russian zone of influence. It would be a threat to the independence of Lithuania. Because of these reasons Lithuania intends to limit its participation in ESDP. Officially it is stated as the intention to maintain transatlantic relations. However, it is not the only reason. ESDP is a step towards the federal model of the European Union which would limit the autonomy and decision-making of small countries. Lithuania is unwilling to become the province of the European Union, which, contrary to the NATO, is unable to provide security. Moreover, the participation in ESDP would require huge financial resources, which are allocated to NATO for the same purpose and therefore it is unreasonable to duplicate funds. There is also a problem of dual loyalty. Since the great EU countries and the US often come into conflict, it would become a problem to choose between NATO (the US) and ESDP (Germany, France). The participation of the US in the European defence system enables Lithuania to control political relations with other great countries – Germany and Russia. One more reason why Lithuania tends to support the US is that Germany and France neglect the concerns of small countries for the sake of their relations with Russia. Such behaviour is considered unreliable and therefore the priority is given to the US, since only trustworthy partners can remain in the security sphere. Before the Vilnius Ten supported the US in attacking Iraq, there was an opinion that after becoming a member of the European Union, Lithuania as well as other post-socialist countries would give Europe a sense of freedom. This idea became very relevant during the G. W. Bush visit to Vilnius when he supported and guaranteed security to post-soviet states intending to become the members of NATO, saying "You are needed in NATO". The Vilnius Ten soon proved this necessity but the opinion of the countries which assigned billions for their integration into the European Union and were against the war in Iraq was neglected. Soon after the war in Iraq, the US Congress approved the list of new candidates for NATO. G. W. Bush noted in his speech that those members proved their necessity not only by words but also by their actions. However, until the invasion of Iraq, the tension between the US, its ally Great Britain and France, Germany and Russia was so strong that, according to the US Secretary of Defence D. Rumsfeld, the Vilnius Ten position separated Europe into two parts - the Old and the New one. The reproach expressed by France that the Vilnius Ten lost a good opportunity to remain silent and German reaction towards the participation of Polish soldiers in a post-Hussein Iraq show that either France and Germany do not understand Central Europe or they simply seek for autocracy in the continental foreign policy and therefore a different position of "New Europe" countries is unhandy for them. Currently the dislocation of the US missile defence system is one of the leading issues in international meeting agenda. This issue is extremely important for Lithuania because its two strategic partners - the US and neighbouring Poland – are involved in it. Lithuania's position towards the missile defence system was, and still is, rather complicated. On the one hand, Lithuania must support its strategic allies and partners. On the other hand, it would worsen relations with Russia. A new defence project, National Missile Defence

It has been known for several decades that a constantly growing asymmetry of the military power between the US and their NATO allies complicates transatlantic security relations. If allies cannot communicate in military terms, the risk of political split appears. Therefore one of the main priorities is the necessity to ensure that the allies are able to make their substantial military contribution. Lithuania also contributes to it by taking part in missions together with its allies. Missions are of military (using weapons, executing military operations and performing police functions) and civil character (providing help in case of natural disasters, sending humanitarian aid to voluntary soldiers). This paper focuses mainly on military missions. The subject of the paper: The participation of Lithuania in foreign military missions. The relevance of the topic: More and more often articles appear in Lithuania and abroad criticising the participation of the Western countries in peace missions, including Afghanistan; casualties, moral validity of these missions and heavy expenses are questioned; a more and more prevailing idea of Neorealism is mentioned. The goals of the paper: • To introduce the main trends of the theories of international relations; • To analyse the participation of Lithuania in foreign military missions with reference to the theories; • To introduce a geopolitical context of the participation of Lithuania in foreign missions; • To review Lithuanian foreign military missions; • To discuss the perspectives of the participation of Lithuania in foreign military missions. The method of work: The work is carried out using a descriptive analytical method, a comparative method and the analysis of scientific literature. The aim of the paper: This papers aims to review the participation of Lithuania in peace missions, to discuss its political and military aspects, paying the greatest attention to theoretical aspects. Among many existing theories of international relations, Neorealism and Constructivism are the most appropriate ones to explain the participation of Lithuania in international missions. Although the main conceptions of those theories are contradictory, in Lithuania's case they complement one another. Supporting the power of the US, Lithuania operates in the field of Neorealism theory as well as a common system of values in line with Western countries (especially the US) operates in the field of Constructivism and historic experience with Russia. Since the international system is anarchic, the dominant countries are those having the greatest power. Therefore Lithuania's support of the superpower is an entirely logical behaviour. Moreover, Lithuania is linked with the US by the common identity, which was formed by the US consistent denial of Lithuania's occupation in 1940 and 1944, supporting the restoration of independence and providing help for Lithuanian emigrants. Therefore in Lithuania's case both theories should be applied in analysing the support for the US and NATO and the participation in their foreign military missions. The examination of Lithuania's foreign military missions should not be restricted to the theories of international relations. The geopolitical context, which has a great influence on the country's behaviour, should be taken into consideration as well. The historical context of relations is connected with the current behaviour and the attitude towards such countries as Russia and it also has influence on choosing allies and the support to the policy they execute, including the military one. Attention should also be paid to the reliability of the potential allies and the reality of threats, for instance, whether a real conflict with Russia is possible. Russia should be the starting point since it is the main factor which influences the choice and behaviour of Lithuania. It is impossible to analyse Lithuania's international policy and its participation in missions without taking into consideration Russia, which is the greatest and most powerful neighbour. This country owns some of the biggest natural resources and one of the most powerful armies with the arsenal of almost 4000 nuclear heads. Therefore its influence on Lithuania cannot be neglected. Russian threat is not unreal. Its current behaviour might raise serious concerns. Russian military doctrine, issued in 2000, claims that the possibility of a military conflict with any country or a bloc of countries is very slight and no country is considered as its potential enemy. The main current threats to Russian security and its territorial integrity are international terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and drug smuggling. Other threats are "territorial claims on Russian Federation" and "the expansion of military blocs and alliances which can endanger the security of Russian Federation". According to the military doctrine, Russia does not intend to fight with any country or a bloc of countries. However, it prepares for defence. At the press conference held at the end of January, Russian president Vladimir Putin once again noted that Russia has tested a new complex of ballistic missiles which is not owned by any other country. The warheads of those missiles can outfight any missile defence systems. The ballistic missiles have maneuvering heads. This can already be treated as the nuclear-weapon threat. Unconditional support of the US can be observed not only during the military missions, but also during military programs, such as the missile defence system and its dislocation in Europe. Lithuanian foreign policy has been traditionally oriented towards transatlantic relations and the consolidation of strategic partnership with the US. There is no doubt that such an attitude has been influenced by the US itself because currently it is the only power in the geopolitical arena which can influence Russia in the Baltic Sea region. The amplification of the US influence in the region, the neutralisation of new threats and a greater influence of Lithuania in foreign policy are the main factors that induce Lithuania to support Euro-Atlantism. Also, Lithuanian choice is influenced by the unwillingness to become the object of "exchange". It would become possible if the spheres of influence between Russia and the US or between the EU and Russia changed. It would be much more possible if the Lithuanian priority were Euro-continental security system. Inability to transform the EU and keep balance with Russia may lead Germany and France to the Russian zone of influence. It would be a threat to the independence of Lithuania. Because of these reasons Lithuania intends to limit its participation in ESDP. Officially it is stated as the intention to maintain transatlantic relations. However, it is not the only reason. ESDP is a step towards the federal model of the European Union which would limit the autonomy and decision-making of small countries. Lithuania is unwilling to become the province of the European Union, which, contrary to the NATO, is unable to provide security. Moreover, the participation in ESDP would require huge financial resources, which are allocated to NATO for the same purpose and therefore it is unreasonable to duplicate funds. There is also a problem of dual loyalty. Since the great EU countries and the US often come into conflict, it would become a problem to choose between NATO (the US) and ESDP (Germany, France). The participation of the US in the European defence system enables Lithuania to control political relations with other great countries – Germany and Russia. One more reason why Lithuania tends to support the US is that Germany and France neglect the concerns of small countries for the sake of their relations with Russia. Such behaviour is considered unreliable and therefore the priority is given to the US, since only trustworthy partners can remain in the security sphere. Before the Vilnius Ten supported the US in attacking Iraq, there was an opinion that after becoming a member of the European Union, Lithuania as well as other post-socialist countries would give Europe a sense of freedom. This idea became very relevant during the G. W. Bush visit to Vilnius when he supported and guaranteed security to post-soviet states intending to become the members of NATO, saying "You are needed in NATO". The Vilnius Ten soon proved this necessity but the opinion of the countries which assigned billions for their integration into the European Union and were against the war in Iraq was neglected. Soon after the war in Iraq, the US Congress approved the list of new candidates for NATO. G. W. Bush noted in his speech that those members proved their necessity not only by words but also by their actions. However, until the invasion of Iraq, the tension between the US, its ally Great Britain and France, Germany and Russia was so strong that, according to the US Secretary of Defence D. Rumsfeld, the Vilnius Ten position separated Europe into two parts - the Old and the New one. The reproach expressed by France that the Vilnius Ten lost a good opportunity to remain silent and German reaction towards the participation of Polish soldiers in a post-Hussein Iraq show that either France and Germany do not understand Central Europe or they simply seek for autocracy in the continental foreign policy and therefore a different position of "New Europe" countries is unhandy for them. Currently the dislocation of the US missile defence system is one of the leading issues in international meeting agenda. This issue is extremely important for Lithuania because its two strategic partners - the US and neighbouring Poland – are involved in it. Lithuania's position towards the missile defence system was, and still is, rather complicated. On the one hand, Lithuania must support its strategic allies and partners. On the other hand, it would worsen relations with Russia. A new defence project, National Missile Defence

It has been known for several decades that a constantly growing asymmetry of the military power between the US and their NATO allies complicates transatlantic security relations. If allies cannot communicate in military terms, the risk of political split appears. Therefore one of the main priorities is the necessity to ensure that the allies are able to make their substantial military contribution. Lithuania also contributes to it by taking part in missions together with its allies. Missions are of military (using weapons, executing military operations and performing police functions) and civil character (providing help in case of natural disasters, sending humanitarian aid to voluntary soldiers). This paper focuses mainly on military missions. The subject of the paper: The participation of Lithuania in foreign military missions. The relevance of the topic: More and more often articles appear in Lithuania and abroad criticising the participation of the Western countries in peace missions, including Afghanistan; casualties, moral validity of these missions and heavy expenses are questioned; a more and more prevailing idea of Neorealism is mentioned. The goals of the paper: • To introduce the main trends of the theories of international relations; • To analyse the participation of Lithuania in foreign military missions with reference to the theories; • To introduce a geopolitical context of the participation of Lithuania in foreign missions; • To review Lithuanian foreign military missions; • To discuss the perspectives of the participation of Lithuania in foreign military missions. The method of work: The work is carried out using a descriptive analytical method, a comparative method and the analysis of scientific literature. The aim of the paper: This papers aims to review the participation of Lithuania in peace missions, to discuss its political and military aspects, paying the greatest attention to theoretical aspects. Among many existing theories of international relations, Neorealism and Constructivism are the most appropriate ones to explain the participation of Lithuania in international missions. Although the main conceptions of those theories are contradictory, in Lithuania's case they complement one another. Supporting the power of the US, Lithuania operates in the field of Neorealism theory as well as a common system of values in line with Western countries (especially the US) operates in the field of Constructivism and historic experience with Russia. Since the international system is anarchic, the dominant countries are those having the greatest power. Therefore Lithuania's support of the superpower is an entirely logical behaviour. Moreover, Lithuania is linked with the US by the common identity, which was formed by the US consistent denial of Lithuania's occupation in 1940 and 1944, supporting the restoration of independence and providing help for Lithuanian emigrants. Therefore in Lithuania's case both theories should be applied in analysing the support for the US and NATO and the participation in their foreign military missions. The examination of Lithuania's foreign military missions should not be restricted to the theories of international relations. The geopolitical context, which has a great influence on the country's behaviour, should be taken into consideration as well. The historical context of relations is connected with the current behaviour and the attitude towards such countries as Russia and it also has influence on choosing allies and the support to the policy they execute, including the military one. Attention should also be paid to the reliability of the potential allies and the reality of threats, for instance, whether a real conflict with Russia is possible. Russia should be the starting point since it is the main factor which influences the choice and behaviour of Lithuania. It is impossible to analyse Lithuania's international policy and its participation in missions without taking into consideration Russia, which is the greatest and most powerful neighbour. This country owns some of the biggest natural resources and one of the most powerful armies with the arsenal of almost 4000 nuclear heads. Therefore its influence on Lithuania cannot be neglected. Russian threat is not unreal. Its current behaviour might raise serious concerns. Russian military doctrine, issued in 2000, claims that the possibility of a military conflict with any country or a bloc of countries is very slight and no country is considered as its potential enemy. The main current threats to Russian security and its territorial integrity are international terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and drug smuggling. Other threats are "territorial claims on Russian Federation" and "the expansion of military blocs and alliances which can endanger the security of Russian Federation". According to the military doctrine, Russia does not intend to fight with any country or a bloc of countries. However, it prepares for defence. At the press conference held at the end of January, Russian president Vladimir Putin once again noted that Russia has tested a new complex of ballistic missiles which is not owned by any other country. The warheads of those missiles can outfight any missile defence systems. The ballistic missiles have maneuvering heads. This can already be treated as the nuclear-weapon threat. Unconditional support of the US can be observed not only during the military missions, but also during military programs, such as the missile defence system and its dislocation in Europe. Lithuanian foreign policy has been traditionally oriented towards transatlantic relations and the consolidation of strategic partnership with the US. There is no doubt that such an attitude has been influenced by the US itself because currently it is the only power in the geopolitical arena which can influence Russia in the Baltic Sea region. The amplification of the US influence in the region, the neutralisation of new threats and a greater influence of Lithuania in foreign policy are the main factors that induce Lithuania to support Euro-Atlantism. Also, Lithuanian choice is influenced by the unwillingness to become the object of "exchange". It would become possible if the spheres of influence between Russia and the US or between the EU and Russia changed. It would be much more possible if the Lithuanian priority were Euro-continental security system. Inability to transform the EU and keep balance with Russia may lead Germany and France to the Russian zone of influence. It would be a threat to the independence of Lithuania. Because of these reasons Lithuania intends to limit its participation in ESDP. Officially it is stated as the intention to maintain transatlantic relations. However, it is not the only reason. ESDP is a step towards the federal model of the European Union which would limit the autonomy and decision-making of small countries. Lithuania is unwilling to become the province of the European Union, which, contrary to the NATO, is unable to provide security. Moreover, the participation in ESDP would require huge financial resources, which are allocated to NATO for the same purpose and therefore it is unreasonable to duplicate funds. There is also a problem of dual loyalty. Since the great EU countries and the US often come into conflict, it would become a problem to choose between NATO (the US) and ESDP (Germany, France). The participation of the US in the European defence system enables Lithuania to control political relations with other great countries – Germany and Russia. One more reason why Lithuania tends to support the US is that Germany and France neglect the concerns of small countries for the sake of their relations with Russia. Such behaviour is considered unreliable and therefore the priority is given to the US, since only trustworthy partners can remain in the security sphere. Before the Vilnius Ten supported the US in attacking Iraq, there was an opinion that after becoming a member of the European Union, Lithuania as well as other post-socialist countries would give Europe a sense of freedom. This idea became very relevant during the G. W. Bush visit to Vilnius when he supported and guaranteed security to post-soviet states intending to become the members of NATO, saying "You are needed in NATO". The Vilnius Ten soon proved this necessity but the opinion of the countries which assigned billions for their integration into the European Union and were against the war in Iraq was neglected. Soon after the war in Iraq, the US Congress approved the list of new candidates for NATO. G. W. Bush noted in his speech that those members proved their necessity not only by words but also by their actions. However, until the invasion of Iraq, the tension between the US, its ally Great Britain and France, Germany and Russia was so strong that, according to the US Secretary of Defence D. Rumsfeld, the Vilnius Ten position separated Europe into two parts - the Old and the New one. The reproach expressed by France that the Vilnius Ten lost a good opportunity to remain silent and German reaction towards the participation of Polish soldiers in a post-Hussein Iraq show that either France and Germany do not understand Central Europe or they simply seek for autocracy in the continental foreign policy and therefore a different position of "New Europe" countries is unhandy for them. Currently the dislocation of the US missile defence system is one of the leading issues in international meeting agenda. This issue is extremely important for Lithuania because its two strategic partners - the US and neighbouring Poland – are involved in it. Lithuania's position towards the missile defence system was, and still is, rather complicated. On the one hand, Lithuania must support its strategic allies and partners. On the other hand, it would worsen relations with Russia. A new defence project, National Missile Defence

Economic Diplomacy is a big challenge in the modern day world and opportunity. It allows states to create and maintain bonds with other countries in order to benefit its economy, which is important in an era of reoccurring financial crisis. However, different strategies are developed by different states and it is interesting to see what objective characteristics of the country influence Economic Diplomacy practices and how it does so. This research takes a look into three different states in an attempt to investigate how different characteristics, such as relative power, size and historical background, affect Economic Diplomacy decisions and priorities. Germany, Poland and Lithuania were selected for the research as they provide an opportunity for the comparative analysis of the most different cases. At first, this paper considers the theoretical aspect of Economic Diplomacy, defining the term and naming most relevant theoretical approaches to it. Then, main contextual differences between the states included in the study are established. These differences in political system, relative power and size, and historical background allow for more in depth comparative analysis, because it is possible to place results into a broader context, revealing which countries proportionally are doing better. Finally, Economic Diplomacy structures, priorities and outcomes are analysed. Neorealism perspective allows for a better view of power struggles within the global arena of political economy that all these states are incorporated into. The research reveals that Economic Diplomacy in Lithuania was the most broadly articulated from this selection of states. There is a special institution and strategies devoted specifically for this practice. However, as so far, outcomes are relatively poor because of historical context – inefficient governance and undeveloped image do not allow simple solutions to be effective. Poland can be singled out as a relative leader in FDI field, since it manages to attract significant FDI flows as well as become an important FDI source country. Germany is a big power, immersing into global power games. While Poland and Lithuania are looking for investments, Germany is housing many international corporations and is focusing its Economic Diplomacy towards more global goals and expansion of export market. All of these results confirm initial assumption that power, size and historical background are important, power remaining the most significant one.

Economic Diplomacy is a big challenge in the modern day world and opportunity. It allows states to create and maintain bonds with other countries in order to benefit its economy, which is important in an era of reoccurring financial crisis. However, different strategies are developed by different states and it is interesting to see what objective characteristics of the country influence Economic Diplomacy practices and how it does so. This research takes a look into three different states in an attempt to investigate how different characteristics, such as relative power, size and historical background, affect Economic Diplomacy decisions and priorities. Germany, Poland and Lithuania were selected for the research as they provide an opportunity for the comparative analysis of the most different cases. At first, this paper considers the theoretical aspect of Economic Diplomacy, defining the term and naming most relevant theoretical approaches to it. Then, main contextual differences between the states included in the study are established. These differences in political system, relative power and size, and historical background allow for more in depth comparative analysis, because it is possible to place results into a broader context, revealing which countries proportionally are doing better. Finally, Economic Diplomacy structures, priorities and outcomes are analysed. Neorealism perspective allows for a better view of power struggles within the global arena of political economy that all these states are incorporated into. The research reveals that Economic Diplomacy in Lithuania was the most broadly articulated from this selection of states. There is a special institution and strategies devoted specifically for this practice. However, as so far, outcomes are relatively poor because of historical context – inefficient governance and undeveloped image do not allow simple solutions to be effective. Poland can be singled out as a relative leader in FDI field, since it manages to attract significant FDI flows as well as become an important FDI source country. Germany is a big power, immersing into global power games. While Poland and Lithuania are looking for investments, Germany is housing many international corporations and is focusing its Economic Diplomacy towards more global goals and expansion of export market. All of these results confirm initial assumption that power, size and historical background are important, power remaining the most significant one.

Economic Diplomacy is a big challenge in the modern day world and opportunity. It allows states to create and maintain bonds with other countries in order to benefit its economy, which is important in an era of reoccurring financial crisis. However, different strategies are developed by different states and it is interesting to see what objective characteristics of the country influence Economic Diplomacy practices and how it does so. This research takes a look into three different states in an attempt to investigate how different characteristics, such as relative power, size and historical background, affect Economic Diplomacy decisions and priorities. Germany, Poland and Lithuania were selected for the research as they provide an opportunity for the comparative analysis of the most different cases. At first, this paper considers the theoretical aspect of Economic Diplomacy, defining the term and naming most relevant theoretical approaches to it. Then, main contextual differences between the states included in the study are established. These differences in political system, relative power and size, and historical background allow for more in depth comparative analysis, because it is possible to place results into a broader context, revealing which countries proportionally are doing better. Finally, Economic Diplomacy structures, priorities and outcomes are analysed. Neorealism perspective allows for a better view of power struggles within the global arena of political economy that all these states are incorporated into. The research reveals that Economic Diplomacy in Lithuania was the most broadly articulated from this selection of states. There is a special institution and strategies devoted specifically for this practice. However, as so far, outcomes are relatively poor because of historical context – inefficient governance and undeveloped image do not allow simple solutions to be effective. Poland can be singled out as a relative leader in FDI field, since it manages to attract significant FDI flows as well as become an important FDI source country. Germany is a big power, immersing into global power games. While Poland and Lithuania are looking for investments, Germany is housing many international corporations and is focusing its Economic Diplomacy towards more global goals and expansion of export market. All of these results confirm initial assumption that power, size and historical background are important, power remaining the most significant one.

There is an inescapable link between the abstract world of theories and the real world of politics. It is hard to create an equitable policy if the basic organizing principles are flawed. Respectively, it is hard to construct a well-grounded theory with the lack of knowledge of the global processes. As Stephen Walt (1998) noticed, disagreements about policy usually rest on more fundamental disagreements about the basic forces that shape international outcomes. Take, for example, the current debate on how to define the European Union (EU). On the one hand, EU can be defined as a single actor, one of many other actors of international system, which existance is based on a common identity of all member states. On the other hand, EU can be explained as a unit of sovereign states, which are acting independently from one another. The latter perceptions reflect the basic statements of two theories – respectively constructivism and neorealism. According to the specific nature of the EU, as a global actor of international system, when both – normative and with hard power related – aspects can be distinguished in the actions of the Union, constructivism and neorealism are the theories most valuable to explain the current processes. The debate over determination of a security object and threats that occur to it seems different depending on which theory they employ. In neorealist point of view the main object of security is a state that seeks to meet its egoistic interests by improving its power (military or/and economic). From the perspective of constructivism, an object of security is what a securitizing actor refers to. Following this logic, various political, economic, social derivatives might become an object of security. [.].

There is an inescapable link between the abstract world of theories and the real world of politics. It is hard to create an equitable policy if the basic organizing principles are flawed. Respectively, it is hard to construct a well-grounded theory with the lack of knowledge of the global processes. As Stephen Walt (1998) noticed, disagreements about policy usually rest on more fundamental disagreements about the basic forces that shape international outcomes. Take, for example, the current debate on how to define the European Union (EU). On the one hand, EU can be defined as a single actor, one of many other actors of international system, which existance is based on a common identity of all member states. On the other hand, EU can be explained as a unit of sovereign states, which are acting independently from one another. The latter perceptions reflect the basic statements of two theories – respectively constructivism and neorealism. According to the specific nature of the EU, as a global actor of international system, when both – normative and with hard power related – aspects can be distinguished in the actions of the Union, constructivism and neorealism are the theories most valuable to explain the current processes. The debate over determination of a security object and threats that occur to it seems different depending on which theory they employ. In neorealist point of view the main object of security is a state that seeks to meet its egoistic interests by improving its power (military or/and economic). From the perspective of constructivism, an object of security is what a securitizing actor refers to. Following this logic, various political, economic, social derivatives might become an object of security. [.].