Suchergebnisse

Zdaniem instytucji Unii Europejskiej – co wykazuje niniejszy tekst – konieczność wzajemnie uzupełniających się interwencji w obszarach bezpieczeństwa i rozwoju jest efektem nowych zagrożeń dla Europy. UE konsekwentnie podkreśla, że "bezpieczeństwo jest niezbędnym warunkiem rozwoju" i że "trwały pokój nie jest możliwy bez rozwoju i eliminacji ubóstwa". Tworzenie i wzmacnianie warunków politycznych, społecznych i gospodarczych dla stabilności ma zasadnicze znaczenie dla bezpieczeństwa i jest warunkiem wstępnym rozwoju. Ta współzależność między bezpieczeństwem i rozwojem odgrywa kluczową rolę w zwiększaniu skuteczności działań zewnętrznych UE. Każde państwo, które dąży do zapewnienia bezpieczeństwa i rozwoju, musi posiadać lub nabyć odpowiednie zdolności we wszystkich istotnych obszarach, w tym w obszarze bezpieczeństwa i obrony. Umożliwi to nie tylko ustabilizowanie sytuacji w danym kraju, ale również przyczyni się w sposób konstruktywny do zaprowadzenia pokoju, uzyskania stabilizacji i zapobiegania kryzysom w jego regionie. Na przestrzeni ostatnich lat UE w coraz większym zakresie wspierała tę współzależność między bezpieczeństwem i rozwojem, prowadząc interwencje w różnych obszarach polityki unijnej i korzystając z różnych instrumentów. Bieżące działania na rzecz budowania zdolności w zakresie bezpieczeństwa w państwach partnerskich obejmują szereg obszarów polityki. W trakcie ich realizacji wykorzystywane są różne instrumenty i kładzie się nacisk na budowanie skutecznych, legalnych i trwałych instytucji, w tym na wydajny system sprawiedliwości i bezpieczeństwa, kontrolę granic oraz straż przybrzeżną. Działania te obejmują m.in. dostęp do instrumentów międzynarodowych, dialog polityczny, współpracę techniczną (w tym wspólne badania naukowe i innowacje), szkolenia (transfer wiedzy oraz rozwój umiejętności) oraz dostarczanie podstawowego sprzętu i materiałów. ; The link between security and development is a key underlying principle of the EU's comprehensive approach to external conflicts and crises and complementary to the internal security policies. As stated in the treaties, the EU's external action objectives are to preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security and also to foster the sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing countries, with the primary aim of eradicating poverty. The primary objective of the EU's development policy is the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty, but development policy also addresses sustainable development, inequalities, social injustice and human rights violations. This is essential in addressing the root causes of insecurity and conflict.The EU may use the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy missions outside its territory for peacekeeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security. The need for mutually reinforcing interventions in the areas of security and development is clear. The EU has consistently underlined that security is a precondition for development and that without development and poverty eradication there will be no sustainable peace. Creating and fostering the political, social and economic conditions for stability is essential for a country's security and a prerequisite for its development. This security-development nexus is central to maximising the effectiveness of the EU's external action.Current security capacity building efforts in partner countries span across a number of policy areas. They call on different instruments and focus on building effective, legitimate and sustainable institutions, including effective justice and security sectors, border control and coast guards. Capacity building activities include access to international instruments, political dialogue, technical cooperation (including joint research and innovation), training (knowledge transfer and skills development) and the provision of essential equipment and material. Training in the security sector seeks to improve a partner's ability to ensure stability and the protection of citizens.

Zdaniem instytucji Unii Europejskiej – co wykazuje niniejszy tekst – konieczność wzajemnie uzupełniających się interwencji w obszarach bezpieczeństwa i rozwoju jest efektem nowych zagrożeń dla Europy. UE konsekwentnie podkreśla, że "bezpieczeństwo jest niezbędnym warunkiem rozwoju" i że "trwały pokój nie jest możliwy bez rozwoju i eliminacji ubóstwa". Tworzenie i wzmacnianie warunków politycznych, społecznych i gospodarczych dla stabilności ma zasadnicze znaczenie dla bezpieczeństwa i jest warunkiem wstępnym rozwoju. Ta współzależność między bezpieczeństwem i rozwojem odgrywa kluczową rolę w zwiększaniu skuteczności działań zewnętrznych UE. Każde państwo, które dąży do zapewnienia bezpieczeństwa i rozwoju, musi posiadać lub nabyć odpowiednie zdolności we wszystkich istotnych obszarach, w tym w obszarze bezpieczeństwa i obrony. Umożliwi to nie tylko ustabilizowanie sytuacji w danym kraju, ale również przyczyni się w sposób konstruktywny do zaprowadzenia pokoju, uzyskania stabilizacji i zapobiegania kryzysom w jego regionie. Na przestrzeni ostatnich lat UE w coraz większym zakresie wspierała tę współzależność między bezpieczeństwem i rozwojem, prowadząc interwencje w różnych obszarach polityki unijnej i korzystając z różnych instrumentów. Bieżące działania na rzecz budowania zdolności w zakresie bezpieczeństwa w państwach partnerskich obejmują szereg obszarów polityki. W trakcie ich realizacji wykorzystywane są różne instrumenty i kładzie się nacisk na budowanie skutecznych, legalnych i trwałych instytucji, w tym na wydajny system sprawiedliwości i bezpieczeństwa, kontrolę granic oraz straż przybrzeżną. Działania te obejmują m.in. dostęp do instrumentów międzynarodowych, dialog polityczny, współpracę techniczną (w tym wspólne badania naukowe i innowacje), szkolenia (transfer wiedzy oraz rozwój umiejętności) oraz dostarczanie podstawowego sprzętu i materiałów. ; The link between security and development is a key underlying principle of the EU's comprehensive approach to external conflicts and crises and complementary to the internal security policies. As stated in the treaties, the EU's external action objectives are to preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security and also to foster the sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing countries, with the primary aim of eradicating poverty. The primary objective of the EU's development policy is the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty, but development policy also addresses sustainable development, inequalities, social injustice and human rights violations. This is essential in addressing the root causes of insecurity and conflict. The EU may use the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy missions outside its territory for peacekeeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security. The need for mutually reinforcing interventions in the areas of security and development is clear. The EU has consistently underlined that security is a precondition for development and that without development and poverty eradication there will be nosustainable peace. Creating and fostering the political, social and economic conditions for stability is essential for a country's security and a prerequisite for its development. This security development nexus is central to maximising the effectiveness of the EU's external action. Current security capacity building efforts in partner countries span across a number of policy areas. They call on different instruments and focus on building effective, legitimate and sustainable institutions, including effective justice and security sectors, border control and coast guards. Capacity building activities include access to international instruments, political dialogue, technical cooperation (including joint research and innovation), training (knowledge transfer and skills development) and the provision of essential equipment and material. Training in the security sector seeks to improve a partner's ability to ensure stability and the protection of citizens.

The Author analyses the infl uence of confl ict in Nagorno Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia on the domestic and foreign policy of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. He proves that the described confl ict for many years dominated in the political life of this country and was a basis of the ideology and the programs of elites struggling for power. In the struggle of the elites, the military elites played the main role, while being an important path to advancement to the peaks of power. The author tries to explain the infl uence of the Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia question on political transformation of the states in confl ict. Another important thread of the analysis is to search answers to the question, how tradition, culture, psychology, life styles and political interests of elites in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia affect the course and the effects of a peacemaking process aimed solving the Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

The attitude of the National Democracy towards the Soviet Union based on two factors: its political, military and economic weakness, which prevented Soviet aggressive foreign policy and common interest of Poland and the USSR, which was defence against German expansion in the East. So National Democracy wanted to have good relations with the Soviet state and objected of any intervention in internal affairs of the Soviet Union. National camp demanded from the USSR peacefulpolicy, stabilization on the Polish-Soviet border and cooperation in defending the territorial order in this part of Europe.The real relations between Poland and the USSR weren't so optimistic. The National Democracy accused communist government in Russia of the preparations to european revolution and to force all the countries to adopt totalitarian system. The ways of realization of that plan were Polish-Soviet war (1919-1920) and help given to Polish communists by the USSR in destructive activity against the Polish Republic. The National Democracy criticized east neighbour on dislike for political and economic cooperation with Poland, too. For the USSR better partners were Germany or France than poor Poland and national leaders had to resign from theirs conception of keeping close cooperation with the USSR.Poland was situated between Germany and the Soviet Union, what had grave influence on national conception of mutual relations with both neighbours. For the National Democracy Germany was the most dangerous enemy of the Polish state, so a natural partner had to be seek in the USSR. That's why, despite failures, national leaders during interwar period didn't change their main idea on good relations with the east neighbour on political and economic ground and were convinced, that the Soviet government would eventually change its foreign policy. Some political events strengthened the national camp in its conviction: a treaty of non-aggression, trade relations or influential Soviet politicians' speeches, for example ministries of foreign affairs, about the necessity of cooperation with Poland. But belief in their own conceptions caused misunderstanding of the real aims of the USSR, which were at odds with interests of Poland and based on intentions to destroy the Polish state.

The issue оf contemporary Macedonian state consolidation in the context of its aspiration to the European Union Since its establishment, the Republic of Macedonia has been facing the crisis of social and political system. This is connected with the complicated ethnic and religious relations, diffi­cult economic condition of the state and complex, international circumstances in the Balkans. The European Union makes the membership of Macedonia in its structures dependent on the implementation of solutions preventing the renewal of the armed conflict between the Mace­donian authorities and Albanian rebels in the year 2001. The reforms implemented on the basis of the Ohrid Framework Agreement (2001) are designed to provide the social and economic stability in the country, mainly through the cooperation between Macedonians and Albanians. The imbalance between the strengthening of the position of the Albanian national minority in the entirety of the state system and the progress in the establishment of the civil society raises the concern of the observers of the social and political life in Macedonia. The division of the society based on the ethnicity criterion is strengthened in Macedonia. The opportunity of the development of cooperation over the ethnic divisions is limited due to a strong role of nationalistic sentiments, insufficient legitimacy of framework agreement by the citizens and pathologies of social and political life (corruption, organized crime). It is likely that ethnic criteria that are the basis for currently implemented system changes in the Republic of Mace­donia shall dominate the pursuit to democratize the state as a whole. It will be a threat for the consolidation of the republic, since the particularistic tendencies may outweigh the peaceful cooperation for strengthening the unity of the state.

The Role of India in the United Nations Organisation according to the Political Conception of Jawaharlal NehruIndia's accession to the international system which is the UN stemmed from the conviction that it is an organization that in the postwar world shaped international relations based on the principle of political and economic cooperation and safeguard the peace. India's membership in the United Nations gave opportunities for the dissemination of political ideology and beliefs regarding aspects such as anti–colonialism, disarmament, peacekeeping. This created the opportunity to play a significant role for India in world politics. Hence, since accession to the UN India very actively engaged in the work and activities for the organization. India offered their services to mediate between the parties to the conflict, working in support of the independence movement and for the avoidance of violence between states, also tried to mark their positions within the UN. The presence of India in the United Nations and the active involvement of the various field activities of this organization is not only an opportunity to indicate their role in the international arena and spread an ideology of non–alignment, but also the opportunity to speak in the interests of the Third World and to winning economic aid to post–colonial states.

The attitude of the National Democracy towards the Soviet Union based on two factors: its political, military and economic weakness, which prevented Soviet aggressive foreign policy and common interest of Poland and the USSR, which was defence against German expansion in the East. So National Democracy wanted to have good relations with the Soviet state and objected of any intervention in internal affairs of the Soviet Union. National camp demanded from the USSR peacefulpolicy, stabilization on the Polish-Soviet border and cooperation in defending the territorial order in this part of Europe.The real relations between Poland and the USSR weren't so optimistic. The National Democracy accused communist government in Russia of the preparations to european revolution and to force all the countries to adopt totalitarian system. The ways of realization of that plan were Polish-Soviet war (1919-1920) and help given to Polish communists by the USSR in destructive activity against the Polish Republic. The National Democracy criticized east neighbour on dislike for political and economic cooperation with Poland, too. For the USSR better partners were Germany or France than poor Poland and national leaders had to resign from theirs conception of keeping close cooperation with the USSR.Poland was situated between Germany and the Soviet Union, what had grave influence on national conception of mutual relations with both neighbours. For the National Democracy Germany was the most dangerous enemy of the Polish state, so a natural partner had to be seek in the USSR. That's why, despite failures, national leaders during interwar period didn't change their main idea on good relations with the east neighbour on political and economic ground and were convinced, that the Soviet government would eventually change its foreign policy. Some political events strengthened the national camp in its conviction: a treaty of non-aggression, trade relations or influential Soviet politicians' speeches, for example ministries of foreign affairs, about the necessity of cooperation with Poland. But belief in their own conceptions caused misunderstanding of the real aims of the USSR, which were at odds with interests of Poland and based on intentions to destroy the Polish state.

The aim of the article is to present the role of Germany in the geopolitical game over Ukraine. It consists of three parts, in which successively were presented: general frameworks and the geopolitical dimension of Ukrainian crisis, the controversies around Ukrainian crisis policy towards Russia in Germany, and the role of a federal government in the geopolitical game over Ukraine in the period 2013–2015. The general thesis of the article is that despite internal controversies in Germany the CDU/CSU/SPD government works to keep the armistice in Donbas (Minsk I and II) as a foreground premise for carrying out long-range reforms and reconstruction of Ukraine as a associated partner of the EU, at the same time heading toward gradual search of agreement and compromise with Russia. In spite of criticism on the part of some NATO and EU members Germany entirely exclude weapon supplies to Ukraine, betting on the long-term need of peaceful resolution of Ukrainian crisis and demure the possibility of Ukraine's membership in NATO.

The Role of India in the United Nations Organisation according to the Political Conception of Jawaharlal NehruIndia's accession to the international system which is the UN stemmed from the conviction that it is an organization that in the postwar world shaped international relations based on the principle of political and economic cooperation and safeguard the peace. India's membership in the United Nations gave opportunities for the dissemination of political ideology and beliefs regarding aspects such as anti–colonialism, disarmament, peacekeeping. This created the opportunity to play a significant role for India in world politics. Hence, since accession to the UN India very actively engaged in the work and activities for the organization. India offered their services to mediate between the parties to the conflict, working in support of the independence movement and for the avoidance of violence between states, also tried to mark their positions within the UN. The presence of India in the United Nations and the active involvement of the various field activities of this organization is not only an opportunity to indicate their role in the international arena and spread an ideology of non–alignment, but also the opportunity to speak in the interests of the Third World and to winning economic aid to post–colonial states.

Peacekeeping operations are nowadays an important phenomenon in international relations and especially in conflict-ridden regions. The concept and framework of such operations has been constantly evolving in the past and one of the milestones of this evolution was the fall of the communist system and the end of the cold war. In Europe, this historic moment coincided with establishment by the Maastricht Treaty of the new organism within the process of western Europe's integration: the European Union. Both these facts triggered a reaction of the somewhat passive and hardly visible European defence organisation of the Western European Union. Its Petersberg Declaration of 1992 redefined security and sought to change peace obligations of the member states of WEU, as they accepted a broader responsibility and a broader concept of security in the European region. This was an important first step in making defence integration a part of the mainstream integration process. On the legal basis of the Petersberg Declaration, six operations were carried out. The paper discusses them, showing striking similarities, which actually comprise a special philosophy of intervention by WEU. This philosophy reflects both strengths and weaknesses of WEU's role in the European integration.

The federal principle in Switzerland has been developing for centuries. It was a process that has not always proceeded in a peaceful manner. The creation of Swiss statehood required reconciling different groups and interests. Today's federal solutions in Switzerland allow for the peaceful co-existence of different language and religious groups. Another challenge is to reconcile the interests of wealthy and poor cantons. Understanding how this happened can provide guidance for further integration within the European Union, which in many aspects might be compared to Switzerland. ; Zasada federalizmu w Szwajcarii rozwijała się przez wieki. Był to proces, który nie zawsze przebiega ł w sposób pokojowy. Stworzenie szwajcarskiej państwowości wymagało pogodzenia różnych grup i interesów. Dzisiejsze rozwiązania federalne w Szwajcarii umożliwiają pokojowe współistnienie różnych grup językowych i religijnych. Kolejnym wyzwaniem było pogodzenie interesów bogatych i biednych kantonów. Poznanie mechanizmów federalizmu szwajcarskiego może stanowić wskazówkę dla dalszej integracji w ramach Unii Europejskiej, która pod wieloma względami przypomina Szwajcarię.

W roku 25-lecia przemian w wolności i demokracji chcę ogłosić: W Polsce zakończyła się właśnie transformacja systemowa! Dokonaliśmy gruntownych zmian, zmieniliśmy nawet epokę. Dlatego powinniśmy oficjalnie zamknąć okres transformacji i ogłosić czas państwa dojrzałej demokracji oraz okrzepłej gospodarki. Niech ten rok jubileuszowy będzie symboliczną cezurą pomiędzy etapem burzenia i budowania a etapem urządzania i rozwoju. Niech to będzie nowy złoty wiek Rzeczypospolitej! ; In the year of the 25th anniversary of the transformation of the political system and of the struggle for freedom and democracy in Poland I wish to announce the end of systemic change in our country! The transformation that we undertook and implemented has been thorough and radical, even epoch-making. Therefore, the time has now come to close the period of change officially and to present the Polish State as a mature democracy and with a fully-fledged economy. Let this jubilee year be a symbolic watershed between the previous phase of destruction and construction, and the current phase of establishment and development. Let it be from now on a golden age of the Republic of Poland!Today, twenty five years on, I would like us to look back at the road we have travelled and draw some conclusions; but first and foremost, I want us to look at the present and to look ahead to the future. From a historical perspective it must be recognised that we have achieved a lot in this time of transformation. There have been errors too, sometimes leading to injustice and social inequality. The overall outcome is nevertheless positive, even more so considering where and with what we started. I must admit that 25 year ago, the only wish I had was to open the door to freedom. I did not think what the first day after victory would bring. Maybe I was hoping our freedom would have drawers full of programmes. As it turned out later, we had to build everything from scratch. We were learning democracy and the free market at a practical level, and I must say we have succeeded quite well.Talking about transformations, the path to freedom, or the road we are taking now in a free Poland, we should not only recall the year 1989 and see it as the only cause of our present democracy and free market. The events of 1989 were important, but were neither the first nor the last element in the chain of events that had their origin much earlier. One cannot forget the dramatic events in Poznań in June 1956, December 1970 in Poland and other bids for freedom. These painful experiences instilled in us a strong conviction that the only way to follow was a wisely managed and peaceful struggle. This conviction was subsequently reinforced by the words of encouragement we received from Pope John Paul II and which we managed to turn into reality. These were the foundations on which both the Polish August of 80 and the Solidarity movement grew, not only as a trade union or a freedom movement, but as a philosophy underpinning our actions. This philosophy helped us to survive through the difficult times of the 1980s, a time whichshook the nation, and when Solidarity was greatly weakened. In 1988 and 1989 Solidarity had lost some of its momentum and no longer had the support of so many millions; yet it managed to bring us freedom when we eventually sat down at the Round Table. We achieved much more than the concessions won in the Round Table agreement foresaw – our prime minister in 1989 and our president elected in free elections in 1990 were the two elements that sealed the peaceful revolution. Therefore we must now, twenty five years later as we celebrate the Anniversary of 1989, remember every link in the chain of events that lead to freedom.I would like to see in this logic of the actual causes and effects, another phase of the historic battle for a better future, this time on a global scale. The first calls that Solidarity made for unity, consensus and collaboration in building a fair, safe and prosperous global world take on a particular dimension today, and the Polish experience of solidarity and dreams of freedom may now become a guideline for nations and peoples who in the contemporary world must still cope with enslavement and hopelessness, and here I mean, also our brother Ukrainians and many other nations. Further, it may also show the direction in which global civilisation should develop, and serve as lasting points of reference. This is what the world today lacks most. Neither we, as a civilisation, nor as a global world or individual nations, have so far been successful in identifying those values that would be universal for the whole of humanity, and to which we could refer irrespective of nationality, race or faith. Consequently, we stand helpless in the face of global crises or local conflicts, or even tend to forget that in this global world our neighbour's problems become our problems, too.What our civilisation needs is a catalogue of unquestionable values accepted by all, without exception, on which to build a world of peace and safety. It is important that we agree to build our world on universal values, among which I include solidarity as the foundation of social life in many areas: economy, work, global collaboration, social inequalities. Solidarity and wisely used freedom should be the values from which universal respect for human dignity, the freedom of speech and religion, or the right to justice and equality of opportunity should derive. And we must make sure that these rights are wisely and efficiently exercised in a spirit of solidarity, locally and globally.Let this Anniversary discussion on history be at the same time a call for a debate on the shape of the future. This is the responsibility of the generation of those who have fought for and won freedom, and those who now want to use it wisely. It is our common task to make sure that these historical and democratic achievements, and in particular the potential which we, Poles, still have, is not squandered. It is a task to make the best of the chance Poland has today to build a new golden age. We should also remember that historically it has been a very long time since Poland's geographical and political situation was so stable in terms of lasting security partnerships, economy and development, if it ever was. This is a foundation on which certainly much can be built today. And I shall always be there too, to welcome all who are interested and ready to join. Like twenty five years ago … Or even earlier.

Peacekeeping operations are nowadays an important phenomenon in international relations and especially in conflict-ridden regions. The concept and framework of such operations has been constantly evolving in the past and one of the milestones of this evolution was the fall of the communist system and the end of the cold war. In Europe, this historic moment coincided with establishment by the Maastricht Treaty of the new organism within the process of western Europe's integration: the European Union. Both these facts triggered a reaction of the somewhat passive and hardly visible European defence organisation of the Western European Union. Its Petersberg Declaration of 1992 redefined security and sought to change peace obligations of the member states of WEU, as they accepted a broader responsibility and a broader concept of security in the European region. This was an important first step in making defence integration a part of the mainstream integration process. On the legal basis of the Petersberg Declaration, six operations were carried out. The paper discusses them, showing striking similarities, which actually comprise a special philosophy of intervention by WEU. This philosophy reflects both strengths and weaknesses of WEU's role in the European integration.

According to UN report Azerbaijan is ranked as one of the top countries with the vast majority of refugees and internally displaced persons- every eight Azerbaijani citizen belongs to one of these groups. What makes that matter worse is that 79% of IDP`s suffers from poverty or social discrimination. That situation is a result of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorny Karabakh which broke out in the end of 80s`. The first migrations started in 1987 and finished in 1991 and concerned mainly Azerbaijanis and Armenians going back to their motherlands(around 500.000 people all together). In 1988 situation in the region was getting very serious and hardly nobody killed in Sumgait and in Baku. In 1992-1994 a regular war broke out between Armenia and Azerbaijan. That is when the biggest migrations took place- Azerbaijanis and Kurds had to leave their homes because of the Armenian invasion on Shushi and Khodzaly. The most traumatic event occurred in 1993- Azerbaijan lost 13% of its territory and all people leaving there were forced to move out. In may 1994 a ceasefire under auspicious of CIS was signed between these two former-Soviet countries. Since then, something what might be called "a peace-war state" between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been existing. The peacemaking process is still in progress- there are OSCE Minsk Group (with Russia, USA, France) and UN working on that- unsuccessfully. The potential IDP`s comeback will be impossible even in next decade. That is connected with unsettled status of Nagorny Karabakh and Lachin corridor (which is a buffer zone) ; Według rankingu ONZ Azerbejdżan jest jednym z czołowych państw, na których terenie występuje wysoki odsetek przesiedleńców. Mniej więcej co ósmy Azerbejdżanin przynależy do jednej z tych grup. Sprawę pogarsza fakt, że ok. 79 % przesiedleńców cierpi z powodu ubóstwa lub społecznej dyskryminacji. Sytuacja ta jest rezultatem konfliktu między Armenią a Azerbejdżanem o Górski Karabach, który rozpoczął się u schyłku lat 80- tych. Pierwsze migracje rozpoczęły się w 1987 roku, a zakończyły w 1991 i dotyczyły głównie Azerów i Ormian powracających do ojczyzny (około 500.000 wszystkich razem). W 1988 sytuacja w regionie była już bardzo groźna i prawie nikt nie potrafił przejąć nad nią kontroli. Zaczęło dochodzić do pogromów, w wyniku których zginęło wielu ludzi w Sumgait i Baku. W latach 1992-94 doszło do regularnej wojny między Armenią i Azerbejdżanem. Gdy miały miejsce największe migracje, wielu Azerów i Kurdów musiało opuścić swe domy z powodu ormiańskiej inwazji w Szuszi i Chodżali. Najbardziej traumatyczne wydarzenia miały miejsce w roku 1993, podczas których Azerbejdżan utracił 13% swego terytorium, a wszystkich ludzi stamtąd zmuszono do wyniesienia się. W maju 1994, pod auspicjami WNP, podpisano zawieszenie broni między tymi dwoma poradzieckimi państwami. Od tego czasu między Azerbejdżanem i Armenią ma miejsce coś, co można nazwać "stanem pokojowo-wojennym". Prace nad przywróceniem pokoju, w które zaangażowane są Mińska grupa OBWE (z Rosją, USA, Francją) oraz ONZ, wciąż trwają bez powodzenia. Niemożliwy będzie potencjalny powrót przesiedleńców nawet w następnej dekadzie. Jest to związane z nieuregulowanym statusem Górskiego Karabachu i Korytarza Laczyńskiego (stanowiącego strefę buforową

The main aim of the article was the presentation of the tendencies of economic relations development of the European Union with the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China in the conditions of globalisation. The success of the Russian political leaders in their bilateral relations with the European Union show how important, in the mutual is approaching, are the rules and effectiveness of the international system built up in the past sixty years. An objective interest of the transatlantic community is therefore to the west, for safe and prosperous Russia, was idealistic and at the same time realistic. At the same time as it is also important, that Russia and not Africa whether the Middle East, is for Europe force, with the strategic nature. In the long term, to the european economy effectively and permanently follow in globalisation processes and that term was competitive with, Russia and China must first become innovative economy. In terms of prospective it should be emphasised that the best hope for the peaceful development of the international cooperation offers the most important actors contemporary on the world stage. ; The main aim of the article was the presentation of the tendencies of economic relations development of the European Union with the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China in the conditions of globalisation. The success of the Russian political leaders in their bilateral relations with the European Union show how important, in the mutual is approaching, are the rules and effectiveness of the international system built up in the past sixty years. An objective interest of the transatlantic community is therefore to the west, for safe and prosperous Russia, was idealistic and at the same time realistic. At the same time as it is also important, that Russia and not Africa whether the Middle East, is for Europe force, with the strategic nature. In the long term, to the european economy effectively and permanently follow in globalisation processes and that term was competitive with, Russia and China must first become innovative economy. In terms of prospective it should be emphasised that the best hope for the peaceful development of the international cooperation offers the most important actors contemporary on the world stage.