Suchergebnisse

Autorica istražuje mogućnost da se pesimizam etablira kao relevantan pravac unutar teorije realizma međunarodnih odnosa u objašnjavanju kako prošlih, tako i budućih događaja u međunarodnoj politici. U radu se koristi metateorijska interpretativna metoda kako bi se iznijele neke od temeljnih niti vodilja misli pesimizma, pri čemu je fokus samo na klasičnom realizmu unutar realističke teorije, budući da su njezine postavke ujedno i temeljna izvorišta pesimizma. U prvom dijelu rada iznosi se temeljne odrednice i biti realizma i pesimizma, drugi dio se fokusira na intelektualnu pozadinu pesimistične misli u radovima Schopenhauera, Nietzschea i Freuda, a posljednji dio iznosi kritiku optimizma i temeljne opreke u poimanju koncepta vremena između pesimizma i optimizma, kao i implikacije koje pesimizam ima za međunarodne odnose. Pesimizam kao pravac unutar teorije realizma međunarodnih odnosa ima filozofsku snagu i jaku teorijsku pozadinu te može imati svoje mjesto unutar realističke teorije međunarodnih odnosa. ; The author evaluates the possibility of the concept of pessimism establishing itself as a relevant factor within the theory of realism in international relations, that is, for explaining past and future events in international politics. The approach applies the meta theoric interpretative method in order to expose some of the tenets of the leading pessimistic theories where the focus is on classical realism within the realistic theory, since its origins are also the fundamental origins of pessimism. The first part exposes the fundamental postulates and essence of realism and pessimism, while the second part focuses on the intellectual background of the pessimism thought found in the works of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Freud. The last part expose a criticism of optimism as well as the fundamental contradictions in understanding the concept of time between pessimism and optimism, as well as the implications of pessimism on international relations. Pessimism, as a part of the theory of realism in international ...

O poimanju ljudske prirode u Machiavellijevu djelu možemo govoriti na dvije razine. Prva je razina njegov temeljni antropološki pesimizam. Polazna je točka Machiavellijeve političke filozofije da su ljudi po prirodi skloni zlu, što, kako navodi u Raspravama o prvoj dekadi Tita Livija, kao početnu pretpostavku mora uzeti i svaki zakonodavac. Na drugoj razini, narav je pojedinoga čovjeka po njemu bitno nepromjenjiva pa kada se ona slaže s vremenima, on uspijeva (primjer pape Julija II.), a kada je u neskladu s onim što zahtijeva kontekst, neuspjeh je neizbježan. Na nizu primjera iz Machiavellijevih djela pokazuje se da je njegov pesimistički uvid u ljudsku prirodu temelj na kojem se gradi cijela njegova politička teorija. Zlu i sebičnosti sklona ljudska priroda objašnjenje je za stvaranja zajednice, zakona i državnih institucija, ali i dinamike koja dovodi do njihovog kvarenja i propasti. ; The concept of human nature in Machiavelli's work can be discussed on two levels. The first level regards its fundamental anthropological pessimism. The starting points of Machiavelli's political philosophy is that people are inclined by nature to be evil, which, as quoted in The Discourses on Livy, must be taken as a starting assumption by every legislator. On the second level, the nature of a particular man is essentially unchangeable, and thus when it agrees with the times, he succeeds (Pope Julius II being an example), and when a man is in contradiction with what is required by the context, failure is inevitable. Many examples from Machiavelli's work show that his pessimistic insight into human nature is the foundation upon which his entire political theory is built. The human nature, prone to evil and selfishness, is the explanation for the creation of communities, laws and state institutions, but also for the dynamics that lead to their decay and destruction.

Od samih početaka ljudske civilizacije vanjska politika je jedna od nezaobilaznih i najvažnijih državnih politika i bez nje je nemoguće zamisliti funkcioniranje države. Budući da je riječ o složenoj i raznolikoj aktivnosti države, postavlja se pitanje kako na najbolji znanstveni način analizirati takvu politiku. U radu je stoga na pregledan način predstavljen neoklasični realizam, u radovima unutar hrvatske akademske zajednice relativno malo zastupljen teorijski okvir, koji bi, prema našem mišljenju, mogao biti češće korišten zbog svoje pluralnosti i relativno širokih mogućnosti primjene s obzirom na to da omogućava testiranje širokog spektra varijabli. Neoklasični realizam objedinjuje elemente klasičnog realizma i neorealizma na način da neorealističku analizu nadopunjuje elementima klasičnog realizma i interesom za unutarnju politiku i ulogu lidera. Pritom se vanjsku politiku država kao zavisnu varijablu nastoji objasniti analiziranjem nezavisnih varijabli na strukturnoj/sistemskoj razini te intervenirajućih varijabli na jediničnoj odnosno državnoj razini. ; Foreign policy has been one of the essential and most important state policies since the beginning of human civilization, without which it is impossible to imagine the functioning of a state. Given the fact that foreign policy is a complex and diverse activity of the state, the question arises how to analyse such a policy in the best scientific way. This paper presents a review of the neoclassical realism, as a theoretical framework that is relatively underrepresented in the literature within the Croatian academic community, and which, in our opinion, could be used more often due to its plurality and relatively wide area of application, given that it allows testing of a wide range of variables. Neoclassical realism combines elements of classical realism and neorealism, in a way that complements neorealist analysis with elements of classical realism and interest in domestic politics and the role of state leaders. In doing so, it tries to provide explanation of the foreign policy, as a dependent variable, by analysing independent variables at the structural/systemic level and intervening variables at the unit/state level.

This article first disputes the traditional view of Realist School of international relations as inherently positivistic, & second presents a reaction to the polemic taking its course in pages of this journal between Marek Louzek & Petr Drulak. In the first part, those aspects of the work of E. H. Carr & Hans Morgenthau that challenge their placing in the positivist camp are presented. In the second part, these remarks are used as a critique of Marek Louzek's schematic division of theories of international relations as between normativist idealism & positivist realism. Adapted from the source document.

This article summarizes the main contemporary theoretical approaches to international institutions as well as significant theories of institutions, which build upon those approaches. In line with the existing overviews, I focus on realism, neoliberalism & constructivism. All three approaches differ in regard to both the origin & impact of institutions. Whereas, the basic realist perspective regards state interests & power to be the main source of the institution's origin; the basic perspective of neoliberalism emphasizes the structure of state interests & collective action problems, which result from it. Many constructivists presume that so-called general institutions determine the origin of specific institutions. According to realists, the impact of institutions is dependent on state interests & power; institutions only regulate state behavior in a limited way. The neoliberal conception of institutions infers that: institutions significantly regulate state behavior since they help states resolve collective action problems. According to constructivists: institutions even constitute state identities & interests. Adapted from the source document.

This article presents a critical commentary on the debate between M. Louzek & P. Drulak. First, in direct contradiction to Louzek's position, the article argues that "objectivity" in social science is not based on a dogmatic belief in the ability of a particular theory to seize the "truth" of the world-out-there. Instead, the only way to approach the ideal of objectivity in our varied & complex world is to facilitate an open debate between different theoretical positions. The article then discusses the dichotomy between positivism & normativism introduced by Louzek. This dichotomy is artificial; realism is no less "normatively-oriented" than alternative paradigms in international relations theory. However, there is a relevant distinction between analytically-oriented & normatively-oriented theories that is overlooked by Louzek, who wrongly believes that all nonrealist theories of international relations belong to the group of normative theories. Adapted from the source document.

This study argues that due to a lack of attention paid to the national interest of actors in international politics the mainstream international conflict resolution studies fail in their prescriptive & descriptive aspects; particularly when conflicts are complicated by geopolitics. The case study of the long-standing conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh is used to highlight the strengths of geopolitical analysis, aimed at a proper understanding of a conflict's causes & the identities & interests of the actors directly & indirectly involved. This understanding is a prerequisite for coordinated international action directed towards the creation of the structural conditions for peace which would lead the prime actors of the conflict to choose peaceful resolution as a means to escape the hurting stalemate situation. In the case of Nagorno-Karabakh -- a conflict whose resolution has been impeded mainly by Azerbaijani & Armenian ethnic nationalism, coupled with fierce competition between the major powers in Central Eurasia -- a geopolitical analysis leads to the conclusion that the key to the resolution of the conflict lies in the hands of Russia. Such a resolution therefore presupposes a redefinition of Russia's interests, which would be based on the rational calculation that a deliberate destabilization of the South Caucasus will, in long term, hurt her interests. Adapted from the source document.

This essay starts from the argument that the first question preceding any meaningful scientific inquiry is one of a purpose & mission of scientific enterprise as such. Taking a historizing approach, it indicates that the nineteenth century positivist philosophy was built precisely around these questions, while it was precisely these questions again that were abandoned after the general acceptance of positivism in the USA during & after World War II. The essay then argues that IR realism, when aligned with the person & legacy of Hans J. Morgenthau, is a priori incompatible with both the original positivist philosophy & the positivism that eventually appeared in the USA with regard to questions of the "mission of science." Following this, the essay shows the consequences of the spread of positivism for IR. Adapted from the source document.

This article presents the idea that the social sciences are by nature normative & so simply cannot exist without normativeness at all. Their purpose is to understand & help solve social problems. The choices of issues, problems & questions are neither random nor objective, but are the results of normative consensus of their specific social-scientific discipline, as well as the greater social environment in which social scientists make them. This argument is applied to the polemics between Marek Louzek & Petr Drulak. I show that contrary to Louzek's assertions, the realism of E. H. Carr & Hans Morgenthau is strongly & explicitly normatively oriented. It is therefore unjustified to distinguish between normative idealists & scientific realists. The final section deals with the question what this conclusion means for the study of international relations. Adapted from the source document.

This paper examines some of the main assumptions on which the IR theory of political realism is based. According to the theory of political realism, national interest and not morality is the main criterion by which the state acts in its foreign affairs. In its first part this article examines three arguments in support of realists' skepticism towards morality in international relations. In the second part the concept of national interest and the possibility of its application as the main criterion in choosing the state action in international relations are examined. The author argues that the only plausible version of morality is universal morality based on respect for fundamental human rights. Realists' view of morality at the international level cannot be defended in a convincing manner. Still, the theory of political realism provides valuable insights about the nature of international morality and the limits of its application. Adapted from the source document.

This article presents a comparison of three approaches to international justice. The first part of the article focuses on the realist paradigm, the second section analyzes various liberal approaches, and the third part presents the basic ideas of neomarxism. The largest part of the article is devoted to a critical discussion of existing liberal approaches -- liberal institutionalism (R. Keohane), political liberalism (J. Rawls), democratic liberalism (J. Habermas), globalist utilitarianism (P. Singer), globalist egalitarianism (Ch. Beitz, T. Pogge), and liberal impartialism (B. Barry). The article concludes by synthesizing the insights of the three broad normative positions into a realist, yet at the same time critical, liberalism. Adapted from the source document.

The foreign policy of the European Union is usually perceived as being significantly different from the common conception of modern foreign policy of sovereign nation states. In this article we will construct two models of foreign policy & confront them with current EU external relations. Firstly we shall look at the modern foreign policy model based on a neorealist approach. Secondly we shall examine its post-modern alternative that draws its inspiration from the post-structuralism of Jacques Derrida. The comparison is focused on three dimensions: the actor representing the foreign policy; his primary goal; & the key principles invoked in interactions with other actors. We conclude that the EU foreign policy cannot be sufficiently explained by neither of the two models. The large gap between the two models could probably be filled by the third, liberal model of foreign policy. Adapted from the source document.

Polazište ovog rada nedavni je prijepor suvremenih realista oko aktualne dvojbe je li vanjskopolitička doktrina američkog predsjednika Donalda Trumpa realistička. Autor ukazuje da je navedena polemika posljedicom zastarjelog, tautološkog, ali još uvijek i neprevladanog dualističkog diskursa u teorijama međunarodnih odnosa, koji dijeli teoriju i vanjskopolitičku praksu na dva dominantna pravca: realizam i liberalizam. Na temelju dosadašnje teorijske kritike novog realizma, ili neorealizma, članak potvrđuje da ovaj suvremeni realistički pravac epistemološki ne pripada tradiciji realizma na koju se poziva, nego se svojim predodžbama o moći, državi i međunarodnom sustavu utemeljuje u političkom idealizmu: pravcu mišljenja koji se redovno pripisuje liberalima I kojemu je tradicionalni, ili "klasični" realizam bitno suprotstavljen. Analizirajući glavne podudarnosti između pretpostavki neorealizma i načela Trumpove doktrine, ovaj rad navodi na zaključak da Trump nije realist nego protuliberalni idealist. Pojam "protuliberalni idealizam" prikladniji je za razmatranje aktualne američke vanjske politike u kontekstu njene hegemonijske pozicije u liberalnom međunarodnom poretku. ; The article's initial motive is the recent controversy among contemporary realists, who questioned the supposed realism of US president Donald Trump's foreign policy doctrine. The author argues that the polemic is a consequential outgrowth of outdated, tautological, and yet still actual binary discourse, that divides international theory and foreign policy practice on Realism and Liberalism. Referring to the established critique of Neorealism, the article argues that Neorealism does not in epistemic terms belong to the tradition of Realism, to which it is a self-proclaimed successor. On the contrary, with its notions of power, state and international system it is established in political idealism: the tradition of thought that is conventionally attributed to Liberalism, and to which "classical" Realism was fundamentally opposed. By analyzing evident congruence between principles of Neorealism and Trump's America First doctrine, the article concludes that Trump is not a realist, but illiberal idealist. His idealistic nationalist world-view, when translated into foreign policy objectives, is in stark contrast to the professed principles of Realism. Furthermore, the concept of illiberal idealism offers an analytical framework for further analysis of present US foreign policy in the context of its hegemonic position in the Liberal International Order.