Suchergebnisse

After the restoration of independence, Lithuania faced a rather difficult task: in a period of several years it had to catch up with the democratically, economically and socially developed countries of the western world that had succeeded to achieve their present level over many decades. The ambition to produce fast results preconditioned different problems in a number of political spheres. The creation of the regional policy was not an exception either. Despite the fact that quite a speedy improvement of the regions shows a positive progress in this sphere, problems could not be avoided in the process of formation and implementation of the regional policy. Hesitation in solving these problems may bring the situation under threat. The article analyses factors that have contributed to the problems in the sphere of regional policy, and stresses the significance of regionalism on the regional development. ; Po nepriklausomybės atkūrimo Lietuvai teko gana sunki užduotis – per keliolika metų pasivyti demokratiškai, ekonomiškai bei socialiai išsivysčiusias Vakarų pasaulio valstybes, kurios dabartinį lygį pasiekė per daugelį dešimtmečių. Todėl noras pasiekti greitų rezultatų lėmė įvairiausių problemų daugelyje politikos sričių atsiradimą. Regioninės politikos kūrimas taip pat nebuvo išimtis, nors gana spartus regionų būklės gerėjimas rodo teigiamą postūmį šioje srityje, tačiau formuojant bei įgyvendinant regioninę politiką nebuvo išvengta problemų, kurios, laiku nesprendžiamos, gali sukelti pavojingų grėsmių. Straipsnyje nagrinėjami veiksniai, turėję įtakos problemų atsiradimui regioninės politikos srityje, bei pabrėžiama regionalizacijos reikšmė regioninei plėtrai.

The Presidency of the Council of the EU can be conceived as the one of tools implementing common policy of the EU. Member states try to profit this position meeting the issues relevant for their own country or region. Evolving economic, political and cultural relations in the Baltic Sea region may reveal a number of priorities of neighboring countries in shaping the agenda of the Council of the EU. In this research the Baltic Sea region means Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Lithuania. Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Denmark) and Lithuania have quite different social and economic development models, and this may cause that their regional ties may not be as strong as the relationship with other EU countries. This can affect the attitude of the country in presidency of the EU. This investigation aims to confirm or refute the hypothesis that the Baltic Sea region states chairing the EU Council at the central room put the same and one of the most important regional issues. It is analyzing the most recent presidencies of the Baltic Sea region states (Finland in 2006, Sweden in 2009, Denmark is chairing currently, 2012, and Lithuania will hold presidency in the second half of 2013). Particular policy areas are chosen, precisely energy, environment and transport, as the main problems leading to regional cooperation. Based on these policies the aim is to find the link between the presidency priorities and regionalism and to describe the commonalities and differences of it.

The Presidency of the Council of the EU can be conceived as the one of tools implementing common policy of the EU. Member states try to profit this position meeting the issues relevant for their own country or region. Evolving economic, political and cultural relations in the Baltic Sea region may reveal a number of priorities of neighboring countries in shaping the agenda of the Council of the EU. In this research the Baltic Sea region means Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Lithuania. Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Denmark) and Lithuania have quite different social and economic development models, and this may cause that their regional ties may not be as strong as the relationship with other EU countries. This can affect the attitude of the country in presidency of the EU. This investigation aims to confirm or refute the hypothesis that the Baltic Sea region states chairing the EU Council at the central room put the same and one of the most important regional issues. It is analyzing the most recent presidencies of the Baltic Sea region states (Finland in 2006, Sweden in 2009, Denmark is chairing currently, 2012, and Lithuania will hold presidency in the second half of 2013). Particular policy areas are chosen, precisely energy, environment and transport, as the main problems leading to regional cooperation. Based on these policies the aim is to find the link between the presidency priorities and regionalism and to describe the commonalities and differences of it.

The Presidency of the Council of the EU can be conceived as the one of tools implementing common policy of the EU. Member states try to profit this position meeting the issues relevant for their own country or region. Evolving economic, political and cultural relations in the Baltic Sea region may reveal a number of priorities of neighboring countries in shaping the agenda of the Council of the EU. In this research the Baltic Sea region means Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Lithuania. Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Denmark) and Lithuania have quite different social and economic development models, and this may cause that their regional ties may not be as strong as the relationship with other EU countries. This can affect the attitude of the country in presidency of the EU. This investigation aims to confirm or refute the hypothesis that the Baltic Sea region states chairing the EU Council at the central room put the same and one of the most important regional issues. It is analyzing the most recent presidencies of the Baltic Sea region states (Finland in 2006, Sweden in 2009, Denmark is chairing currently, 2012, and Lithuania will hold presidency in the second half of 2013). Particular policy areas are chosen, precisely energy, environment and transport, as the main problems leading to regional cooperation. Based on these policies the aim is to find the link between the presidency priorities and regionalism and to describe the commonalities and differences of it.

The totality of cross-border interactions in Europe in scholarly literature on international relations is often defined as "regional international society", i.e. a social system of a smaller scale than global international society. From the sociological standpoint, social systems (or societies) consist of institutionalized pratices. Among these practices there are primary institutions, which define and constitute types of actors and types of actions, and secondary institutions purposefully established by the same actors. Sovereignty, territoriality, international law, diplomacy, the balance of power, conflict resolution and a few other are the oldest primary institutions of the Westphalian state system in and outside Europe. The newer ones, such as human rights and democracy, incrementally evolved in the 19-20th century and supplement the existing Westphalian system. The aim of this study was to identify the primary international institutions of the European Economic Community (now the European Union) which was created after WWII as well as to evaluate the compatability of the new institutional order with that of the Westphalian model. The author examined the functioning of such primary institutions as supra-nationalism, subsidiarity, harmonization and micro-regionalism and drew the conclusion that the newest EU institutions are in conflict with the Westphalian ones and create new types of international actors, supranational ar well as subnational, that are already recognized as peers among states within the context of diplomacy, international law and international trade. How the latent inter-institutional tensions will be solved in the future will depend not only on EU member states but also on countries outside it forced to coexist with the EU in the Westphalian world.

The totality of cross-border interactions in Europe in scholarly literature on international relations is often defined as "regional international society", i.e. a social system of a smaller scale than global international society. From the sociological standpoint, social systems (or societies) consist of institutionalized pratices. Among these practices there are primary institutions, which define and constitute types of actors and types of actions, and secondary institutions purposefully established by the same actors. Sovereignty, territoriality, international law, diplomacy, the balance of power, conflict resolution and a few other are the oldest primary institutions of the Westphalian state system in and outside Europe. The newer ones, such as human rights and democracy, incrementally evolved in the 19-20th century and supplement the existing Westphalian system. The aim of this study was to identify the primary international institutions of the European Economic Community (now the European Union) which was created after WWII as well as to evaluate the compatability of the new institutional order with that of the Westphalian model. The author examined the functioning of such primary institutions as supra-nationalism, subsidiarity, harmonization and micro-regionalism and drew the conclusion that the newest EU institutions are in conflict with the Westphalian ones and create new types of international actors, supranational ar well as subnational, that are already recognized as peers among states within the context of diplomacy, international law and international trade. How the latent inter-institutional tensions will be solved in the future will depend not only on EU member states but also on countries outside it forced to coexist with the EU in the Westphalian world.

The totality of cross-border interactions in Europe in scholarly literature on international relations is often defined as "regional international society", i.e. a social system of a smaller scale than global international society. From the sociological standpoint, social systems (or societies) consist of institutionalized pratices. Among these practices there are primary institutions, which define and constitute types of actors and types of actions, and secondary institutions purposefully established by the same actors. Sovereignty, territoriality, international law, diplomacy, the balance of power, conflict resolution and a few other are the oldest primary institutions of the Westphalian state system in and outside Europe. The newer ones, such as human rights and democracy, incrementally evolved in the 19-20th century and supplement the existing Westphalian system. The aim of this study was to identify the primary international institutions of the European Economic Community (now the European Union) which was created after WWII as well as to evaluate the compatability of the new institutional order with that of the Westphalian model. The author examined the functioning of such primary institutions as supra-nationalism, subsidiarity, harmonization and micro-regionalism and drew the conclusion that the newest EU institutions are in conflict with the Westphalian ones and create new types of international actors, supranational ar well as subnational, that are already recognized as peers among states within the context of diplomacy, international law and international trade. How the latent inter-institutional tensions will be solved in the future will depend not only on EU member states but also on countries outside it forced to coexist with the EU in the Westphalian world.

The totality of cross-border interactions in Europe in scholarly literature on international relations is often defined as "regional international society", i.e. a social system of a smaller scale than global international society. From the sociological standpoint, social systems (or societies) consist of institutionalized pratices. Among these practices there are primary institutions, which define and constitute types of actors and types of actions, and secondary institutions purposefully established by the same actors. Sovereignty, territoriality, international law, diplomacy, the balance of power, conflict resolution and a few other are the oldest primary institutions of the Westphalian state system in and outside Europe. The newer ones, such as human rights and democracy, incrementally evolved in the 19-20th century and supplement the existing Westphalian system. The aim of this study was to identify the primary international institutions of the European Economic Community (now the European Union) which was created after WWII as well as to evaluate the compatability of the new institutional order with that of the Westphalian model. The author examined the functioning of such primary institutions as supra-nationalism, subsidiarity, harmonization and micro-regionalism and drew the conclusion that the newest EU institutions are in conflict with the Westphalian ones and create new types of international actors, supranational ar well as subnational, that are already recognized as peers among states within the context of diplomacy, international law and international trade. How the latent inter-institutional tensions will be solved in the future will depend not only on EU member states but also on countries outside it forced to coexist with the EU in the Westphalian world.

In recent decades when the concept 'Regional Europe' is becoming more popular and regions are becoming more significant players on national and international levels, bigger attention is paid to regionalism studies and regionalisation processes as well. These processes have not bypassed Nordic countries, which promote cooperation within the Baltic region by involving the Baltic States into the regional processes as well. USA has received an important role in the processes of development of the Baltic Sea region, to which belong both Northern and the Baltic States; this region has become attractive to USA because of its increasing influence in the region and Europe, and it was a good opportunity for USA to maintain its influence in Europe after the end of the Cold war. The main object of this work is cooperation between Nordic - Baltic countries and USA in the context of development of the regional initiatives. This paper work tries to investigate dynamics of cooperation between Nordic and the Baltic States and USA by assessing the superpower impact and influence on cooperation of two sub-regional states in the Baltic Sea region. When assessing tendencies of cooperation between Northern and the Baltic States and USA, most attention is paid to the format (NB8+1) of regional group NB8 collaborating with USA, JAV, and Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe (E-PINE) program initiated by this state. In order to achieve the goal, the following tasks have been fulfilled: review of the conception, essential definitions and terms of regional development and regionalism/sub-regionalism, discussion of the place of the regional level analysis in political theories of international relations; review and assessment of (sub)regionalism processes among Nordic-Baltic countries; evaluation of USA role in the region by taking into consideration the interests, motives and influence of this superpower on dynamics of regional cooperation within Northern and the Baltic States, and review and evaluation of the tendencies of cooperation of Northern and the Baltic States with USA. In order to achieve the goal and the tasks of this paper work, analytical descriptive, case study, document and comparative analysis methods were used. After the tasks are fulfilled, conclusions can be made that the most perspective self-realisation space of the Baltic States has recently been so-called Northern Arch – a dynamic region of the sovereign Baltic and Northern States maintaining close relations with transatlantic partners, the Great Britain and other EU states. USA declares the significance of those sub-regions as "a growing global partner". The superpower of the world formulates and maintains close relations with Northern and the Baltic States as with a separate region. Such distinction of the sub-region within the USA agenda (Programme of Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe) is already an obvious expression of designing its interests towards the Northern-Baltic direction.

In recent decades when the concept 'Regional Europe' is becoming more popular and regions are becoming more significant players on national and international levels, bigger attention is paid to regionalism studies and regionalisation processes as well. These processes have not bypassed Nordic countries, which promote cooperation within the Baltic region by involving the Baltic States into the regional processes as well. USA has received an important role in the processes of development of the Baltic Sea region, to which belong both Northern and the Baltic States; this region has become attractive to USA because of its increasing influence in the region and Europe, and it was a good opportunity for USA to maintain its influence in Europe after the end of the Cold war. The main object of this work is cooperation between Nordic - Baltic countries and USA in the context of development of the regional initiatives. This paper work tries to investigate dynamics of cooperation between Nordic and the Baltic States and USA by assessing the superpower impact and influence on cooperation of two sub-regional states in the Baltic Sea region. When assessing tendencies of cooperation between Northern and the Baltic States and USA, most attention is paid to the format (NB8+1) of regional group NB8 collaborating with USA, JAV, and Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe (E-PINE) program initiated by this state. In order to achieve the goal, the following tasks have been fulfilled: review of the conception, essential definitions and terms of regional development and regionalism/sub-regionalism, discussion of the place of the regional level analysis in political theories of international relations; review and assessment of (sub)regionalism processes among Nordic-Baltic countries; evaluation of USA role in the region by taking into consideration the interests, motives and influence of this superpower on dynamics of regional cooperation within Northern and the Baltic States, and review and evaluation of the tendencies of cooperation of Northern and the Baltic States with USA. In order to achieve the goal and the tasks of this paper work, analytical descriptive, case study, document and comparative analysis methods were used. After the tasks are fulfilled, conclusions can be made that the most perspective self-realisation space of the Baltic States has recently been so-called Northern Arch – a dynamic region of the sovereign Baltic and Northern States maintaining close relations with transatlantic partners, the Great Britain and other EU states. USA declares the significance of those sub-regions as "a growing global partner". The superpower of the world formulates and maintains close relations with Northern and the Baltic States as with a separate region. Such distinction of the sub-region within the USA agenda (Programme of Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe) is already an obvious expression of designing its interests towards the Northern-Baltic direction.

In recent decades when the concept 'Regional Europe' is becoming more popular and regions are becoming more significant players on national and international levels, bigger attention is paid to regionalism studies and regionalisation processes as well. These processes have not bypassed Nordic countries, which promote cooperation within the Baltic region by involving the Baltic States into the regional processes as well. USA has received an important role in the processes of development of the Baltic Sea region, to which belong both Northern and the Baltic States; this region has become attractive to USA because of its increasing influence in the region and Europe, and it was a good opportunity for USA to maintain its influence in Europe after the end of the Cold war. The main object of this work is cooperation between Nordic - Baltic countries and USA in the context of development of the regional initiatives. This paper work tries to investigate dynamics of cooperation between Nordic and the Baltic States and USA by assessing the superpower impact and influence on cooperation of two sub-regional states in the Baltic Sea region. When assessing tendencies of cooperation between Northern and the Baltic States and USA, most attention is paid to the format (NB8+1) of regional group NB8 collaborating with USA, JAV, and Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe (E-PINE) program initiated by this state. In order to achieve the goal, the following tasks have been fulfilled: review of the conception, essential definitions and terms of regional development and regionalism/sub-regionalism, discussion of the place of the regional level analysis in political theories of international relations; review and assessment of (sub)regionalism processes among Nordic-Baltic countries; evaluation of USA role in the region by taking into consideration the interests, motives and influence of this superpower on dynamics of regional cooperation within Northern and the Baltic States, and review and evaluation of the tendencies of cooperation of Northern and the Baltic States with USA. In order to achieve the goal and the tasks of this paper work, analytical descriptive, case study, document and comparative analysis methods were used. After the tasks are fulfilled, conclusions can be made that the most perspective self-realisation space of the Baltic States has recently been so-called Northern Arch – a dynamic region of the sovereign Baltic and Northern States maintaining close relations with transatlantic partners, the Great Britain and other EU states. USA declares the significance of those sub-regions as "a growing global partner". The superpower of the world formulates and maintains close relations with Northern and the Baltic States as with a separate region. Such distinction of the sub-region within the USA agenda (Programme of Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe) is already an obvious expression of designing its interests towards the Northern-Baltic direction.

In the sphere of construing regional identity, political science can accomplish less than philosophy. Common regional identity can never be derived from scientific cultural studies conducted in certain countries. A new cultural & philosophical meaning can never be devised on the basis of political science. It can only be the end result of philosophical imagination. Scientists can present facts which bear proof of merely cultural & political affinity. However, so far they have failed to propose any more significant concepts or images for the future of Central Europe. Mere knowledge of empirical facts cannot be treated as a philosophical discovery. Both politicians & scientists can be aware of & handle an abundance of facts, & yet a philosophical idea is needed to bind all these facts into one coherent whole. In construing the identity of Central Europe, there is no need whatever to get involved in discussions about certain given objective facts, similar to objects studied by natural sciences. There are no natural characteristics, which could predetermine the perception of regional identity, irrespective of a moral awareness of its citizens. Morality is an independent motive of human conduct, which can exert influence on the perception of regional identity. Nevertheless, today it is one of the most unpopular subjects of geopolitical discussions. Geopoliticians claim that cultural & political identity of a region must be objectively predetermined, be it by geography, economy or military power. Political philosophers seem to be the only ones who can take a stand against such a naturalist perception of regional identity. Adapted from the source document.

Regionalization refers to the process of cooperation, integration, cohesion and identity creation in a regional space and involves state as well as non-state actors. Regionalization serves as a tool for settling conflicts and securing peace among nations. The conflicts and the spillovers they produce in regions such as the Middle East are acknowledged as being of paramount concern to international security. Building regional peace and security is a stepping stone to the construction of a more secure global order. Transforming regions into pluralistic security communities, moving from zones of war to stable zones of peace, has assumed increasing importance. The ongoing spatial formation is defined and explained as a gradual regional transformation movement from a Machiavellian-Keynesian geopolitical rationality toward a Porterian-Floridian one. These political rationalities are motivated by the perceived nature of the contemporary security environment in which a specific type of competitiveness (competitive regionalism/city-regionalism) has partly superseded military-based security issues. There is a growing emphasis on endogenous processes, utilizing regional assets, institutions and knowledge and promoting intra-regional links via cluster policies as the key to regional economic success in a global political economy. It is acknowledged that innovation, competitiveness, clusters, networks, and top quality are key shibboleths in the plans which present long-term future visions for the regions. The author is crafting a research that could measure regional performance in political, socio-economic, societal and environmental aspects with respect to regionalization processes, regional security and regional transformation. Rather than using European Union as the standard from which to explain all other cases of regionalization, or excluding European Union altogether in theorizing attempts, author emphasizes that it is important to enhance the comparative regional analysis. In order not to be restrained to the European Union model, the volume encompass multi-paradigmatic and eclectic analysis that could explain in detail why the European Union regionalization model cannot be replicated in the Middle East, in the core countries of the Levant in particular.

Regionalization refers to the process of cooperation, integration, cohesion and identity creation in a regional space and involves state as well as non-state actors. Regionalization serves as a tool for settling conflicts and securing peace among nations. The conflicts and the spillovers they produce in regions such as the Middle East are acknowledged as being of paramount concern to international security. Building regional peace and security is a stepping stone to the construction of a more secure global order. Transforming regions into pluralistic security communities, moving from zones of war to stable zones of peace, has assumed increasing importance. The ongoing spatial formation is defined and explained as a gradual regional transformation movement from a Machiavellian-Keynesian geopolitical rationality toward a Porterian-Floridian one. These political rationalities are motivated by the perceived nature of the contemporary security environment in which a specific type of competitiveness (competitive regionalism/city-regionalism) has partly superseded military-based security issues. There is a growing emphasis on endogenous processes, utilizing regional assets, institutions and knowledge and promoting intra-regional links via cluster policies as the key to regional economic success in a global political economy. It is acknowledged that innovation, competitiveness, clusters, networks, and top quality are key shibboleths in the plans which present long-term future visions for the regions. The author is crafting a research that could measure regional performance in political, socio-economic, societal and environmental aspects with respect to regionalization processes, regional security and regional transformation. Rather than using European Union as the standard from which to explain all other cases of regionalization, or excluding European Union altogether in theorizing attempts, author emphasizes that it is important to enhance the comparative regional analysis. In order not to be restrained to the European Union model, the volume encompass multi-paradigmatic and eclectic analysis that could explain in detail why the European Union regionalization model cannot be replicated in the Middle East, in the core countries of the Levant in particular.

Regionalization refers to the process of cooperation, integration, cohesion and identity creation in a regional space and involves state as well as non-state actors. Regionalization serves as a tool for settling conflicts and securing peace among nations. The conflicts and the spillovers they produce in regions such as the Middle East are acknowledged as being of paramount concern to international security. Building regional peace and security is a stepping stone to the construction of a more secure global order. Transforming regions into pluralistic security communities, moving from zones of war to stable zones of peace, has assumed increasing importance. The ongoing spatial formation is defined and explained as a gradual regional transformation movement from a Machiavellian-Keynesian geopolitical rationality toward a Porterian-Floridian one. These political rationalities are motivated by the perceived nature of the contemporary security environment in which a specific type of competitiveness (competitive regionalism/city-regionalism) has partly superseded military-based security issues. There is a growing emphasis on endogenous processes, utilizing regional assets, institutions and knowledge and promoting intra-regional links via cluster policies as the key to regional economic success in a global political economy. It is acknowledged that innovation, competitiveness, clusters, networks, and top quality are key shibboleths in the plans which present long-term future visions for the regions. The author is crafting a research that could measure regional performance in political, socio-economic, societal and environmental aspects with respect to regionalization processes, regional security and regional transformation. Rather than using European Union as the standard from which to explain all other cases of regionalization, or excluding European Union altogether in theorizing attempts, author emphasizes that it is important to enhance the comparative regional analysis. In order not to be restrained to the European Union model, the volume encompass multi-paradigmatic and eclectic analysis that could explain in detail why the European Union regionalization model cannot be replicated in the Middle East, in the core countries of the Levant in particular.