Towards Stronger Normative Power: the Nature of Shift in EU Foreign Policy in the Context of the Crisis in Ukraine

The crisis in Ukraine of 2014 produced considerable change in the EU international environment, which not only tested its capabilities to react very quickly and adequately but also actually destroyed previous subtle balance of its Member States in relations with Russia. The EU Member States were not able to continue to maintain in these relations the "disunity" pattern, which was successfully described in the European Coun­cil on Foreign Relations study "A Power Audit of EU – Russia Relations" already in 2007. New turbulence pushed EU member states closer together, re-introduced old geopolitical constraints and concerns about national and international security and limited the room for diplomatic maneuver and finally produce new "unity" pattern. However nature of that new pattern remains not yet fully investigated from academic point of view. The aim of the article is to present results of analysis of this shift in foreign policy preferences of the EU and its Member States. The research is targeted to identify the nature of this change, which happened through process of adjustment to new reality, in the hierarchy of foreign policy preferences of Member States and finally of the European Union in general. The aim of the paper will be achieved by implemen­tation of analysis of collected empirical data on foreign policy preferences of the EU Member States. The analysis will be based on typical methods of foreign policy analysis. Those include analysis of legal acts, statements of politicians, analytical literature and interviews with experts from the EU Member States. The conclusion of the article is supposed to answer to the main research question and to explain nature of new choices in the EU Members States foreign policies and its effect to the EU foreign policy towards Russia in general

DABARTINIS EUROPOS SĄJUNGOS EKONOMINĖS IR POLITINĖS INTEGRACIJOS ETAPAS – KAIP SPRĘSTI „SENDAIKČIO“ DILEMĄ?

Europos Sąjunga jau atliko daug įspūdingų darbų, bet vien to nebepakanka, kad ir toliau ji būtų daugumos europiečių besąlygiškai palaikoma. Panašu, kad esame susidūrę su „sendaikčio dilema“, kuri iškyla žmonėms, kai jiems pabosta anksčiau labai vertingais laikyti daiktai. Tačiau, atrodo, kol kas šio „sendaikčio“ niekas nesiruošia atsisakyti. Idėjų ir pasiūlymų, kaip patobulinti ES, netrūksta. Dabartinėse diskusijoje yra išsirutuliojusios dvi pagrindinės alternatyvos. Pirmoji, „federalistine“, siūlo toliau keisti ES federalinės valstybės modelio linkme. Tačiau pagrindinis šios alternatyvos trūkumas – utopiškumas, nes ES valstybės nepasirengusios dalytis valdžia su Europos institucijomis. Antroji – tai konstruktyvizmo kontekste kilusi idėja, kad ES neturėtų stengtis panašėti į valstybę, bet vis labiau virstų į decentralizuota valdysena pasižyminčia politiją. Tačiau šios alternatyvos silpnybė – jos neapibrėžtumas. Ją pernelyg sunku „išversti“ į teisinę tarpvalstybinių sutarčių kalbą. Vadinasi, kol kas abi alternatyvos neatrodo gyvybingos, belieka konstatuoti, kad „sendaikčio“ dilemos artimiausioje ateityje išspręsti nepavyks ir teks taikytis su visais jos keliamais nepatogumais

NAUJAS BIHEVIORIZMO GŪSIS KARO STUDIJOSE

2010 metų pradžioje leidykla CQ Press pagaliau išleido Meredit R. Sarkees ir Franko W. Waymano knygą Resort to War: a Data Guide to Inter-state Extra-state, Intra-state, and Non-state Wars 1816–2007, kuri daugelio besidominčiųjų jau senokai buvo laukiama pasirodant. Šioje publikacijoje atsispindi naujausi, ko gero, ilgiausiai tarptautinių santykių studijose vykdomo tyrimo projekto – Karo koreliatai (angl. Correlates of War, toliau – COW) rezultatai. Tai jau trečioji šio projekto pagrindu parengta knyga. Pirmosios dvi knygos atitinkamai pasirodė 19721 ir 19822 metais. O štai dabar, po gana ilgokos pauzės, 2010 metais pagaliau sulaukėme trečiosios. Tai rodo vykdomo projekto svarbumą ir gyvybingumą. Todėl norėtųsi į šią publikaciją atkreipti ypatingą dėmesį ir specialiai ją aptarti

The Treaty on the Foundations of Interstate Relations between Lithuania and Russia

The process of negotiations between the Republic of Lithuania and the Russian Federation, then the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), on the treaty on the Foundations of Interstate Relations lasted for almost 11 months. In 1990, the Republic of Lithuania, which de iure became a fully independent state under the Act of 11 March, sought to restore the former state relations between the two independent states that existed before the occupation and annexation of Lithuania by the USSR in 1940. But the USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev wanted to preserve the USSR empire and annexed Lithuania as a part of it. In the initial stage of “negotiations on negotiations” the USSR made a precondition that the negotiations should be conducted only on the status of Lithuania’s statehood within the Soviet Union. The adoption of the Declaration on the State Sovereignty of the RSFSR on 12 June 1990 which opened up a real opportunity for Lithuania to regulate state relations directly with the Russian Federation could be considered the breakthrough of the process

Lithuania‘s security and defence in 2017–2018: the international context and new research. Preface

The Research Centre of the General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania, alongside its partners at Vilnius University and Vytautas Magnus University, present their readers with the sixteenth volume of the Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review, devoted to the security and defence topicalities of Lithuania and the Baltics in 2017-201

Current stage of the EU political and economic integration - how to settle the "antique utilization" dilemma?

Although the EU has passed a long way and implemented a lot of impressive projects, previous merits were not sufficient for permanent and unconditional public confidence and support. People continue to expect from the EU more and more impressive achievements, regardless of its limited potential. In other words we are facing a sort of the "antique utilization" dilemma, which arises for people, who are already bored previously considered valuable items. However, it seems nobody is seriously considering how to get rid of this useless-looking item. Vice versa, there is no shortage of ideas and proposals how to remake the EU. Two main alternatives could be discerned out of recent discussions and debates. The first alternative is a "federalist" one. It proposes the EU to continue transformation along the lines of federal democratic state model. However this alternative looks groundless since rulings elites of the member states don't look ready to transfer more power to the European institutions. The second alternative aroused with the context of constructivism and rationalism debate. It suggests the EU instead of trying to become more nation-state alike, to transform itself to the new kind of polity with decentralized, unenforced and voluntarily governance of European nations. However this kind of alternative suffers from indeterminacy. It is too difficult to "translate" it into the legal language of international treaties and legislation. Hence, since the both alternatives do not like viable, it looks like that the "antique utilization" dilemma is going to persist as a trouble maker without clear solution in foreseeable future

Jungtinės Amerikos Valstijos : recenzija / keturios užsienio politikos tradicijos ir naujas lyderiavimo pasaulyje modelis

Waltero Russelo Meado knygoje Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World tvirtinama, kad Amerikos užsienio politika per neilgą jos istoriją buvo labai sėkminga, nes joje nuolat vyko skirtingų nuomonių kova, o vieną nugalėjusią poziciją netrukdavo pakeisti kita. Pasak autoriaus ginčas iš esmės vyko ir tebevyksta tarp keturių pagrindinių su konkrečiomis istorinėmis figūromis siejamų alternatyvų - hamiltoniečių, vilsoniečių, džefersoniečių ir džeksoniečių. Alexanderas Hamiltonas paprastai yra identifikuojamas su nuosekliu pramonės ir prekybos verslininkų interesų gynimu ir verslo klestėjimo svarbos valstybei akcentavimu. Woodrow Wilsonas žinomas dėl siekio įtvirtinti naują tokiomis vertybėmis, kaip demokratija, rinkos ekonomika, laisvas tautų apsisprendimas, kolektyvinis saugumas pagrįstą pasaulio tvarką. Thomas Jeffersonas labiausiais rūpinosi šalies ir jos demokratijos saugumu ir pasižymėjo išskirtiniu atsargumu bei apdairumu užsienio politikoje. O pasak Andrew Jacksono Amerika neturėtų specialiai veltis į konfliktus, bet jeigu ją vis dėlto kas nors drįsta "užkabinti", tai Amerika niekada neturi nusileisti, visada kovoti iki tol, kol priešas taps nekenksmingas. Ši Meado pasiūlyta taksonomija padeda geriau perprasti ir kaip pastaraisiais metais keitėsi JAV užsienio politika. Platesnis istorinis žvilgsnis atkreipia dėmesį į tai, kad pravartu neapsiriboti vien tik dabartinės George W.Busho vadovaujamos JAV administracijos politikos aktualijų analize, bet verta siekti patalpinti ją į platesnį JAV užsienio politikos tradicijų sąveikos kontekstą.In his book Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World Walter Russel Mead says that the American foreign policy has been very successful over its brief history as it has been continuously ridden by a struggle of different opinions and one winning position would soon be replaced by another. In the author’s words, the dispute has been and is going on among the four alternatives that relate to concrete historical figures – Hamilton, Wilson, Jefferson and Jackson. Alexander Hamilton is usually identifies with consistent protection of interests of industrial and commercial entrepreneurs and emphasis on the significance of prosperity of business. Woodrow Wilson is known for his goal of establishing the new world order based on such values as democracy, market economy, free will of nations, collective security. Thomas Jefferson was mostly concerned with the security of the country and its democracy and was characterised by exceptional carefulness and prudence in foreign policy. While according to Andrew Jackson America should not plunge into conflicts on purpose, but if someone turns on it, America should never give in but always fight until the enemy is rendered harmless. Such taxonomy by Mead helps understand the way the US foreign policy has changed recently. A deeper historical insights draws attention to the fact that one should not only confine to the analysis of the political topicalities of the politics of the modern US administration under George W. Bush but should also put it into a wider context of interaction of US foreign policy traditions

The Russia - USA - EU “triangle” and Smaller States in 2003-2004

The purpose of this paper is to assess the development of relations between Russia and the two Western power centres, the United States of America and the European Union, in 2003 – 2004. It goes without saying that it would be quite problematic and risky to formulate an unequivocal evaluation of this dynamic phenomenon. The author, however, sought to identify and determine the key trends of development. This was done through a search for answers to more specific questions: what was the strategy of Russia’s foreign policy, how did it interact with the goals and aspirations of the USA and EU, and, finally, toward what – convergence or alienation – did evolve the dialogue between the global power centres that are of greatest importance for the Central and Eastern European countries. These tasks have dictated the trinomial structure of the paper. The first part deals with the changes in the Russian foreign policy strategy in recent years. It shows how, upon sensible assessment of its opportunities, Russia abandoned its former rush-about and concentrated on the inclusion of the CIS states (the Ukraine in particular) in its political orbit. The second and the third part of the paper analyse the peculiarities and ups and downs of Russia’s relations with the USA and the EU respectively. Despite certain variations, the development of these relations increasingly shows signs of alienation and cooling, which were partly masked by the intention of the EU larger Member States, in particular of the Germany, to maintain good relations with Russia at any cost. Finally, a brief overview of the culminating event in the Russian–Western relations – the Ukrainian “orange revolution” – is presented at the end of the paper, supplemented by a broader summarisation of the period under consideration. The underlying idea of the summary is that the so-called “value gap” has been widening in the Russian-Western relations in recent years