Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Historyczne determinanty kształtowania się cech charakterystycznych i specyfiki polityki zagranicznej Chin

100%

Dryjańska E.

|

tom 11 - Chiny i państwa azjatyckie - karty z historii i wyzwania współczesności

19-27

EN

The paper presents the major characteristics of the Chinese political culture. The author selected those of the attributes of the Chinese political culture which in her view have had the biggest influence on the Chinese foreign policy - both strategic thinking and the methods used. The article examines such characteristics as paternalism, Sino centrism, imperialism, nationalism and pragmatism. The author explains them by their genesis in history of China and she provides analysis of their effects on foreign policy

2

A Kingship Ritual in Baktria. Antiochos III and the Reorganization of Seleukid Central Asia

86%

Strootman R.

|

nr 1

88-97

EN

The article analyzes Polybios’ account of the ritual reception of Demetrios, the son of Euthydemos of Baktria, at the court of the Seleukid emperor, Antiochos III, outside of Baktra. In 206 BCE, after a long and inconclusive war, Antiochos III gave the title of king to the rebellious ruler Euthydemos. Euthydemos thereby gained legitimacy through imperial recognition of his royal status in return for his acceptance of Seleukid suzerainty and incidental military support. Creating a friendly satellite kingdom in Central Asia was more useful for the empire than reestablishing direct control. The alliance was sealed with a dynastic marriage. Baktria and Sogdia were thus reintegrated into the Seleukid imperial networks of connectivity and exchange, especially after Antiochos III reopened the ancient sea routes between the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia.

3

History as an Apology for Totalitarianism

86%

Nowak A.

|

2019

|

tom 1

311-349

EN

This article discusses selected publications which reinterpret Russian history in a spirit of rehabilitating the Soviet past and highlighting the USSR’s role as a vehicle for Russia’s assumed historical role (including Utkin 1993, Utkin 1999a, Utkin 1999b, Solzhenitsyn 1995, Solzhenitsyn 2001–2002, Mel’tyukhov 2001, Narochnitskaya 2005c, Narochnitskaya 2005a, Mitrofanov 2005). In addition to this, it contextualises them with initiatives undertaken by the Russian Federation’s government (including the standardisation of history textbooks’ content and the activities of the Presidential Commission to counteract attempts to falsify history to the detriment of Russian interests). The points of view presented here, which are considered representative for a certain part of the historical discourse in contemporary Russia, integrate Russia’s totalitarian period (the USSR from 1917 to 1991) into the course of its broader history, as the basis of an interpretation which accepts a priori statements regarding the sense of Russia’s history and her role in world history. Among the observed trends, this text highlights the approval of certain features of the communist dictatorship as corresponding to Russian ideology; the adaptation of Soviet ideology to Russia’s policy of memory; the emphasis on ideological, political and military confrontation with the Western world as a permanent feature of Russian history; and the reinterpretation of Russian history in such a way as to continuously justify all the actions of the Russian state over the centuries, both externally (interpreting Russian aggression and imperialism as a means of defence against her enemies, liberation, or the reintegration of the Russian community) and internally (presenting terror as a means of defence against an alleged ‘fifth column’, or as the modernisation of the country).

4

Pojęcia imperium i imperializm w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych

86%

Gałganek A.

|

nr 1

79-108

EN

Contrary to appearances, it is difficult to make a straightforward distinction between „internationalism” and „imperiality”. On the one hand, from the point of view of a normative theory of international politics, crossing this line seems to lead from legitimization of international relations (internationalism) to a lack of it (imperiality), and from normality to uniqueness. On the other hand, from a historical point of view, the empire is a ubiquitous form of participation in the internationalism of the social world. One of the „sacred” rules in the discourse on the modern international system seems to be the prohibition of the empire. During the last twenty years the notions „empire” and „imperialism” have returned to the language of analysis of international relations. One can observe a specific rehabilitation of the notion of empire as a unit of analysis and imperialism as an international relation practice. The article presents the understanding of the notions „empire” and „imperialism” in the studies of international relations and the history of international relations. The author discusses often ignored in the international relations studies ideas and practices shared by empires and the influence that the overseas empires exerted on Europe and its culture. A significant problem discussed by the author is the explanation of a lack of particular interest in imperialism in the main research streams in studies of international relations. Therefore, the author presents the essence of understanding of the problem of imperialism in the streams of theorizing in international relations inspired by Marxist critique of capitalism, starting with W. Lenin and K. Kautsky, through E. Wood, A. Gunder Franka, I. Wallerstein, and finishing with M. Hardt, A. Negri and theorists of new imperialism. In the last part of the article the author motivates his thesis that one hundred years of theoretical reflection over the empire and imperialism, in which a significant place is taken by research carried out in the 2nd half of the 20st century in the form of dependency theory and analysis of world-systems, has taken a roundabout way, returning at the beginning of the 21st century to the problem of violence and strength within the capitalist social relations. Recent events in international relations have shown troublesome relations between the ideal of social agreements, especially in the economic sphere, and using military force in international relations.

PL

Wbrew pozorom trudno przeprowadzić jednoznaczny rozdział pomiędzy „międzynarodowością” i „imperialnością”. Z jednej strony, z punktu widzenia normatywnej teorii polityki międzynarodowej przekraczanie tej linii wydaje się prowadzić od legitymizacji stosunków międzynarodowych (międzynarodowość) do jej braku (imperialność) i od normalności do wyjątkowości. Z drugiej strony, z historycznego punktu widzenia imperium jest wszechobecną formą uczestnictwa w międzynarodowości świata społecznego. Jedną ze „świętych” zasad w dyskursie o nowożytnym systemie międzynarodowym wydaje się być zakaz imperium. W ostatnich dwudziestu latach pojęcia „imperium” i „imperializm” wróciły do języka analizy stosunków międzynarodowych. Dokonuje się swoista rehabilitacja pojęcia imperium jako jednostki analizy i imperializmu jako praktyki stosunków międzynarodowych. Artykuł przedstawia rozumienie pojęć imperium i imperializm w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych i historii stosunków międzynarodowych. Autor omawia często pomijane w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych idee i praktyki podzielane przez imperia oraz wpływ jaki zamorskie imperia wywarły na Europę i jej kulturę. Istotnym problemem omawianym przez Autora jest wyjaśnienie braku szczególnego zainteresowania imperializmem w głównych nurtach badawczych w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych. Autor przedstawia zatem istotę rozumienia problemu imperializmu w nurtach teoretyzowania o stosunkach międzynarodowych inspirowanych marksowską krytyką kapitalizmu poczynając od W. Lenina i K. Kautskiego przez E.Wood, A. Gunder Franka, I. Wallersteina na M. Hardt, A. Negri oraz teoretykach nowego imperializmu kończąc. W końcowej części artykułu Autor uzasadnia tezę, że sto lat refleksji teoretycznej nad imperium i imperializmem, w której istotne miejsce zajmują także badania prowadzone w drugiej połowie XX w. w formie teorii zależności i analizy systemów-światów, zatoczyło koło powracając na pocz. XXI w. do problemu przemocy i siły w ramach kapitalistycznych stosunków społecznych. Ostatnie wydarzenia w stosunkach międzynarodowych ukazują kłopotliwe związki między ideałem umów społecznych, szczególnie w sferze ekonomicznej a stosowaniem siły militarnej w stosunkach międzynarodowych.

5

Germany, China, and the Way to the Boxer Uprising

58%

Kočvar J.

|

nr 1

41-62

EN

Prior to 1897, Sino‑German relations were generally peaceful and in some respects beneficiary. Yet since the seizure of Jiaozhou, Germany was following a policy of harshness and used any opportunity to exert pressure on China. This was due to widespread feeling of racial, cultural, and religious superiority. Even though Germany wasn’t the first great power to gain Chinese territory after the Sino‑Japanese War, German seizure of Jiaozhou started the Scramble for Concessions. Christian missionaries didn’t respect Chinese beliefs, and they were in most cases supporting their converts against Chinese justice at all costs. The missionaries themselves were supported by Germany. German military had undertaken many punitive expeditions against inhabitants of Shandong, thus radicalized the people. At the same time, the “Boxer” movement had emerged in Shandong Due to inappropriate response of the authorities, the movement gained significance, and at the eve of the year 1900 it was ready to cause havoc in the metropolitan province of Zhili. At the court in Beijing, the most influential group was represented by anti‑foreign aristocrats.