Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17721/2524-048x.2022.22.2
A. Martynov
In the history of international relations, discussions continue on the definition of criteria and chronological boundaries of different systems of international relations. The purpose of the article is to consider the theoretical and practical problems of positioning the European Union in the postmodern system of international relations. The Modern period was characterized by a block approach to security. The postmodern system of international security is based on a combination of hierarchical and network characteristics of the international system. The sovereign states of the European Union are often critical of each other, although this fact may for some time be masked by the need for solidarity in relations with the outside world and its risks. As soon as the factor of identity or proximity of interests is leveled off, the motives for concerted joint action disappear. Real politics is also influenced by the idea of European integration of many speeds. Following the enlargement of the EU to 28 member states (before the withdrawal of the United Kingdom), the core of European integration (the six founding members of the European Communities) and the concentric circles touching the core stood out. The accession of new EU member states to the highest achievements of European integration is possible at different speeds. Neutral EU countries such as Finland and Sweden have responded to Russia’s war against Ukraine by applying to join NATO. The United States still has a special consolidating role in the alliance. The postmodern multipolar system of international relations will consist of several hierarchical structures. First, it will be transformed military-political blocs, and secondly, networks of interaction between states that are regional leaders in their regions. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has consolidated the European Union and the United States. The Euro-Atlantic space is in fact a consolidated pole of power in the postmodern system of international relations. The United Kingdom is ensuring the expansion of the Euro-Atlantic space through the AUCUS into the Pacific. The postmodern system of international relations is multipolar. It is not limited to bipolar US-China confrontation. In the postmodern system of international relations, the European Union is not only a pole of power, but also its typological symbol.
{"title":"The European Union in the postmodern system of international relations","authors":"A. Martynov","doi":"10.17721/2524-048x.2022.22.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2524-048x.2022.22.2","url":null,"abstract":"In the history of international relations, discussions continue on the definition of criteria and chronological boundaries of different systems of international relations. The purpose of the article is to consider the theoretical and practical problems of positioning the European Union in the postmodern system of international relations. The Modern period was characterized by a block approach to security. The postmodern system of international security is based on a combination of hierarchical and network characteristics of the international system. The sovereign states of the European Union are often critical of each other, although this fact may for some time be masked by the need for solidarity in relations with the outside world and its risks. As soon as the factor of identity or proximity of interests is leveled off, the motives for concerted joint action disappear. Real politics is also influenced by the idea of European integration of many speeds. Following the enlargement of the EU to 28 member states (before the withdrawal of the United Kingdom), the core of European integration (the six founding members of the European Communities) and the concentric circles touching the core stood out. The accession of new EU member states to the highest achievements of European integration is possible at different speeds. Neutral EU countries such as Finland and Sweden have responded to Russia’s war against Ukraine by applying to join NATO. The United States still has a special consolidating role in the alliance. The postmodern multipolar system of international relations will consist of several hierarchical structures. First, it will be transformed military-political blocs, and secondly, networks of interaction between states that are regional leaders in their regions. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has consolidated the European Union and the United States. The Euro-Atlantic space is in fact a consolidated pole of power in the postmodern system of international relations. The United Kingdom is ensuring the expansion of the Euro-Atlantic space through the AUCUS into the Pacific. The postmodern system of international relations is multipolar. It is not limited to bipolar US-China confrontation. In the postmodern system of international relations, the European Union is not only a pole of power, but also its typological symbol.","PeriodicalId":394953,"journal":{"name":"European Historical Studies","volume":"167 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131824468","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17721/2524-048x.2019.14.31-42
I. Tykhonenko
The article focuses on one of the current areas of European Union cooperation within the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, namely with the Kingdom of Morocco. The official Rabat has both a historical basis for cooperation with the EU (colonial past) and an established dialogue with the European Union from associate membership to the acquisition of a special partnership status in 2008. The purpose of Morocco’s special status in the EU is to: strengthen dialogue and cooperation in the field of politics and security; gradual integration of Morocco into the EU internal market through approximation of legislation and regulations. The main directions and areas of multilateral cooperation between Morocco and the EU are highlighted especially Rabat ties with leading European powers (notably France and Spain) as implementation of bilateral level and at the level of integration with EU as political body. It is revealed that the acquisition of a special status in cooperation with the EU aims to deepen cooperation not only in the economic, security and energy spheres, but also the human dimension of bilateral relations, which affects human rights and cultural and humanitarian level of relations. In particular, the topical agenda for bilateral Moroccan-European relations is migration issues, the problem of Western Sahara, which complicate dialogue somewhat. The leading role in Morocco’s relations with EU Member States is played by dialogue within the Francophonie, as well as interpersonal contacts in the fields of culture, education and science. These contacts are closely maintained between Morocco, France and Spain, and implemented the EU’s values policy mentioned in the Association Agreement. It is revealed that cultural cooperation plays a positive role in the fight against religious extremism and civil society building.
{"title":"Evolution of the multilateral cooperation between the Kingdom of Morocco and the European Union: from political to values dimension","authors":"I. Tykhonenko","doi":"10.17721/2524-048x.2019.14.31-42","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2524-048x.2019.14.31-42","url":null,"abstract":"The article focuses on one of the current areas of European Union cooperation within the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, namely with the Kingdom of Morocco. The official Rabat has both a historical basis for cooperation with the EU (colonial past) and an established dialogue with the European Union from associate membership to the acquisition of a special partnership status in 2008. The purpose of Morocco’s special status in the EU is to: strengthen dialogue and cooperation in the field of politics and security; gradual integration of Morocco into the EU internal market through approximation of legislation and regulations. The main directions and areas of multilateral cooperation between Morocco and the EU are highlighted especially Rabat ties with leading European powers (notably France and Spain) as implementation of bilateral level and at the level of integration with EU as political body. It is revealed that the acquisition of a special status in cooperation with the EU aims to deepen cooperation not only in the economic, security and energy spheres, but also the human dimension of bilateral relations, which affects human rights and cultural and humanitarian level of relations.\u0000\u0000In particular, the topical agenda for bilateral Moroccan-European relations is migration issues, the problem of Western Sahara, which complicate dialogue somewhat. The leading role in Morocco’s relations with EU Member States is played by dialogue within the Francophonie, as well as interpersonal contacts in the fields of culture, education and science. These contacts are closely maintained between Morocco, France and Spain, and implemented the EU’s values policy mentioned in the Association Agreement. It is revealed that cultural cooperation plays a positive role in the fight against religious extremism and civil society building.","PeriodicalId":394953,"journal":{"name":"European Historical Studies","volume":"90 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114491988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17721/2524-048x.2019.14.58-72
N. Gorodnia
This paper is intended to describe and discuss the major concepts of global history, and to elucidate connections between global history, world history, and globalization. The research reveals that global history is a field of study and a methodology of historical research. These two concepts supplement each other. As a field of study global history is understood in two ways – a form of world history, based on some methodological principles, and a history of globalization. Global history appeared in 1980-1990s as a reaction on globalization, and it was influenced by its different concepts. Debates on globalization impacted world history, its themes and methods of research. Those world historians, who accepted the «global turn», began to practice global history. For the reason, the terms «global history» and «(new) world history» may be used as synonyms. A part of historians understand global history as a history of globalization. However, this definition is disputable because of numerous concepts of globalization and the absence of consensus on the issues. As a methodology global history consolidates different approaches, such as world systems theory, postcolonial history, transnational history, subaltern history, imperial history, and others. They share similar principles that include a rejection of Eurocentrism, an understanding of the past as an integrated unit, interdisciplinary approach, and a focus on connections, interactions and mutual influences that transcend borders (national, cultural, and others). Global history prefers some specific research topics that are trans-national and trans-cultural in nature, because in these cases it has the strongest explanatory power. However, as a methodology it can be applied to different scales of human experience, including events and processes at local, national, and regional levels by studying them from a wider, global perspective.
{"title":"Global history, world history and globalization","authors":"N. Gorodnia","doi":"10.17721/2524-048x.2019.14.58-72","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2524-048x.2019.14.58-72","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is intended to describe and discuss the major concepts of global history, and to elucidate connections between global history, world history, and globalization. The research reveals that global history is a field of study and a methodology of historical research. These two concepts supplement each other. As a field of study global history is understood in two ways – a form of world history, based on some methodological principles, and a history of globalization. Global history appeared in 1980-1990s as a reaction on globalization, and it was influenced by its different concepts. Debates on globalization impacted world history, its themes and methods of research. Those world historians, who accepted the «global turn», began to practice global history. For the reason, the terms «global history» and «(new) world history» may be used as synonyms. A part of historians understand global history as a history of globalization. However, this definition is disputable because of numerous concepts of globalization and the absence of consensus on the issues. As a methodology global history consolidates different approaches, such as world systems theory, postcolonial history, transnational history, subaltern history, imperial history, and others. They share similar principles that include a rejection of Eurocentrism, an understanding of the past as an integrated unit, interdisciplinary approach, and a focus on connections, interactions and mutual influences that transcend borders (national, cultural, and others). Global history prefers\u0000some specific research topics that are trans-national and trans-cultural in nature, because in these cases it has the strongest explanatory power. However, as a methodology it can be applied to different scales of human experience, including events and processes at local, national, and regional levels by studying them from a wider, global perspective.","PeriodicalId":394953,"journal":{"name":"European Historical Studies","volume":"136 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116723412","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17721/2524-048x.2021.19.2
A. Martynov
The article shows the dynamics of changes in the dominant social values in the European Union and the impact of this trend on the peculiarities of political processes. The pandemic has accelerated the process of crystallization of liberal-democratic and authoritarian models of modern global capitalism. Social changes provoke a conflict of values. Socialist, liberal and conservative parties are losing credibility. The situation is being used by populists. The historical period of uncertainty disorients public opinion. The crisis of traditional liberal-democratic values creates an ideological vacuum. The manifestation of this trend is a change under the influence of changing social stratification of socio-political identities of individuals and societies. The post-industrial European information society is creating a shortage of traditional ideas about work and Christian morality. This process destroys trade union and social democratic political practices. The dominant information socio-political sphere is characterized by the blurring of the criteria of truthfulness and falsity of information. Gone is the idea of a rational, well-informed voter capable of making a conscious political choice in favor of one’s own and the public’s interests. The article shows the correlation between the change of values and the political culture of Western, Eastern, Southern and Northern Europe. The choice in favor of a “green economy” stimulates a change in social values and everyday practices of human behavior. The pandemic created a crisis of power legitimacy. Quarantine “shutdowns” of the economy creates a crisis of administrative rationality. The consequence of these trends is a crisis of motivation of government and society due to stressful overload of competing values. The conclusions prove that value differentiation in the European Union is a consequence of the peculiarities of the development of national history. These trends are evident during the intergovernmental conference on the future of the European Union. Uncertainty about the European Union’s development strategy freezes the EU’s enlargement process. The realization of the tendency to harmonize different values is hypothetical.
{"title":"VALUE DIFFERENTIATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: HISTORICAL PREREQUISITES AND TRENDS","authors":"A. Martynov","doi":"10.17721/2524-048x.2021.19.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2524-048x.2021.19.2","url":null,"abstract":"The article shows the dynamics of changes in the dominant social values in the European Union and the impact of this trend on the peculiarities of political processes. The pandemic has accelerated the process of crystallization of liberal-democratic and authoritarian models of modern global capitalism. Social changes provoke a conflict of values. Socialist, liberal and conservative parties are losing credibility. The situation is being used by populists. The historical period of uncertainty disorients public opinion. The crisis of traditional liberal-democratic values creates an ideological vacuum. The manifestation of this trend is a change under the influence of changing social stratification of socio-political identities of individuals and societies. The post-industrial European information society is creating a shortage of traditional ideas about work and Christian morality. This process destroys trade union and social democratic political practices. The dominant information socio-political sphere is characterized by the blurring of the criteria of truthfulness and falsity of information. Gone is the idea of a rational, well-informed voter capable of making a conscious political choice in favor of one’s own and the public’s interests. The article shows the correlation between the change of values and the political culture of Western, Eastern, Southern and Northern Europe. The choice in favor of a “green economy” stimulates a change in social values and everyday practices of human behavior. The pandemic created a crisis of power legitimacy. Quarantine “shutdowns” of the economy creates a crisis of administrative rationality. The consequence of these trends is a crisis of motivation of government and society due to stressful overload of competing values. The conclusions prove that value differentiation in the European Union is a consequence of the peculiarities of the development of national history. These trends are evident during the intergovernmental conference on the future of the European Union. Uncertainty about the European Union’s development strategy freezes the EU’s enlargement process. The realization of the tendency to harmonize different values is hypothetical.","PeriodicalId":394953,"journal":{"name":"European Historical Studies","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115132193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17721/2524-048x.2019.13.121-140
A. Chalyi, O. Ivanov
XVII-XVIII centuries determined by further European inclination into the Eastern countries affair`s. Due to old custom and to enlarge European understanding of the East, a lot of travelers made their own accounts about nearly everything the saw. But usually they didn`t understand the language, didn’t realize peculiarities of social order and receive information from only one source and moreover analyzed issues they had through the prism of European-based consciousness, that had created specific and inaccurate image of the East. During the Enlightenment such descriptions were used to create a civilization theory which stated about principal distinction between East and West. In popular form this theory is known as «oriental despotism», and had been postulated by one of the most popular French philosopher – Charles Louis de Montesquieu in his works «The Spirit of Laws» and «Persian letters». This concept consists of three elements: absolute monarchy, which is not restrained by any means, law or society, ability of state to confiscate property of its own citizen and therefore absence of private property at all, and absence of codified law. In not so distant future such an ideas were implicitly rooted in the theoretical background of full-scale political and military expansion of European countries, that ruined Asian states or limited their sovereignty made them almost a colonies. Nevertheless there was one man who stood against such theories – Abraham Anquetile-Duperron (1734-1805), profound French scholar, linguist, adventurer and due to his time – participant of French-Britain rivalry in India, who is now remarkably known for efforts to translate and edit Avesta, and thereafter being totally obstructed by his fellow-scholars, and now widely recognized as one of the finding father of French oriental studies and oriental studies generally. In his not so acclaimed work «Eastern legislation» (1778) he argued that so called «oriental despotism» has never existed, its element were based on false, incomplete assumptions, mechanistic extrapolation of European realities on the improper civil situation, banal exaggerations which had been made by previous travelers. Taking Ottoman empire, Persia and India (Moghul Empire) Duperron offer his own interpretation of the same facts, which were described by others. He stated, that in each of this countries have codified laws, which regulate all kinds of social activities, there is private property, that could be bought and sold and inherited by both male and female, and could be confiscated only as a penal punishment. All economical interactions are based on written agreements and religion is not as sufficient as his predecessors described. Monarch and other officials are being restrained by the system of rules which control each their step or decision, moreover their power depends on public recognition and charisma, which means in case they lose it, they lose their position as well and society have divine right to
{"title":"In View of European: Vision of the East in Abraham Anquetil-Duperron`s «Oriental Legislation»","authors":"A. Chalyi, O. Ivanov","doi":"10.17721/2524-048x.2019.13.121-140","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2524-048x.2019.13.121-140","url":null,"abstract":"XVII-XVIII centuries determined by further European inclination into the Eastern countries affair`s. Due to old custom and to enlarge European understanding of the East, a lot of travelers made their own accounts about nearly everything the saw. But usually they didn`t understand the language, didn’t realize peculiarities of social order and receive information from only one source and moreover analyzed issues they had through the prism of European-based consciousness, that had created specific and inaccurate image of the East. During the Enlightenment such descriptions were used to create a civilization theory which stated about principal distinction between East and West. In popular form this theory is known as «oriental despotism», and had been postulated by one of the most popular French philosopher – Charles Louis de Montesquieu in his works «The Spirit of Laws» and «Persian letters». This concept consists of three elements: absolute monarchy, which is not restrained by any means, law or society, ability of state to confiscate property of its own citizen and therefore absence of private property at all, and absence of codified law. In not so distant future such an ideas were implicitly rooted in the theoretical background of full-scale political and military expansion of European countries, that ruined Asian states or limited their sovereignty made them almost a colonies. Nevertheless there was one man who stood against such theories – Abraham Anquetile-Duperron (1734-1805), profound French scholar, linguist, adventurer and due to his time – participant of French-Britain rivalry in India, who is now remarkably known for efforts to translate and edit Avesta, and thereafter being totally obstructed by his fellow-scholars, and now widely recognized as one of the finding father of French oriental studies and oriental studies generally. In his not so acclaimed work «Eastern legislation» (1778) he argued that so called «oriental despotism» has never existed, its element were based on false, incomplete assumptions, mechanistic extrapolation of European realities on the improper civil situation, banal exaggerations which had been made by previous travelers. Taking Ottoman empire, Persia and India (Moghul Empire) Duperron offer his own interpretation of the same facts, which were described by others. He stated, that in each of this countries have codified laws, which regulate all kinds of social activities, there is private property, that could be bought and sold and inherited by both male and female, and could be confiscated only as a penal punishment. All economical interactions are based on written agreements and religion is not as sufficient as his predecessors described. Monarch and other officials are being restrained by the system of rules which control each their step or decision, moreover their power depends on public recognition and charisma, which means in case they lose it, they lose their position as well and society have divine right to","PeriodicalId":394953,"journal":{"name":"European Historical Studies","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123492649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17721/2524-048x.2021.20.5
O. Ivanov, Danylo Matviienko
Based on the analysis of published sources, and the research of German, Soviet and Russian historians, the reasons and preconditions that led to the remilitarization of West Germany are clarified. Moreover, the authors also aim to highlight the processes of preparation and political decision-making, as well as the role of historical figures who influenced the construction of the West German army and directly participated in this process. Where as this problem has not been the subject of special analysis in Ukrainian historiography yet, this to some extent determines the scientific novelty of this article. The authors pay special attention to the factors that influenced on the creation of the West German army, namely the internal political circumstances: the split of Germany and the need to build a new sovereign West German state, increasing military power in East Germany. External factors included the development of the Cold War in the world, one of the objects of which was post-war Germany, as well as the beginning of the Korean War, which caused a violation of the balance of military power in Europe. As a result of theresearch, the authors came to the conclusion that the decisive factor in the creation of the West German armed forces were international factors. This is confirmed by the fact that at international meetings of representatives of the United States, Great Britain and France, as well as during bilateral dialogues between the West German and American leadership, the issue of remilitarization of Germany was constantly in the spotlight. After all, without information of the US militar administration, which was then in Germany, it would be impossible to begin conceptual and legislative support for the construction of the army, conscription, development of strategic and tactical plans for its use.
{"title":"PREREQUISITES AND REASONS FOR THE REMILITARIZATION OF GERMANY AND THE FORMATION OF THE BUNDESWER (1949–1957)","authors":"O. Ivanov, Danylo Matviienko","doi":"10.17721/2524-048x.2021.20.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2524-048x.2021.20.5","url":null,"abstract":"Based on the analysis of published sources, and the research of German, Soviet and Russian historians, the reasons and preconditions that led to the remilitarization of West Germany are clarified. Moreover, the authors also aim to highlight the processes of preparation and political decision-making, as well as the role of historical figures who influenced the construction of the West German army and directly participated in this process. Where as this problem has not been the subject of special analysis in Ukrainian historiography yet, this to some extent determines the scientific novelty of this article. The authors pay special attention to the factors that influenced on the creation of the West German army, namely the internal political circumstances: the split of Germany and the need to build a new sovereign West German state, increasing military power in East Germany. External factors included the development of the Cold War in the world, one of the objects of which was post-war Germany, as well as the beginning of the Korean War, which caused a violation of the balance of military power in Europe. As a result of theresearch, the authors came to the conclusion that the decisive factor in the creation of the West German armed forces were international factors. This is confirmed by the fact that at international meetings of representatives of the United States, Great Britain and France, as well as during bilateral dialogues between the West German and American leadership, the issue of remilitarization of Germany was constantly in the spotlight. After all, without information of the US militar administration, which was then in Germany, it would be impossible to begin conceptual and legislative support for the construction of the army, conscription, development of strategic and tactical plans for its use.","PeriodicalId":394953,"journal":{"name":"European Historical Studies","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123549642","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17721/2524-048x.2023.24.9
N. Shevchenko, Nazar Machynsky
The article analyzes the evolution of relationships between the United Kingdom and Spain in the context of the question about Gibraltar from 1873 to 1969. That is the period between Aliens’ Order in council adoption and land border closing by Spanish. The scientific novelty of the research lies in distinguishing the period of the question about Gibraltar transformation in the historical context of the relationships between the United Kingdom and Spain, its periodization, determining British and Spanish contribution to overcome the question and finding out of its influence on present day situation. The problem’s political content and the long interaction period between the two states, which was and is aimed at solving this issue, allow us to trace various critical processes that accompanied these relations. In the end of XVIII century, Spain gave up trying to return Gibraltar by military solution and Spanish society accepted its loss. Geopolitical changes in Europe promoted the rapprochement of the United Kingdom and Spain and different contacts between their citizens in the first half of XIX century. But, in a result of Gibraltarians natiogenesis process and building a naval base in the colony – the United Kingdom started to limit Spanish-Gibraltarians civil rights. And not everyone was ready to revise their positions, many people had a historical memory of the interrelationships and rivalry between the states, to which economic factors were added, namely the powerful lag in development between Great Britain and Spain. This led to deterioration of the relationships between the United Kingdom and Spain, plenty diplomatic scandals and predicted emergencies the inquiries about returning Gibraltar peninsular back to Spain. Spain draw closer to British rivals, declared the claims on Gibraltar, raised the issue in international level, made the economic blockade and the land border closing. By the way, the United Kingdom made some concessions but could not leave Gibraltar because of its strategical status and national prestige. Value principles of the relationships between the United Kingdom and Spain are using today in the context of question about Gibraltar.
{"title":"EVOLUTION OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND SPAIN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE «GIBRALTAR QUESTION», 1873–1969","authors":"N. Shevchenko, Nazar Machynsky","doi":"10.17721/2524-048x.2023.24.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2524-048x.2023.24.9","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes the evolution of relationships between the United Kingdom and Spain in the context of the question about Gibraltar from 1873 to 1969. That is the period between Aliens’ Order in council adoption and land border closing by Spanish. The scientific novelty of the research lies in distinguishing the period of the question about Gibraltar transformation in the historical context of the relationships between the United Kingdom and Spain, its periodization, determining British and Spanish contribution to overcome the question and finding out of its influence on present day situation. The problem’s political content and the long interaction period between the two states, which was and is aimed at solving this issue, allow us to trace various critical processes that accompanied these relations. In the end of XVIII century, Spain gave up trying to return Gibraltar by military solution and Spanish society accepted its loss. Geopolitical changes in Europe promoted the rapprochement of the United Kingdom and Spain and different contacts between their citizens in the first half of XIX century. But, in a result of Gibraltarians natiogenesis process and building a naval base in the colony – the United Kingdom started to limit Spanish-Gibraltarians civil rights. And not everyone was ready to revise their positions, many people had a historical memory of the interrelationships and rivalry between the states, to which economic factors were added, namely the powerful lag in development between Great Britain and Spain. This led to deterioration of the relationships between the United Kingdom and Spain, plenty diplomatic scandals and predicted emergencies the inquiries about returning Gibraltar peninsular back to Spain. Spain draw closer to British rivals, declared the claims on Gibraltar, raised the issue in international level, made the economic blockade and the land border closing. By the way, the United Kingdom made some concessions but could not leave Gibraltar because of its strategical status and national prestige. Value principles of the relationships between the United Kingdom and Spain are using today in the context of question about Gibraltar.","PeriodicalId":394953,"journal":{"name":"European Historical Studies","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114978240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17721/2524-048x.2019.12.48-76
A. Martynov
The purpose of the article is to highlight the structure of the historical process of European integration. Historical phenomenon of the process of European integration is considered as a historiosophical example of unevenness and not the linearity of development. The Great French Revolution set two opposite trends: the development of sovereign national powers while simultaneously spreading universal cosmopolitan ideas. Two world wars weakened Europe’s influence on world history. The idea of “Eurocentrism” turned to the background. The process of European integration has recreated Europe’s influence on the world-historical process. An interdisciplinary methodological approach to the study of European integration considers it an anonymous socio-historical process. The history of Europe demonstrates the various stages of the development of a liberal rational-market project, which is an integral result of the interaction of different social interests. An alternative is the project of ideocratic, focused on the priority of democratic values, human rights, which are the foundation of European modern civilization. The history of European integration of 1957-1990 was a process of overcoming the ideological split of the continent to the East and West in the Cold War. The Maastricht Treaty actually became a watershed in the transition to a postmodern model of European integration. The experience of developing the European integration process has fixed the following main integration-political strategies: federative community; linear expansion and cooperation of the Union of European Peoples; dual strategy: expansion and deepening of integration; d) flexibility and differentiation of “Europe of Nations”; creation of an integration core of Europe and a strategy of many speeds in the process of European integration, (g) intergovernmental cooperation strategy, sectoral integration, (i) the Directorate of the great powers, Europe of flexible geography, or concentric circles. Therefore, from the point of view of the historical process, the crisis of European integration is structural rather than systemic.
{"title":"The Process of European Integration as Historical Phenomena","authors":"A. Martynov","doi":"10.17721/2524-048x.2019.12.48-76","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2524-048x.2019.12.48-76","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of the article is to highlight the structure of the historical process of European integration. Historical phenomenon of the process of European integration is considered as a historiosophical example of unevenness and not the linearity of development. The Great French Revolution set two opposite trends: the development of sovereign national powers while simultaneously spreading universal cosmopolitan ideas. Two world wars weakened Europe’s influence on world history. The idea of “Eurocentrism” turned to the background. The process of European integration has recreated Europe’s influence on the world-historical process. An interdisciplinary methodological approach to the study of European integration considers it an anonymous socio-historical process. The history of Europe demonstrates the various stages of the development of a liberal rational-market project, which is an integral result of the interaction of different social interests. An alternative is the project of ideocratic, focused on the priority of democratic values, human rights, which are the foundation of European modern civilization. The history of European integration of 1957-1990 was a process of overcoming the ideological split of the continent to the East and West in the Cold War. The Maastricht Treaty actually became a watershed in the transition to a postmodern model of European integration. The experience of developing the European integration process has fixed the following main integration-political strategies: federative community; linear expansion and cooperation of the Union of European Peoples; dual strategy: expansion and deepening of integration; d) flexibility and differentiation of “Europe of Nations”; creation of an integration core of Europe and a strategy of many speeds in the process of European integration, (g) intergovernmental cooperation strategy, sectoral integration, (i) the Directorate of the great powers, Europe of flexible geography, or concentric circles. Therefore, from the point of view of the historical process, the crisis of European integration is structural rather than systemic.","PeriodicalId":394953,"journal":{"name":"European Historical Studies","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130224568","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17721/2524-048x.2022.21.5
Yurii Latysh
The article considers the attitude of left public intellectuals to the Russian-Ukrainian war. A brief analysis of the concept of “public intellectual”, the roles and functions of intellectuals in society is made. Based on the study of public speeches of famous philosophers and influential intellectuals Noam Chomsky (USA) and Jürgen Habermas (Germany), their views on the causes and possibilities of ending the Russian-Ukrainian war, as well as the circumstances of their reproduction of individual Russian narratives, were analyzed. The conclusions show that Noam Chomsky and Jürgen Habermas see the role of the public intellectual in the position of a critical dissident. They have traumatic memories of World War II, using of nuclear weapons, and the Cold War. Therefore, they seek to avoid a recurrence of these events. Chomsky wants to keep the chance for Europe as a “third power” between the United States and Russia and for the space of security from the Atlantic to Vladivostok. Habermas seeks to preserve the post-national and post-heroic mentality of the Germans as a guarantee of the revival of German militarism, which led to two world wars. Chomsky focuses on the problems of the global world order (and because of this he is ready to sacrifice Ukraine to the idea of a single European security space). Habermas is primarily concerned with internal German issues and fears the influence of an overly national Ukraine. He supports the Social Democrats and the moderate policies of Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Ukraine is not in the center of their attention, although they have sympathy for Ukraine. Russia abuses the fears of intellectuals, especially of a nuclear war. But they cannot be branded as agents of the Kremlin. We need to look for arguments for these authoritative and wise people how to make Ukraine interesting for them.
{"title":"WHY DON’T LEFT PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS UNDERSTAND UKRAINE? (CASES OF NOAM CHOMSKY AND JÜRGEN HABERMAS)","authors":"Yurii Latysh","doi":"10.17721/2524-048x.2022.21.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2524-048x.2022.21.5","url":null,"abstract":"The article considers the attitude of left public intellectuals to the Russian-Ukrainian war. A brief analysis of the concept of “public intellectual”, the roles and functions of intellectuals in society is made. Based on the study of public speeches of famous philosophers and influential intellectuals Noam Chomsky (USA) and Jürgen Habermas (Germany), their views on the causes and possibilities of ending the Russian-Ukrainian war, as well as the circumstances of their reproduction of individual Russian narratives, were analyzed. The conclusions show that Noam Chomsky and Jürgen Habermas see the role of the public intellectual in the position of a critical dissident. They have traumatic memories of World War II, using of nuclear weapons, and the Cold War. Therefore, they seek to avoid a recurrence of these events. Chomsky wants to keep the chance for Europe as a “third power” between the United States and Russia and for the space of security from the Atlantic to Vladivostok. Habermas seeks to preserve the post-national and post-heroic mentality of the Germans as a guarantee of the revival of German militarism, which led to two world wars. Chomsky focuses on the problems of the global world order (and because of this he is ready to sacrifice Ukraine to the idea of a single European security space). Habermas is primarily concerned with internal German issues and fears the influence of an overly national Ukraine. He supports the Social Democrats and the moderate policies of Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Ukraine is not in the center of their attention, although they have sympathy for Ukraine. Russia abuses the fears of intellectuals, especially of a nuclear war. But they cannot be branded as agents of the Kremlin. We need to look for arguments for these authoritative and wise people how to make Ukraine interesting for them.","PeriodicalId":394953,"journal":{"name":"European Historical Studies","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127150023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17721/2524-048x.2023.24.1
Z. Svyaschenko
The article examines the processes of European integration during the «Cold War» period and analyzes the position of the USSR regarding European integration processes in Western Europe. It is noted that the political leadership of the USSR interpreted the process of European integration as part of the political and economic struggle of «world and European imperialism» with socialist countries. It is emphasized that at the initial stage of European integration, many of its supporters were against the participation of the USSR in European economic integration, not to mention political integration, which was impossible in principle. Insignificant economic relations between the European Communities with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries took place during the period of «detente». They were determined not only by political considerations, but also by economic factors. It is noted that the attitude of the European Community to the Council of Economic Mutual Assistance (CEC) was also negative. The community did not see the latter as a necessary trading partner. The Soviet Union, in its turn, directed its main efforts to the development of trade and economic cooperation with the socialist countries that were part of the REV. At the same time, the USSR did not pay attention to the economic successes of the EU, calling them temporary. It was concluded that the USSR negatively evaluated the European integration processes, especially during the first twenty years. But the successes of Western European integration, the creation of integration organizations in many regions of the world, which took an example from the European Union, forced the Soviet leadership to change its position and also urgently engage in its own integration projects, such as the establishment of the Council for Economic Mutual Assistance (CMEA). Despite all the efforts of the Soviet leadership, CMEA could not become the core of integration in its true sense, because at the very beginning of the association’s existence, such key principles of integration processes as voluntariness and equality were grossly violated.
{"title":"European integration during the «Сold War» period and the position of the USSR","authors":"Z. Svyaschenko","doi":"10.17721/2524-048x.2023.24.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2524-048x.2023.24.1","url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the processes of European integration during the «Cold War» period and analyzes the position of the USSR regarding European integration processes in Western Europe. It is noted that the political leadership of the USSR interpreted the process of European integration as part of the political and economic struggle of «world and European imperialism» with socialist countries. It is emphasized that at the initial stage of European integration, many of its supporters were against the participation of the USSR in European economic integration, not to mention political integration, which was impossible in principle. Insignificant economic relations between the European Communities with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries took place during the period of «detente». They were determined not only by political considerations, but also by economic factors. It is noted that the attitude of the European Community to the Council of Economic Mutual Assistance (CEC) was also negative. The community did not see the latter as a necessary trading partner. The Soviet Union, in its turn, directed its main efforts to the development of trade and economic cooperation with the socialist countries that were part of the REV. At the same time, the USSR did not pay attention to the economic successes of the EU, calling them temporary. It was concluded that the USSR negatively evaluated the European integration processes, especially during the first twenty years. But the successes of Western European integration, the creation of integration organizations in many regions of the world, which took an example from the European Union, forced the Soviet leadership to change its position and also urgently engage in its own integration projects, such as the establishment of the Council for Economic Mutual Assistance (CMEA). Despite all the efforts of the Soviet leadership, CMEA could not become the core of integration in its true sense, because at the very beginning of the association’s existence, such key principles of integration processes as voluntariness and equality were grossly violated.","PeriodicalId":394953,"journal":{"name":"European Historical Studies","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121452898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：