the United Kingdom

  • Rola Kosowa w brytyjskiej polityce zagranicznej po rozpadzie Jugosławii

    Author: Bartłomiej H. Toszek
    Institution: Uniwersytet Szczeciński
    Year of publication: 2016
    Source: Show
    Pages: 134–148
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/athena.2016.50.08
    PDF: apsp/50/apsp5008.pdf

    Czynnikiem determinującym charakter stosunków brytyjsko-kosowskich jest ogromna dysproporcja potencjałów obu państw we wszystkich możliwych sferach. Nieposiadające pełnego uznania międzynarodowego, słabe pod względem ekonomicznym Kosowo nie może stanowić partnera dla Wielkiej Brytanii, dysponującej niekwestionowaną pozycją na płaszczyźnie gospodarczej, politycznej i militarnej. Nie znajduje się ono również w centrum zainteresowań brytyjskich, a wzajemne kontakty zostały nawiązane niejako przy okazji wypełniania przez Brytyjczyków „moralnego zobowiązania”, a nie na podstawie racjonalnych przesłanek. W tym kontekście obowiązująca formuła relacji opiera się na założeniu brytyjskiego paternalizmu, który wyraża się oddziaływaniem na kierunki aktywności politycznej oraz rozwój gospodarczy i społeczny Kosowa, a także występowaniem w obronie interesów Kosowa przed społecznością międzynarodową (w szczególności na forum Unii Europejskiej i NATO). Natomiast mieszkańcy Kosowa poprzez korzystanie z udzielanej przez Brytyjczyków na bieżąco pomocy wojskowej, politycznej i finansowej oraz udostępnienie know- -how zaciągnęli wobec Wielkiej Brytanii dług wdzięczności, którego spłata jest tym trudniejsza, że ani jej termin, ani warunki nie mają wymiaru formalnego. Nie ulega jednak wątpliwości, że w przypadku wejścia Kosowa do Unii Europejskiej i NATO istnieje spora szansa, że kosowscy politycy będą głosowali w tych organizacjach w sposób odpowiadający życzeniom brytyjskim. Dalekosiężna polityka Wielkiej Brytanii zmierzająca do pozyskania przyszłego sojusznika wewnątrz struktur europejskich wydaje się zatem przynosić pożądane efekty, służąc równocześnie stabilizacji i rozwojowi tej części Bałkanów Zachodnich.

  • Turcja w polityce brytyjskiej wobec Syrii i Libanu w latach 1940–1941

    Author: Krzysztof Zdulski
    Institution: Uniwersytet Łódzki
    Year of publication: 2015
    Source: Show
    Pages: 35-49
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/athena.2015.46.03
    PDF: apsp/46/apsp4603.pdf

    TURKEY IN BRITISH POLICY TOWARDS SYRIA AND LEBANON IN 1940 – 1941

    After collapse of metropolitan France in June 1940, the French in the Syria and Lebanon swore allegiance to the Vichy Government. This situation was hard to accept by the British. According to the Chiefs of Staff Committee, the occupation of these territories by enemy forces could have had most serious strategic consequences since it would cut of land communications with Turkey and would immediately threaten the whole of British interests in the Middle East. Due to that threat, London was forced to rethink its policy towards French Levant. One of the discussed measures was a proposition to involve Turkey in solving this problem. Turkey was bound with Britain with reciprocal security pact since October 1939. Moreover, the situation in Syria and Lebanon was also a threat for Turkish security. It was thought that these arguments would act in favor of Turkish involvement. Although in London everyone counted on active attitude of Turkey, there was no agreement as to its nature. While Churchill, Eden and the Chiefs of Staff were willing to agree on Turkish occupation of Syria and Lebanon, the Foreign Office was definitely against this solution. The first option eventually won. The first serious talks about Turkish involvement in Levant question took place in Ankara in January 1941, during the Anglo-Turkish military conversations. It was agreed then that if Turkey had entered the war, Turkish and British armies would have occupied Syria and Lebanon. The deteriorating military situation on the Eastern Mediterranean forced the United Kingdom to intervene in the French Levant in June 1941. Th e British government encouraged Turks to take part in that operation (“Exporter”). However, Turkish government rejected that offer. Turkey was still out of war and did not want to worsen her relations with the Third Reich.

  • Problem podmiotowości prawnomiędzynarodowej Księstwa Sealand

    Author: Bartłomiej H. Toszek
    Institution: Uniwersytet Szczeciński
    Year of publication: 2015
    Source: Show
    Pages: 101-119
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/athena.2015.45.06
    PDF: apsp/45/apsp4506.pdf

    THE INTERNATIONAL SUBJECTIVITY PROBLEM OF THE PRINCIPALITY OF SEALAND

    The Principality of Sealand was founded on the abandoned military platform on the North Sea. Because of its location beyond the British territorial waters, it was not the point of interest of the British authorities. In 1960s and 1970s, the Principality have got its national emblems and constitution. Despite of this initial development, most of the citizens moved from the platform to mainland because of hard conditions of life. The most dangerous threat for the Principality existence was the declaration of widening British territorial waters zone up to 12 NM (Nautical Miles), but no British troops or navy ship tried to disturb Sealand’s sovereignty. Despite ‘not disturbed’ status, the Principality is not the state in the meaning of the international law. It has not got its territory nor people, because officially the platform is the Ministry of Defence property and all of Sealand’s citizens live in the mainland now. The Principality has not been recognized by any state or international organization, so it has no possibilities to take part in international relations. From the legal point of view, the Principality is not only a state, but even quasi-state, however, it could be recognised in the future as a virtual micronation, although it is not a legal category.

  • Brexit, Devolution and Scottish Independence. Political and Legal Impact of the Sewel Convention in the UK

    Author: Cyprian Liske
    E-mail: Cyprian_liske@o2.pl
    Institution: Jagiellonian University
    ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8701-3581
    Year of publication: 2019
    Source: Show
    Pages: 253-266
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2019.06.19
    PDF: ppk/52/ppk5219.pdf

    The upcoming withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union is a source of tensions within the political system of the UK. Devolution is most likely to be affected by Brexit which can lead to conflicts between the UK as a whole and Scotland as its part. The Sewel Convention is a political constitutional norm establishing non-legal rules of cooperation between these two political bodies. Despite having been written in a statute, the Sewel Convention remains unenforceable by the courts. Nonetheless, the political consequences of diminishing it may be severe. The discrepancy between the political strength of Scottish nationalism, confirmed in the latest general election, and constitutional lack of Scottish “voice” in regard to Brexit may lead to a severe political crisis within the UK.

  • The Battle of Brexit. Analysis of the 2019 United Kingdom General Election Results

    Author: Bartłomiej H. Toszek
    E-mail: clermont@wp.pl
    Institution: University of Szczecin (Poland)
    ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2989-7168
    Year of publication: 2020
    Source: Show
    Pages: 153-165
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppsy2020409
    PDF: ppsy/49-4/ppsy2020409.pdf

    The article presents the main parties (i.e. the Conservative Party, Labor Party, Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party) results of the 2019 UK general election as well as an analysis of the most important issues (i.e. correct identification of voters’ expectations, simplicity and clarity of the messages, leaders’ personalities) which determined each party success or loss. The author proves that since Brexit was the primary focus of voters, the level of support for particular parties remained dependent on the solutions presented in this issue. This basis explains why the Conservatives in the whole UK and the SNP in Scotland won (and the Labor Party and the Liberal Democrats lost) the battle of Brexit.

Wiadomość do:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart