While the European Union (EU) does not recognize any legal Israeli sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, it does not grant preferential access to the EU market for goods produced in the Israeli settlements in this area, contrary to the preferential treatment for goods produced in Israel. This situation is different, however, as regards the United States (U.S.) trade policy, which does not make any distinction between goods produced in Israel and in the Occupied Territories, since it grants the preferential access to both. Furthermore, the currently suspended negotiations of the super-regional trade agreement called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), spurred the enacting of a law that set the principal negotiating objectives of the U.S. regarding commercial partnerships, which included some provisions to discourage politically motivated economic actions against the State of Israel. As TTIP embraced the free trade agreement between the EU and the U.S., the EU differentiation policy could become problematic for the two partners, which despite the failure of the negotiations, revealed much about economic diplomacy. Consequently, this article attempts to show the different approaches adopted by the two trading powers, in order to deal with the dispute over the treatment of products exported to the EU from the Occupied Territories.

Strategic partnerships are nowadays one of the tools most willingly applied in foreign policy. The subject of the presented analysis is the institutionalization process of a strategic partnership understood as the functioning of certain norms and rules in a given relationship (expressed in the founding documents of partnerships) and the regularization of joint bodies and meeting formats. The aim of the article is a comparative analysis of institutional solutions applied in the European Union’s strategic partnerships with its established partners: the United States, Japan, and Canada. The results show that it is possible to identify a pattern of institutionalization process used by the European Union in its relations with strategic partners; they also reveal how great importance contemporary players in the international arena attach to institutionalization processes in their mutual relations.

The article's objective is to analyze the main assumptions of India's strategy in the Indo-Pacific region and define the role of the US in it. The time frame of the article is determined by the assumption of power in India in 2014 by the Indian People's Party (Bharatiya Janata Party, BJP), led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as well as the opening of a new stage of the US-led Indo-Pacific rebalancing strategy, which followed China's initiation in 2013 of its Belt and Road Initiative (previously known as the One Belt One Road project). The article seeks to answer the following main research question: What role has India attributed to the United States in its Indo-Pacific strategy since 2014? It hypothesizes that the United States has assumed an increasingly significant role in India's regional strategy over the past seven years, but not to the extent of a formal alliance, only approaching at best the status of a strategic partnership. The theoretical framework used to analyze the case study of the US role in India's regional strategy is the category of institutional balancing and the assumptions of neoclassical realism. The choice of such research tools was determined by their explanatory value. Moreover, both models complement each other. Bearing the above in mind, the following structure of the article was adopted. The first part presents the general assumption of the analysis and the theoretical framework. The second discusses the evolution of India's approach to the US from 2014 to 2021, indicating the reasons for its change and reconstructing the role of the US in the Indian regional strategy, especially after 2020. The third part draws on the theoretical framework adopted in the article, i.e., the assumptions of institutional balancing and neoclassical realism, to offer conclusions that answer the main research questions.

“American exceptionalism and historical themes in Joe Biden’s selected 2022 speeches on war in Ukraine” is a study of three 2022 speeches given by the United States of America in context of Russian aggression on Ukraine. An author’s goal is to establish does Joe Biden’s speeches contain any remarks on nationalistic idea of American expectionalism in context of war in Ukraine and what is the correlation between contents of addresses and its audiences. The paper was written to prove that motives and themes such as American expectionalism, Manifest destiny and Pax Americana are present in remarks even if their topic is European Affairs. In terms of relation contents-audience, research was conducted to determine what relations there are and what influence them.

Russian-Pakistani relations. Political, economic and military aspects

After the collapse of the Soviet Union into 15 independent states in December 1991, including the Russian Federation, there was a real opportunity to reset relations between Moscow and Islamabad. The Russian Federation did not take advantage of the new geopolitical situation to significantly improve mutual relations in the last decade of the twentieth century. However, in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, there was an intensification of political, economic and military relations between the two countries, which fluctuated. The author focused in the article on the premises that underline the improvement of mutual relations in these three areas. The premises that have inhibited and inhibit more intensive cooperation, especially in the political and economic fields, were also presented. In the end was formulated a few conclusions.

The aim of the paper is to analyze and assess the credibility of American military security guarantees for Poland in the context of the war in Ukraine. This applies to the actions taken by the United States to increase Poland’s security after the aggressions in 2014 and 2022, as well as the reality of using the US Armed Forces to defend Poland in the event of a possible attack by Russia. As part of the research, interviews were conducted with scientists and experts from research centers in Washington, D.C. and New York. Although the United States has not met all of Poland’s security expectations, it has so far fulfilled its allied commitments. Besides, the American authorities unequivocally ensure that they will defend every inch of NATO territory, including Poland, which is in line with the strategic interests of the USA and the belief of the vast majority of American researchers.