▼ ▼ Click this button to submit your paper ▼ ▼

▲ ▲ Click this button to submit your paper ▲ ▲

Aims and Scope

The Polish Political Science Yearbook (PPSY) is an international, open access, and peer-reviewed journal publishing high-standard research on political science, international relations, and public policy. The PPSY serves as a forum for academic scholars and professionals to support the latest analytical and methodological advancements and promote current work in political science and Polish studies.

For full aims and scope please visit section "About the journal"

The aim of the paper is to investigate ping–pong diplomacy between the Unites States and China, which was used by both countries as a diplomatic tool, aimed at achieving political rapprochement despite ideological dissonance and conflict over Taiwan. Both governments were seeking a way to establish closer relations but the circumstances prevented them from traditional diplomatic contacts. Sports exchange proved to be a convenient solution. In the paper the Author attempts to verify a hypothesis on a subsequent legacy of the ping–pong diplomacy in American foreign policy. The study allowed to determine reasons for the need to employ sport in order to establish closer relations between two hostile actors of international relations. It is an attempt to answer a question concerning the intentional or coincidental character of the analysed sports exchange. The paper is an empirical case study on one of the prime examples of positive sports diplomacy and was conducted with the use of decision–making. 

The essence of Russia’s relations with Belarus after the end of the 20th century boils down to a specific kind of balance. Thanks to its presence in the institutional forms of close cooperation such as the CSTO, the Union State or the Eurasian Economic Union Minsk enjoys the openness of Russian market and very low prices of imported resources (especially crude oil and gas). What Moscow receives in return can be classified as a sort of intangible goods: greater prestige and a „friendly hegemonic” position in international relations. The balance of the game falls in favor of Lukashenko who takes advantage of his country’s location between the Russian Federation and the EU: Moscow is permanently blackmailed with the possibility of Minsk’s hypothetical turn toward the Western partners.

After the collapse of the bipolar international system, a new line of “soft” division in Europe has been established in East-Central Europe. The article seeks to verify the hypothesis that Central and Eastern Europe is an international relations area but is not a cohesive, tightly-knit region united by common institutions, historical experience and the resulting awareness of a separate identity and a sense of community vis-à-vis the external world whereas the international order herein is a dynamic process undergoing evolution. Despite the passage of over twenty years since the collapse of the bipolar system, this process has not yet been completed.

Geo-economics is an approach that, in general, looks at the links between politics and economy in the international arena. This article is an analyses overview of the presence of geo-economics strategy in the Polish-Russian relations. The author focuses particularly on the problems of investment, trade and energy.

At the turn of the 21st century, under the influence of “quick transformation” undergone by the international relations, we have rather to do with “a carnival” of theoretical approaches competing with each other. Undoubtedly, it hampers the discourse about the research area within the scope of what is usually de" ned as international relations, and about epistemological condition of the discipline with over 100 years of tradition. In this theoretical chaos there are being posed questions if the international relations are “clearly de" ned domain of intellectual reflection, if they have specific features distinguishing” them against other social sciences, or if it is possible to create universal mega-theory in the international, dynamic, diverse and energetic environment, and if yes, then further questions are appearing. They concern two issues: ontological beings around which the international relations, seen as “autonomous,” scientifically clear discipline, would consolidate, and methods of acquiring knowledge about it. Those who doubt, especially philosophers and sociologists, pose also questions if and how much it is possible to get objective knowledge, that is not burdened with the reflex of subjective system of values, ideas and experiences of a researcher.

Relations between Russia and the European Union are particularly important in the sphere of the production, transmission and use of energy resources as it is in this field where Russia possesses its key strategic assets, and the European Union heavily relies on supplies of oil and natural gas from this country. Russia wants to be perceived as a superpower by the European Union countries and believes that having such a status will contribute to its further progress. In order to accomplish this goal it should take advantage of its superior position in the field of power industry. In the past, both in the times of czarism and the Soviet Union, Imperial Russia built its status as a world power primarily by using its military potential to expand its territory. We compare this tradition to Russia’s present attitude, the latter is undoubtedly less dangerous and it may become the basis for mutually advantageous cooperation.

Considerations devoted to postmodern diplomacy should be preceded by reflection on the phenomenon of postmodernity, because everything, what it expresses, creates some kind of depth of causative powers of changes, which aff ect diplomacy, traditionally connected with state, its foreign policy, raison d’état, reasons and interests, to realisation of which it should serve. The diplomat’s mandate is still a mandate coming from state, which they represent and on behalf of which they act. However, on the other hand, diplomatic functions are more and more often attributed to non-state subjects, which have different objectives and tasks to accomplish.

The realization of Polish foreign policy after 1989 was carried out in the dynamically changing international situation. Political transformation in Poland and the redefi nition of its foreign policy was parallel to farreaching events occurring in Europe. These were brought about by political transformation in Central and Eastern Europe, that is the collapse of the Easter block, reunifi cation of the German states, break-up of the USSR and the independence of former Soviet republics.

Sovereignty is a broad based concept which grants enormous powers to heads of states within their boundaries. That power may sometimes pave the way for the abuse of sovereignty. There are many cases throughout history where the States tended to use their sovereign powers beyond their limits and tried to extend their sovereignty in an abusive manner, either within or outside their territory.

Generally idea of united Europe has to guarantee peace and stabilization on it territory. At what there is dispute in aspect of stated of this territory. It notices itself, that borders of Europe wasn’t definite; it treats this particularly it concerns eastern border, which was movable. Trying to show borders of Europe usually it calls itself three conceptions. First from cancellation oneself to empire of Charles Great. Ruler that created monarchy in conditions of threat expansion of Arabs. That notion came into being European also, which fighting knights with Arabias invasions on Pyrenean Peninsula were de! ned. Heirs of Great Charles, Ottons, divided own territory on four large regions: Italy, Germany, Gaul and Sclavinia. Eastern border came to river Elbe: with run of years Otton’s territory included Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland. Second conception was built on so-called eastern schisms from 16th July of 1054 year. Christian world divided (orthodox) and western (roman catholic onto eastern order, called also catholic). Line of division ran resource from Adriatic to Danube, existing in XX century called state Yugoslavia; on Balkans they be shaped then Slavic communities; Serbians as well as Bulgarians tied with Orthodox Church, Slovenians and Croats with Catholicism. Alongside with Christianization civilization border shi! ed beyond Danube reaching for Arctic borders of continent. In Catholic circle there were Hungarians, western Slavs (Czechs, Slovaks, poles), Balts, Estonians and Finns; meanwhile in circle of order orthodox church found themselves Romanians and eastern Slavs (Ukrainians, Byelorussian).2 Russian diplomatist Wasilij Tatiszew on beginning XVIII age advanced third conception, recognizing mountains and river Ural for eastern border of Europe; he showed, that one should Russia to Europe.

Questions asked above are in fact questions about theoretical identity, explanative efficiency and scope of researches in the international relations science, undertaken attempts of answering them decide on particular complexity of the subject of researches, controversies around subjective scope of researches and research methods. Starting from the first serious, inter-paradigmatic debate at the turn of nineteen fiftiies and sixties, conducted by representatives of the realistic trend and new behavioural approach to the last debate from nineteen eighties and nineties, there has been lasting discussion on ontological and epistemological problems of the international relations science. However, it does not discourage researchers from continuing careful and considerable reflection on the condition of discipline and its place in the Pantheon of Science, and for sure it does not discourage them from deepening theoretical discourse on explanative efficiency of various theoretical approaches and their methodological correctness in the process of getting to know, as well as explaining world complexity at the turn of the 20th and 21st century and new gauntlets thrown down by the 21st century.

European Union is nowadays facing one of its biggest challenges and opportunities since its foundation. An answer, which will be sent to Turkey, will bring overwhelming repercussions in wide and large Muslim world. e far-sight approach of European Council can open new stage in evolution of European identity. The European Union’s aim is a safe, secure and wealthy continent, capable to peacefully cooperate with other states.

In this article the author is going to answer the question, that intrigues many researchers of international relations and political science – is it possible to build a grand theory explaining actions and behaviours of political, and international, entities? International relations are distinguished from other disciplines of science by its special character: they are polyarchic, plural, complex and impulsive. Th€is is why we find here, exceptional in contrary to other, more mature disciplines, diversity of opinions and answers to the question – in what way international relations shall be build? Searching for the right answer the researchers of international relations have to cross borders of many disciplines, also using research methods of sociologists, historians, economists, lawyers, psychologists and anthropologists. €There is a similar problem with political science, as the political matter is widely interpreted and, depending on the researcher and the analysed political system, its scope is wide as when using so called largo sense in the totalitarian states, where even the choice of school for a child has a political character or as when using so called strict sense in the democratic systems.

One can hardly overestimate the meaning of freedom of speech in the European tradition. It dates back to the times of the ancient Greece, although it was only John Milton who wrote the first tract devoted to the subject in question. In his Areopagitica (1644), Milton skillfully defended the principle of a free flow of ideas by stressing out that an open and undisturbed clash of various information and opinions is a condition of discovering truth in life. The best-known and most frequently quoted fragment of Areopagitica reads: “And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the ! eld, we do injuriously, by licencing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the wors, in a free and open encounter. Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing”.

In contemporary Europe, there can be noted the overlapping and rivalry of the two signifi cant tendencies, which are becoming stronger and stronger. On one hand, one can notice multilevel processes of integration and conditions connected with them and that are concerned with democracy, tolerance, globalization, etc. On the other hand, one can observe disintegrative factors of various kind, which refer to actions and postures connected with chauvinism, xenophobia, neo- fascism and separatism. In the second view, especially in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), various aspects connected with nationalism seem to be of great significance. This is clearly reflected by the events which took place in, for example, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo or Macedonia.

The Warsaw Uprising of August to October 1944 is a most appropriate subject given the impending 60th anniversary observance of this heroic and tragic occurrence. Our panel affords us with the opportunity to discuss and to reflect on this event, which in many ways embodies so much of the larger story of modern Poland. Our discussion occurs also at a time when we recall many other events of 1944, a climactic year in World War II. June 6 marks the 60th anniversary of the successful and massive Allied military invasion of France in Normandy. This victory was the decisive military achievement of the United States of America and its allies against Nazi Germany on the western front.

The end of war in Europe on 8 May 1945 allowed to seek restitution of cultural property lost by Poland between 1939-1945. This task was undertaken by the Provisional Government of National Unity, which was created on 28 June 1945. The demarcation of new eastern borders of Poland along the so-called eastern Curzon line resulted in leaving outside the country two cultural centers important to national interest of Poles – Vilnius and Lviv.

In March 1945 The Committee of Experts for Restitution and Compensation in Culture and Arts was created within The Ministry of Culture and the Arts, and the Ministry of Education established the Commission for Reparations and Restitution for Science and Schools. Their main task was to prevent looting by the so called “cultural battalions of the NKVD,” who treated the encountered cultural goods as “spoils of war”.

On the basis of the resolution of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Ukrainian SSR of 18 October 1945, 577 exhibits and 50 thousand books and manuscripts were transferred to Poland (as a gift!). The Catholic clergy could carry their fortune from the eastern borderlands of Second Polish Republic to Poland on the basis of an additional protocol to the repatriation agreement of 20 September 1945. With the resolution of 5 July 1946, The Council of Ministers of The Provisional Government of National Unity appointed a committee for the recovery of Polish cultural property from the former eastern provinces of the Republic of Poland, which were included in the Ukrainian SSR after the change of borders. Despite the recovery of many Polonicas, the loss of the greater part of Lviv museum collections remained a fact. Changes in the USSR began on 11 March 1985. In May 1987, 2450 Polish books from the Ossolineum collections in Lviv were given to the Polish side. At the end of November 1989, although the Soviets agreed to return Poland the Ossolineum collections in Lviv, the promise was not fulfilled. The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 and regaining the independence by the former republics made it necessary to conduct negotiations on the Polish cultural heritage with each of the successors of the USSR separately - including Ukraine.

The article deals with the fate of Polish cultural heritages in Eastern Borderlands from the establishment of Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in December 1922, to its collapse in December 1991. The first part of the article ends at 1945 (end ofSecond World War). Under international law in relation to Soviet Russia and Ukraine the issues of repatriation and revindication – after the war in 1920 – was normalized by 11 Article of the Treaty of Riga (18 March 1921) with executive instructions. Lithuanian Metrica, however, did not return to Warsaw, but remained in Moscow, while the Polish side received a summary of the Metrics Lithuania (made in the years 1747–1750 in the royal Office) held by the former Chief of Staff Library in Leningrad.

On September 17, 1939 Soviet invasion completely surprised Polish authorities, evacuation plans did not provide for such an eventuality. Ukrainian SSR authorities took control not only of museums, archives and libraries in the areas occupied by the Red Army, but also have taken over the Polish heritage evacuated to the area before and during the war with the Third Reich. Quite often Polonica

were destroyed or put to scrap paper.

The German occupation in the Eastern Borderlands of the Second Republic lasted from 22 June 1941 until the summer of 1944. At that time – in fear of the approaching Red Army – the German occupation authorities started the evacuation of Polish cultural goods to Krakow and Silesia. Along with the Red Army returned the Soviet authorities. In Lvov organizational state of archives, libraries and museums of 1941 was restored. Many Poles were released from positions in these institutions, and the newly appointed directors were reluctant to refer to anything associated with Poland. In the years 1944–1945 all cultural goods in areas beyond the Bug River – after numerous robberies carried out by the Red Army – went to the central or regional USSR archives or museums.

Polish preparations for the restitution of cultural property continued throughout the war. Office of Cultural Losses Revindication was formed in the Ministry of Congress Works of Polish government in exile. It was directed by Charles Estreicher Jr. (1906–1984), who managed to get to France and, at the beginning of 1940, formed the nucleus of the Office of Cultural Losses Revindication under the Ministry of Information and Documentation. It gathered information from archivists, museum curators and librarians from the occupied country and transferred them to the Central Institute of Art and Design at the National Gallery in London – formed by Polish initiative in 1941. In the spring of 1944 Poland was the only country that had prepared the materials and developed methods in the field of revindication. In 1945 in Warsaw Office of War Revindication and Compensation was established in the Ministries of Education and of Culture and the Arts, with Karol Estreicher Jr. as their expert.