Pytanie badawcze tekstu sprowadza się do rozważań nad możliwością aplikacji teorii postkolonialnych w przypadku postsowieckiej Gruzji. Krytyka postkolonialna niemal ominęła sferę postsowiecką, pozostawiając ogromną przestrzeń polityczną w monopolu idei interpretacji przez badania systemowo-tranzycyjne. Przez rozważania nad potencjalnymi limitacjami dla możliwości przepisania teorii w odmiennych uwarunkowaniach politycznych autor próbuje rozwinąć szerszą perspektywę dla interpretacji socjopolitycznych procesów w postsowieckiej Gruzji. Przypadek Gruzji jest interesujący dla teorii postkolonialnych, gdyż zgodnie z hipotezą Gruzja podlega dwoistości postkolonialnego doświadczenia. Z jednej strony podlega procesom dependencyjnym ze strony byłego hegemona, z drugiej w ten sam sposób (jako kolonialny dzierżawca przemocy) postrzegana jest przez mniejszości etniczne w „lokalnym” imperium. Zatem, używając nomenklatury postkolonialnej, tekst stara się zredefiniować transformacyjne i postkolonialne doświadczenie Gruzji.

The problem of effectiveness of reaction to external crisis expressed by participants of the international system is very much a live issue. In view of growing military conflicts in many parts of the world, the question how effective the relations between the players are in the international arena is a category worth analysing. This article concerns the Russian-Georgian crisis, whose most important manifestation was the military conflict in August 2008 and most significant result – the loss of Georgia’s territorial integrity and the strengthening of Russia’s position in the post-Soviet area. The analysis, conducted according to the presented scheme, focused on the effectiveness of external activities undertaken by the Republic of Georgia in the face of the Moscow-Tbilisi crisis.

Polish-Georgian relations in 1918 – 1921

The tradition of Polish-Georgian relations is many centuries old. It manifested itself differently over the course of history, originally based on the ideology of the Sarmatism and a diplomatic alliance in the war against Turkey. Later, when they were annexed by the Russian Empire, it was based on their fight for independence against a common enemy. Their relations have a political and historical background, and are associated with the resettlement policy of Russia. Establishing diplomatic relationships during the short period of the Democratic Republic of Georgia’s existence meant acknowledging Georgia internationally, first de facto, and then de iure. The cooperation was focused mainly on providing safe return for large Polish minority living in Transcaucasia, and on Marshal Józef Piłsudzki’s federalist agenda which supported newly emerged states. Both countries’ relations were reinforced by signing a military alliance and creating Polish-Georgian Industrial and Trade Union. The cooperation was finally ended by Soviet Russia’s assault on Georgia in year 1921.

The relations between Georgia and Western Europe and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1453–1783

The article presents the history of contacts between Georgia and Western Europe as well as Georgia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth between the mid-15th and the end of the 18th centuries. In the article, the role of the Georgian diplomatic missions is emphasized in the process of forging anti-Osman coalitions.

The protection of cultural heritage does not only have social but political and economic consequences as well. While the contents of a national and personal identity are closely tied to inherited cultural heritage, this heritage, as far as material culture is concerned, requires political support often beyond the means of the countries concerned. International support is rendered by organizations such as UNESCO with its World Heritage List, which includes World Cultural treasures as well as Natural Monuments. Politically, cultural heritage can be either a cohesive force or a divisive one when exploited for political purposes directed towards political hegemony. Economically, the cost of preserving cultural heritage can be a lucrative source of income as a result of the global promotion of cultural tourism. By this research, we can come to the idea that the State should facilitate the community empowerment through preservation and development of the cultural heritage – its organic environment, because without protection of the cultural environment and misusing the opportunities offered by it we cannot achieve the proper – i.e., feasible, sustainable – social and economic development of a country.

Georgia is one of the most democratized states in the post-Soviet space. This article presents the mechanisms of instrumentalization and ideologization of the Georgian constitution and its political and social context. The absence of a consolidated state of the law was found to have four causes: 1) colonial experiences of the Enlightenment; 2) heritage of Soviet legislation; 3) rapid Westernization of the legal system; 4) political actors and parties manipulating the constitution in the name of particularistic interests.

Today, the (Western) geopolitics dominant in the decade following the Cold War must consider the rivalling (Eastern) geopolitics. The present article deals with the use of the military bases situated abroad to support separatism in neighbouring countries. In the relations between Abkhazia, Southern Ossetia, Georgia and Russia in 1989 – 2008, special attention is paid to the periods of political standstill when the war was continued as the war of statements conducted by representative bodies in which even the UN Security Council came to be included. The article also focuses on the change of geopolitical visions of Georgia following the Rose Revolution or the waning of the myths of Shevardnadze and Russia’s foreign policy intentions.

The aim of this article is to present the dependence path and the number of factors which influenced its shape in the process of achieving transitional justice on the post-Soviet area. In comparative studies carried out in Estonia, Georgia and Poland, it has been demonstrated that there were a number of factors that diversified the process of transformation from the authoritarian to democratic system. The need to settle accounts with the Soviet authoritarian regime was diverse and depended on historical and geopolitical conditions, as well as on the political system which was adopted by individual states after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It has been observed that in Georgia the process of achieving transitional justice was not initiated but replaced, after consolidating the democratic system, by the process of achieving historical justice; however, in Estonia and in Poland, the problem of settling accounts with the outgoing authoritarian regime constituted one of the key issues of the transformation.

In recent years, Armenia and Georgia have carried out constitutional reforms bringing about a radical change in their respective political systems with a shift to a parliamentary model of government. To permanently democratize both countries, the role of presidents in political systems was weakened and their election was introduced indirectly. The paper discusses the main elements of presidential electoral law in both countries with their main similarities and differences. In Armenia, the president is elected by the parliament, while in Georgia by a special electoral body. The following paper argues that the constitutional reforms in both countries are intended to prevent crises of power caused by an excessive concentration of power in the hands of presidents, although the reforms do not provide a guarantee of genuine democratisation and authoritarstability of governments. The possible outcomes of the reforms can be different: in Armenia – the increase of the dependence of the president on the main political parties, in Georgia – strengthening his independence.

Georgia, deprived of its own hydrocarbon resources, relies exclusively on the import. It has abstained from purchasing those from the Russian Federation for political reasons, which, combined with the lack of LNG terminal infrastructure, has led to the factual monopolization of crude oil and natural gas supplies from Azerbaijan. For geopolitical reasons, Georgia remains the only export route for Azerbaijan for these resources. Easy access to those resources due to its position as a transit state has an impact on the tempo of energy transformation in Georgia. On the one hand, the significantly lower than expected dynamics of the development of renewable energy sources, and on the other hand, the growing role of Azerbaijani national companies in the market of liquid fuels and natural gas in Georgia, are visible consequences of the emergent status quo.