One of the most important factors affecting British politics is its membership to the European Communities (EC) and latter the European Union (EU), which has already had massive implications for this country. Th e relationship between Britain and Europe has always been problematic. In Britain there has been little enthusiasm for European integration per se, and equally little understanding of the enthusiasm felt on the continent. Europe has been seen as a menace rather than an opportunity and very few British politicians have attempted to argue (as is commonplace on the continent) about monetary union, for instance, it is the only way of regaining control over financial policy. The European idea of pursuing economic integration as a means to political union has also been met with blank incomprehension, if not outright hostility. Britain has always been attempting to slow down the process of integration and, consequently, has often fallen behind and had no choice but to catch up. However, the portrayal of Britain as a “difficult partner” or “laggard leader” in European affairs is only partly justified. Based on its specific understanding of national sovereignty, Britain has developed a much more pragmatic and instrumental approach towards Europe than most of its partners on the continent. Nevertheless, the country was a strong driving force in favor of integration in many crucial policy fields like the single market or trade policy. According to Alan Milward, the process of European integration entails “pooling” the sovereignty in order to protect national interests and extend national governments’ control of their own destinies. In Britain, contrary to the continent, national interests dictated a different line and it was only when exclusion from the Communities appeared to threaten them that the then British government began to accept the need for membership. The very different motivation behind British entry ensured that the British aims inside the Communities would be limited or “defensive”. The most controversial aspect of Britain’s membership of the EC has always related to “erosion” of its sovereignty. 

The significance of multilateral treaties in the history of Europe

The article discusses the importance of issues of multilateral treaties in the history of Europe since 1945. It is when a large number of international organi­zations were launched, including those that were regional like European Com­munities/European Union. The author tackles the issues of multilateral agree­ments between countries and international organizations and the European Union, that have been grouped according to scope. Verification of the scientist problem resulted finding that multilateral treaties are undeniable urge to reg­ulate new areas of relationships, but they do not replace the bilateral relations between the countries. Evidenced by the increase in the number of bilateral agreements together with the increasing number of multilateral agreements.

Consequences of a full-scale Russian-Ukrainian war for the positioning of the «Three Seas Initiative» in global politics

The article discusses the term “Three Seas Initiative” – a product of the adaptation of the philosophical and geographical category “Intermarium” to the description of Central-Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. The thesis is substantiated that the application of the category “Intermarium” to Central-Eastern and South-Eastern Europe is due not only to the “mental geography” of Polish political thought and the practical needs of Polish geopolitics of the 20th and 21st centuries but also to the objectively existing general characteristics of the region (its buffer status between geopolitical powers of Germany and Russia, the lower level of prosperity of this region compared to Western Europe, its predominantly Slavic character, which repeatedly pushes the implementation of pan-Slavist projects in the Central-Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, the trends in social, in particular, cultural, economic and political, which are observed at least since the late 1980s). It is argued that the project “Three Seas Initiative” by A. Duda is a modern reincarnation of the idea of the Prometheists – “Intermarium”, created between the two world wars on the basis of the Jagiellonian idea of the Early Modern Age. This project arose as an opposition of rightwing conservative, poorer EU members to its left-liberal, rich participants with external support from the Eurosceptic, right-wing populist government of D. Trump in the USA. However, the evolution of the Three Seas Initiative finally led it to institutionalization as one of the cores of integration in the modern European Union at different speeds, with an emphasis on the development of cross-border communication and infrastructure projects in the region with the cooperation of the EU and the USA. It is emphasized that after the start of the Russian- Ukrainian war, the threat of its spread to the territory of the “Three Seas Initiative”, which the EU cannot overcome, forces the members of the initiative to seek direct military support from the United States in exchange for Washington’s support in its opposition to Beijing, an ally of Moscow. “Three Seas Initiative” could be perceived as an activation of the role of the region as one of the outposts of opposition to Chinese influence on the planet. In addition, the Russian- Ukrainian war involuntarily led to the achievement of one of the goals of the Three Seas Initiative - the development of the logistics infrastructure of its participants, due to the need to serve large-scale land and air movements of troops and the functioning of “grain” and humanitarian corridors from the European Union to Ukraine. Also, a full-scale Russian-Ukrainian war caused the resuscitation and development of the military-industrial complex of the Three Seas Initiative countries, its integration within the region and the rest of the EU, as well as with Ukraine, the USA, and South Korea, which gives a chance for high-tech economic growth of the participants of the project.