欧洲一体化对中东欧国家政党制度转型的影响

近20年来,中东欧国家的政党制度经历了从一党制到多党制的转型进程,在此变迁过程中,以欧盟接纳中东欧国家入盟为主线的欧洲一体化进程对其产生了重要影响。欧洲一体化影响中东欧国家政党制度变迁的历史演进轨迹是曲折的,从中东欧国家多党制初现时欧共体谨慎观望,到欧盟开始在幕后对中东欧国家政党制度进行合法化整合,再到欧盟通过入盟谈判主动型塑中东欧国家的政党制度,直至目前欧盟对已入盟和未入盟的中东欧国家政党制度的影响出现两种不同向度。欧洲一体化对中东欧国家政党制度转型的影响是依靠欧盟接纳中东欧国家入盟为杠杆实现的,其在各国的实现路径具有极强的相似性。欧盟在接纳中东欧国家入盟过程中主动提出的诸多制度性要求和安排是对这种影响的产生起到核心作用的关键因素。     

民粹主义在台湾：“民粹式民主”的生成及其危机

民粹主义是一个模糊复杂且具有多重面向的概念,“民粹式民主”是民粹主义在台湾地区与民主政治相结合形成的一种特殊的民粹主义形式。揆诸台湾地区现代政治发展史,无论是转型过程中政党内外的斗争与合作,抑或是“民粹式民主”下政党行为模式的形成,都受到民粹主义的深刻影响。“民粹式民主”具有极大的危害性,产生了问责失衡和治理危机,加剧了岛内政治文化的恶化,伴随着民众的意识觉醒和主体性提升,社会力量可能存在“失控”的风险。     

中东欧地区大国博弈新态势--兼论中国-中东欧国家合作面临的挑战与机遇

在地缘安全、能源、价值观等方面,美国、以德国为主要代表的欧盟国家以及俄罗斯在中东欧地区有着广泛而重要的利益。三者的互动关系呈现美俄博弈主导中东欧安全形势,美德(欧)联合制俄但共识有限,美德(欧)对中国在中东欧的经济介入保持警惕但难以形成合力三个特征。随着中美竞争的持续,美德(欧)与以波兰、匈牙利为代表的中东欧国家在价值观上的分歧扩大,美德(欧)对俄罗斯的地缘政治攻势升级,中东欧地区的大国力量格局发生了新的变化。美国对中国的战略围堵压力持续加大,以德国为代表的欧盟国家对中东欧国家的控制力不断降低,俄罗斯反“守”为“攻”回应西方威胁,而德国新政府和新一届欧盟委员会对华政策更加突出价值观因素,导致中国—中东欧国家合作面临的地缘政治压力总体上有增无减。但是,美欧内部也并非铁板一块,以德国为代表的欧盟国家在中东欧控制力的弱化以及美欧与波兰、匈牙利等国关系的恶化,也为持续推进中国—中东欧国家合作带来了潜在机遇。以上因素作为影响中东欧国家对华政策的重要变量,需要密切关注。     

欧洲左中右翼民粹政党的政治殊求——基于选民投票偏好的数据解析

在欧洲民粹主义浪潮下,不同意识形态的左中右翼政党纷纷借助于民粹主义的力量获取选民的支持.对于主流政党而言,最为担心的莫过于所有民粹政党结成反建制联盟.而实际上,虽然中间与激进右翼民粹政党选民体现出了相近的意识形态倾向,但激进左右翼民粹政党选民分属不同的社会阶层,秉持完全异样的价值观念与政治诉求,因此三类选民分别支持的民...     

欧洲右翼极端和民粹政党的发展动向及影响

极右翼政党和民粹政党（极右翼/民粹政党）是两种内涵不同但又密切相关的政党类型,该类型政党的政治纲领和组织动员方式独具特色,社会基础相对均衡。一段时间以来,极右翼/民粹政党在不少欧洲国家发展势头强劲,推动这些国家的政治光谱出现“右转”迹象,其走强的背后有着多方面缘由。2024年,欧洲将迎来包括欧洲议会选举在内的一系列重要选举。极右翼/民粹政党具备一定发展潜力,不仅会给处于政治中间地带的主流政党带来严峻考验,还将对欧洲政治生态以及一体化进程造成持久影响。     

当前中东欧国家政局探析

<正>转型半个世纪以来,中东欧各国政治光谱基本正常波动,多党议会民主政治成为主流。转型初期,各国政党数量较多,但各政党生命周期不一。最初,各国多为右翼政治力量主导政坛;随后中左与中右政治力量轮流执政,但民粹或极端政党在国际金融危机、欧债危机中凸显。现在,多数国家基本稳定在数个主要政党或政党联合执政,不仅有中左、中右分野,也有中左、中右力量联合执政。2014—2016年,部分中东欧国     

离心与向心——2017年中东欧国家与欧盟的关系

2017年,中东欧国家与欧盟的关系似乎向两个相反的方向发展.一方面,一些中东欧成员国与欧盟在分摊难民、双重质量标准、匈牙利和波兰内政、多速欧洲问题上发生争议,离心倾向日渐明显;另一方面,西巴尔干国家继续争取加入欧盟,向心态势一如既往.中东欧成员国的离心倾向与西巴尔干国家的向心态势均是出于它们对安全、主权和平等的执着追求,表明它们在回归欧洲的同时越来越注重本国的实际,强调本国的利益,在未来一段时间内这将是中东欧国家与欧盟关系的常态.     

运用“丝绸之路经济带”发展中国与中东欧国家关系

<正>在全球经济一体化的大背景下,近年来中国积极开拓对外贸易和海外市场,构建对外沟通战略通道。其中丝绸之路经济带的建设和中国发展同中东欧国家的合作是这种对外战略的重要体现。建设丝绸之路经济带和推动中国与中东欧国家关系之间的战略关联性2013年9月,中国国家主席习近     

携手共进,推动中国与波兰和中东欧国家关系新发展

当今世界正处于大发展大调整大变革时期,在后危机时代,世界经济增长减速,全球需求结构出现明显变化,国际政治和经济格局也在发生着微妙的变化.世界各国加快发展模式转型和发展方式转变的压力普遍增强.共同分享发展机遇,共同应对风险挑战,推动建设持久和平、共同繁荣的世界,已成为国家间互利合作普遍坚持的共同理念.秉持这样的理念,中国同中东欧国家应进一步增进相互了解和友谊,互尊互鉴、求同存异,共建包容、开放的国际体系,有效应对全球性问题的挑战.下面,我就中国与波兰和中东欧国家关系及合作谈几点看法.     

Continuity and change in Russia's policy toward Central and Eastern Europe

The accession of the CEE states to NATO and the European Union has put an end to the geopolitical ambiguity and implicit insecurity in the region between Russia and the so-called ‘Old Europe’. Instead of being an area of great powers' rivalry, elements of ‘buffer belts’ lacking meaningful strategic options, objects of raw Nazi-Soviet deals, or zones under Russian occupation and domination, the three Baltic States and the Visegrad group countries became full-fledged members of the European Union and were given NATO's security guarantees. By the middle of the 2000s, one would conclude that traditional geopolitics had ended in this region.However, the changes in the strategic situation in CEE have not changed the deep rooted moving forces and long-term strategic goals of the Russian policy toward the region. Moscow seeks to have the position, as its official rhetoric says, of an ‘influential centre of a multipolar world’ that would be nearly equal to the USA, China, or the EU. With this in view Moscow seeks for the establishment of its domination over the new independent states of the former USSR and for the formation of a sphere of influence for itself in Central Eastern Europe. If it achieves these goals, then Europe may return once again to traditional geopolitics fraught with great power rivalries and permanent instabilities radiating far beyond CEE borders.Yet a few questions remain. Has Russia come to the conclusion that attempting to restore its privileged position of influence in Central-Eastern Europe is wrong? Has Russia enough power to threaten the CEE countries? How credible are NATO's security guarantees? How may Russian behavior in CEE affect a wider European geopolitical context? These questions are appropriate in the light of Russia's ‘resurgence’ as a revanchist power and because Russia is, and most probably will remain in the next five to ten years, a weighty economic and strategic factor in areas along the Western borders of the former USSR.     

An Empirical Typology of Local Government Systems in Eastern Europe

The most widely used typologies of European local government systems are based on research conducted in the 1980s. The most popular are those of Page and Goldsmith (1987), distinguishing between Northern and Southern European systems, and Hesse and Sharpe (1991), distinguishing between Southern, Northern and Anglo-Saxon models. The rare attempts to include the Eastern part of the continent are far from comprehensive or satisfactory. They usually view the whole region as a distinct group, referring to its specific historical background and recent radical decentralisation (Bennett 1993, Heinelt and Hlepas 2006). Disappointingly, the same approach is presented in the most recent comprehensive analysis of European local government systems (Loughlin et al. 2010). This article tries to fill the gap produced by this simplification, by offering a comprehensive picture of the variation within the Eastern European region and suggesting a first attempt at a typology of around 20 countries of the region. The criteria for this typology refers to those used in earlier classifications of the Western European systems and include: (i) territorial organisation and tiers of elected local governments, (ii) scope of functions provided by local governments (functional decentralisation), (iii) financial autonomy, (iv) horizontal power relations within local government institutions (election systems and relationships between mayors and councils).     

Integrating the past: regional integration and historical reckoning in Central and Eastern Europe

This article considers how regional integration in Europe has informed processes of collective remembrance and transitional justice in Central and Eastern Europe. By taking the cases of Romania, Poland and the Czech Republic, two claims are made. First, although European institutions have not initiated top-down projects of historical reckoning, activists who have an interest in promoting engagement with the recent past have been able to draw the political, financial and/or judicial weight of European institutions behind particular reckoning initiatives, on an ad hoc basis. Second, the nature of the projects that have been realized with the assistance of European resources has varied across the region, according to the extent of prior efforts to promote collective remembrance and transitional justice at the national level. Where there have previously been constraints on historical reckoning, activists have drawn “Europe” behind efforts to promote national-level confrontations with particularly national experiences of communist rule. By contrast, where there has previously been extensive state sponsorship of collective remembrance projects and/or processes of transitional justice, European resources have been used in support of efforts to raise awareness of the repressions of communist rule, and transitions from that system of rule, among a wider, international audience.     

Cohesion Policy and the Evolution of Regional Policy in Central and Eastern Europe

The paper considers the extent to which domestic regional policy in the Central East European EU member states has been ‘subsumed’ into cohesion policy approaches. It acknowledges that directions of domestic regional policy change vary with processes of EU policy transfer, adaptation, emulation or resistance. This variation occurs across time and across member states. Crucially, the paper argues that interaction between cohesion policy and national regional policy systems also varies according to different regional policy components. Drawing on research from across the member states, the analysis breaks policy down into a number of key dimensions (objectives, instruments, spatial targeting and governance) and assesses the interaction between EU and domestic approaches and agendas.