Bilateral diplomatic and economic relations between East Asia and the new EU members: The case of Latvia

As the result of historical, political and geographical reasons, Latvias relations with the East Asia are a new field of study. Even though the diplomatic and economic relations between Latvia and the East Asian countries have not been significant, the volume of trade and cooperation in other fields has been increasing particularly with China, Japan and Singapore. Latvias joining the EU will impact this cooperation in different ways. Mostly it will give more opportunities for Latvia to build fruitful diplomatic and economic relations with the East Asian countries. This explorative research will examine the current state of the bilateral diplomatic and economic relations between Latvia and the East Asian countries (ASEAN, Japan, China, and South Korea) as well as clarify future trends, particularly related to the effects of the accession of Latvia to the EU. This is one of the first researches in this field and is intended for those interested in bilateral relations between the new EUs members and the East Asian countries, as well as for those analyzing the consequences of the EUs enlargement on these relations.     

International officials and the standard of diplomatic privilege

Historically international privileges and immunities, namely those bestowed on international functionaries, have influenced and become entwined with their diplomatic counterparts. Developments in diplomatic privileges and immunities have affected the immunities accorded international persons because 'diplomatic' privilege is still used to define the privileges granted to some international officials. The abuses of and problems raised by international privileges and immunities have been examined by the International Law Commission, which moved to expand them, and the Council of Europe, which moved to contract them. The UN Conference on Representation of States in their Relations with International Organizations, convoked in 1975, ultimately failed to draft a convention acceptable to hosts because the issue had become entangled in so many different agendas.     

Power, sovereignty, and the great republic: Anglo-American diplomatic relations in the era of the Civil War

Historians have tended to view the American Civil War (1861-65) as a milestone in Anglo-American relations. It marked the transfer of dominance from Great Britain to the United States in the Western Hemisphere. As Great Britain backed the losing side overwhelming American power brought about a British withdrawal. This article argues that this is a very oversimplified interpretation of their relations in this period. Britain did not intervene in the Civil War because it was not good policy; throughout the British relied on deterrence because, save for the war years, American power could not be translated into military power. The British secured most of their policy objectives thanks to a combination of prudent and conciliatory conduct, and a desire to avoid war, but also due to calm resolution that belied belligerent and sometimes outlandish public statements. British leaders have often been criticized for hypocrisy and double standards, but such criticisms seem unfair. Their belief that the Civil War was futile resulted from a humanitarian desire to halt the killing. It should be remembered that although the nineteenth century witnessed many local conflicts, great wars seem to have disappeared. It therefore appeared to be a laudable objective to attempt to arbitrate in what turned out to be the greatest war after 1815. It is also important to recall that Europeans were less interested in this conflict than the Americans themselves, and that preoccupation with affairs closer to home led to hasty and erroneous judgements.     

Full circle: New principals and old consequences in the modern diplomatic system

Originally written for a conference marking the 350th anniversary of the treaties of Westphalia, the article argues that, although the surrounding circumstances are very different, there are some interesting parallels to be drawn between the problems of the early seventeenth century and those of the end of the twentieth. The principal shared characteristic is that power was then and is now on the move between one type of institution and another. This resulted and results in the development of unusually complex relationships between new institutions unfamiliar with each other and a continuing need for them to deal with decaying but surviving entities from the past. In such circumstances both the structures for forming and managing policy and the machinery for conducting relations underwent and are undergoing marked and stressful change, as the old strives to adjust and the successors attempt to construct new and appropriate means of representation. Where the Westphalian period, under the pressure of state formation began the construction of ministries with sole responsibility for foreign affairs, the present period is seeing a corresponding dismantling of the autonomous foreign ministry under the pressure of globalization. In diplomatic services a similar correspondence may be seen: state services decline, but private entities, whether commercial or civil, are beginning to create means of representing themselves both to each other and to national governments: old problems, but new principals.     

Full circle: New principals and old consequences in the modern diplomatic system

Originally written for a conference marking the 350th anniversary of the treaties of Westphalia, the article argues that, although the surrounding circumstances are very different, there are some interesting parallels to be drawn between the problems of the early seventeenth century and those of the end of the twentieth. The principal shared characteristic is that power was then and is now on the move between one type of institution and another. This resulted and results in the development of unusually complex relationships between new institutions unfamiliar with each other and a continuing need for them to deal with decaying but surviving entities from the past. In such circumstances both the structures for forming and managing policy and the machinery for conducting relations underwent and are undergoing marked and stressful change, as the old strives to adjust and the successors attempt to construct new and appropriate means of representation. Where the Westphalian period, under the pressure of state formation began the construction of ministries with sole responsibility for foreign affairs, the present period is seeing a corresponding dismantling of the autonomous foreign ministry under the pressure of globalization. In diplomatic services a similar correspondence may be seen: state services decline, but private entities, whether commercial or civil, are beginning to create means of representing themselves both to each other and to national governments: old problems, but new principals.     

International representations of Balkan wars: a socio-anthropological approach in international relations perspective

This article introduces the socio-anthropological concept of international representations to examine the relationship between a civilizational rhetoric, the West European and the international politics of otherization and containment of Southeast Europe, and an essentialist and timeless bias in international relations theory, including both radical and constructivist trends. We first explore the different narrative perspectives on the Balkan wars from the beginning to the end of the twentieth century. Their subsequent problematization is aimed at challenging the way they have constructed commonplace and time-worn representations, which international society shares with different consequences in international affairs. This is a limited conception since international representations as a socio-anthropological concept are always socially, culturally and politically constructed, contested and negotiated. They do not neutrally refer to a reality in the world; they create a reality of their own. Moreover, this limited conception ignores the fact that how, by whom and in whose interest international representations are constructed is itself a form of power in international relations. Therefore, the way international representations are constructed can be problematized as an example of political and ideological projects that operate in the West as well as in the Southeast European countries that are the object of Western foreign policy.     

数字鸿沟与国际关系知识霸权

霸权是国际关系的伴生物。农业社会霸权国家具有明显的军事强权特性,工业社会霸权国家具有明显的工业强权特性,信息社会霸权国家初步显形知识霸权的特性。数字鸿沟的浮现使得国际关系中的知识霸权凸现,成为发达国家获利、强国和称霸的利器,科学的认识和探讨知识霸权对当代国际关系的影响具有重要的理论和现实意义。     

Making a Cold War in the Near East: Turkey and the Origins of the Cold War, 1945-1947

During the post-war negotiations in the years of 1945 and 1946, the Soviets launched a bitter war of nerves against Turkey in order to establish a military base in Istanbul and share control of the Straits. It was crucial for Britain that the USSR be prevented from gaining any influence in Turkey. However, as Britain was in no position to support Turkey financially, American authorities encouraged by London and Ankara took over the responsibility for Turkey. This articles examines the Great Powers rivalry over Turkey and Turkey's response to it. It argues that regional factors other than US-Soviet confrontation, such as Turkey's security search against the Soviets, also played a crucial part in starting the Cold War in the Near East.     

The impact of EU-Enlargement on relations between Europe and East Asia

On 1 May 2004 the European Union’s biggest Enlargement ever materialised when ten countries joined the EU. The new member states—Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia—brought 75 million new citizens into the Union which now comprises a population of 455 million. In spite of the historical importance of EU enlargement, it seems to have raised relatively little interest beyond Europe. This paper tries to narrow the research gap by discussing the most significant implications of EU enlargement for Europe–Asia relations in the areas of general inter-regional (political) links, trade and investment.     

中东伊斯兰地区与国际体系的关系缘何紧张?——次国家行为体视角的分析

本文提出了中东伊斯兰地区与西方主导下的国际体系处于紧张状态的基本观点,并从政治、经济、文化等角度进行了简要说明,同时在对相关文献进行梳理的基础上确立了本文的研究视角.中东次国家行为体导致中东与国际体系关系紧张的根源在于:内外因素的共同作用导致了中东地区体系的脆弱性、破碎性和可渗透性,创造了民族、宗教政治组织崛起的土壤,催化了中东地区次国家行为体的反体系运动.     

The European union as a diplomatic actor: internal, traditional, and structural diplomacy

An investigation into EU diplomacy naturally requires an analysis of the diplomacy developed within the framework of the Common Foreign and Securiry Policy (CFSP) of the European Union (EU). But equally important is the 'internal diplomacy' focusing on the settlement of mutual relationships among member states and particularly the 'structural diplomacy' based on EU strategies and partnerships with other regions in the world, which is aimed at promoting structural long-term changes in these regions.     

Hierarchy and Legitimacy in International Systems: The Tribute System in Early Modern East Asia

The East Asian “tribute system” from 1368 to 1841 comprised an enduring, stable, and hierarchic system, with China clearly the hegemon, in which cultural achievement was as important as economic or military prowess. Most significant is the recognition that the Chinese tributary order was in fact a viable and recognized international system with military, cultural, and economic dimensions that all intersected to create a very interesting and stable security system. Recently it has become fashionable in historical circles to question the viability of the tributary system in part because scholars have become increasingly aware of the realties behind Chinese rhetoric. However, more nuanced studies and new interpretations only serve to underscore the centrality of the system for its participants. This paper demonstrates that there is a hierarchical relationship—generated by a common culture defined by a Confucian worldview—in place in the context of China and the East Asian states and helps clarify the distinction between an international system based on polarity and an international society based on culture.