Search

Begin New Search Topic Transition Political Geography Europe

11. The Formation of Local Self-government During the System Transformation Period in Poland and the Former GDR

Author:
Adam Jarosz
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
This paper presents changes that have occurred at the local level in Poland and new German federal states during the process of the post-communist system transforma- tion. The stages of rebuilding the local self-government and its structures are analyzed. The experiences of Poland and Eastern Germany – two states where the system transformation took different courses – were compared. At the same time, both countries have different constitutional orders of the unitary state and federal state, and this context are interesting fields for a comparative analysis. This paper also confronts the two methods of institution building – the importing of well-established institutions and developing them in the evolu- tionary way, where in both cases path a dependency can be well observed. In Germany this is considered a special case (Sonderfall) of institutional transformation, in which the key role was played by the transference of institutions, personnel and financial means. This was also done much quicker and in a more structured and comprehensive way than in Poland. In the case of Poland, the creation of local self-government structures or shaping the political actors was a grassroots and evolutionary process. This article points out the most important factors that had a crucial significance in the course and results of the transformation and explains different ways of developing the system of democratic local self-government.
Topic:
Governance, Local, Federalism, and Transition
Political Geography:
Europe, Poland, and Germany

12. Selected Essays on the Transition to a New Nuclear Order

Author:
Judith Reppy and Catherine M. Kelleher
Publication Date:
07-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Judith Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies
Abstract:
What conditions are needed for a stable transition to a new nuclear order, one in which the total number of nuclear weapons would be reduced to very low numbers, perhaps even zero? We have addressed the myriad issues raised by this question with funding from a grant on “Creating Conditions for a Stable Transition to a New Nuclear Order,” co-directed by Catherine Kelleher and Judith Reppy, from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to the Judith Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies at Cornell University. The essays collected here are a sample of the work supported by the grant. The goals of our project are three-fold: to take a fresh look at the theoretical underpinnings of the arguments about strategic security and nuclear doctrines; to encourage members of the younger generation (NextGen) scholars working on nuclear security issues to see themselves as part of a network that stretches from scholars in the field to active participants in the policy process; and to disseminate the products of the project to the policy community, in Washington and elsewhere. We have convened four workshops—in Berlin (December 2014); Ithaca, NY (November 2015); Monterey, CA (February 2016); and Washington, DC (May 2016)—and held several discussion dinners in Washington, DC. We received very welcome assistance in organizing these events from the German Marshall Fund, which hosted our Berlin workshop, and Bill Potter and Jeffrey Lewis at the Middlebury Institute for International Studies in Monterey. Elaine Scott and Sandra Kisner at Cornell provided invaluable support throughout, as did Ari Kattan, Jessica Gottesman, and Debak Das.A number of themes have emerged from these meetings, which we outline below. First, however, it is worth discussing the broader context in which the project has unfolded. In a very real sense, the seeds of our project were sown by the “Gang of Four” op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in January 2007 calling for worldwide nuclear disarmament. This call, coming from four highly respected individuals in the policy world, re-invigorated the debate over the usefulness and dangers of nuclear weapons around the world, and spurred a number of similar calls from diplomats and politicians in other countries. In April 2009, President Obama gave an important speech in Prague, in which he stated that the United States was committed “to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”2 The shift in the political discussion encouraged scholars to return to the topics of strategic security and nuclear deterrence, topics that had fallen into neglect following the end of the Cold War. One such effort was a series of meetings organized by Catherine Kelleher under a grant from the Carnegie Corporation, which resulted in our co-edited book, Getting to Zero. In that volume the question of what a transition to nuclear zero would look like was broached, but not analyzed in detail. The current project is intended as a step toward filling that gap. The dangers that nuclear weapons pose—from accidents, miscalculation in times of crisis, or their acquisition by non-state actors—have persuaded many people that a nuclear-weapons free world is desirable. The optimism that nuclear disarmament might be feasible was based in large part on the success of European countries following World War II in building a zone of peace across the European continent, historically the site of so many bloody wars, and on the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Russian annexation of Crimea in spring 2014, however, ushered in a period of conflict in Ukraine and threw the validity of the European model into question. In Asia, stability has been threatened by North Korea’s detonation of nuclear devices and a more assertive international policy on the part of China. These shifts in the international situation have made it clear that a new nuclear order will have to be robust enough to weather unexpected political shocks, as well as the challenges arising from technological changes that can undercut strategic balances and other changes that we cannot foresee. As Harald Müller has cogently argued, global nuclear disarmament will not happen in a world that looks like the world of today, minus nuclear weapons. Instead, it will be the result of a step-by-step process of changing ideas, building new modes of cooperation and trust among states, and finding ways to respect regional differences within a global order. The essays in this Occasional Paper offer ideas for this process. We have selected them from the larger number of commissioned papers and commentaries produced by the participants in the project. We have confined our choices to papers by NextGen participants and included examples from each of the four workshops. The issues discussed include new ways to frame deterrence logics, important both for understanding the history of the Cold War and current questions of nuclear learning (Harrington; Akhtar). Security perspectives both within and between regions are analyzed (Zhao; Martin), and the importance of cooperative approaches to security addressed (Kühn; Gheorghe).
Topic:
National Security, Nuclear Power, Denuclearization, and Transition
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, Europe, Asia, and North America

13. The Making of a State: Transition in Montenegro

Author:
Igor Lukšic and Milorad Katnic
Publication Date:
10-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Cato Journal
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
The first Montenegrin state started to take shape in the 8th century with the arrival of the Slavs and their mingling with the local population. Originally it was called Doclea, whose ruler received a royal insignia by the Pope Gregory VII in 1078 (Andrijaševi ´c and Rastoder 2006). Montenegro fell under the Ottomans in the late 15th century, but acted as a de facto independent state until formal recognition came at the Berlin Congress in 1878. Despite being on the victors’ side in the Balkan Wars and in World War I, it was annexed by Serbia and lost its sovereignty in 1918. After the Second World War it became a part of socialist Yugoslavia, where it remained until 1992. Montenegro’s political transition started in earnest after the Belgrade Agreement signed in March 2002. Montenegro held an independence referendum in 2006 and was subsequently admitted to the United Nations and other international organizations. Today Montenegro is engaged in accession talks with the European Union (EU).
Topic:
History, Elections, State, and Transition
Political Geography:
Europe and Montenegro

14. The Role of the Military in the Constitution-making Process as a part of Democratic Transition: The Comparative Cases of Turkey and Egypt

Author:
Merve Ince
Publication Date:
12-2013
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Bilgi
Institution:
Değişim Yayınları
Abstract:
The role of the military in the politics in the developing or socalled “Third World” countries has always been fundamental in order to comprehend the historical process of democratization movements in these countries. To be able to fully grasp the politics, particularly democratic transitions, in the Middle East, it is indispensable to look at the role of the military within the transition process. However, because the democratic transition processes involves different practices, in my research paper, I will focus on the role of military within the constitution-making processes in order to narrow down my research. I have chosen the constitution-making process because, as argued by Özbudun, constitution-making, especially during democratic transitions, is an excellent opportunity to build political institutions that will enjoy broad support from society and its political elites. Both the constitution-making process and its outcome are crucial aspects of the transition to and consolidation of democracy. In this regard, in this study, I have chosen to study Egypt and Turkey comparatively in terms of their military involvement in the constitution making process. It should be noted that in both Turkey and Egypt, previous constitutions were made directly by the military or under military influence through various means, which I will evaluate in my research paper in detailed way. I have chosen these two countries due to two reasons. My initial inspiration is derived from that currently, these two significant countries of the region are in the constitution-making process. When we look at current situation of Turkey, it can be argued that Turkey is in constitution-making process, which is supposed to be totally civilian without the influence of the military. On the other hand, in terms of Egypt, it is argued that following to the Arab Spring, Egypt’s new constitution will be the roadmap to a second republic that most Egyptians hope will be free from the tyranny, corruption, and nepotism, which were the trademarks of Egypt’s political life. The second reason is that despite the fact that Egypt and Turkey differ from each other in terms of longevity of their democratic experiences, the militaries of two countries demonstrate some core similarities, which is noteworthy in terms of comparing the two. Considering all of these, the aim of this study is to see how the military can be a part of the political system, especially in the making of constitution, and to understand the current situation and changing position of the militaries in these countries.
Topic:
Military Affairs, Democracy, State Building, and Transition
Political Geography:
Africa, Europe, Turkey, Asia, and Egypt