Journal of International Relations and Development

Volume 3, No. 3 (September 2000)

 

International Relations in the Czech Republic: A Review of the Discipline
by Petr Drulák and Radka Druláková _*

 

Introduction

Stanley Hoffmann (1995/1977) Once called the discipline of International relations (ir) ‘an American Social Science’. Even though he was aware of the work and influence of non–American IR thinkers from Thucydides through to Edward H. Carr, he argued that the fully–fledged discipline of IR is a recent phenomenon which came into being only in the United States after World War II and nowhere else. He proposed several arguments for it, the most potent being (Hoffmann 1995/1977:224):

The political preeminence of the United States is the factor I would stress most in explaining why the discipline has fared so badly, by comparison, in the rest of the world (I leave aside countries like the Soviet Union and China, in which it would be hard to speak of free social science scholarship!).

While in some countries scholars were prevented from undertaking IR scholarship by their totalitarian masters, in other countries scholars were not interested in IR scholarship because their country was lacking power and it could not put their advice into effect in any event. The latter were condemned either to ‘reflect, more or less slavishly, and with some delays, American fashions’ or to produce ‘brilliant individual contributions, but unconnected and unsupported’ which ‘do not make a discipline’ (ibid.). Hoffmann’s paper was path–breaking by exposing two problems which were hidden within the discipline. On the one hand, he drew attention to the self–reflection of the discipline, especially the way it is shaped by the external environment, and to the exclusive position of the United States in IR studies as such. The latter point has been reiterated several times since then, most recently by Wæver (1998) in his excellent sociology of the discipline, based on empirical research.

Given that, does it make sense to speak about the Czech discipline of IR at all? Czechoslovakia managed to suffer both obstacles to the development of IR which Hoffmann mentioned. It was a small country with negligible power resources which could never aspire to leadership in international politics and, at the same time, it was a totalitarian state where any social science scholarship was put under stifling constraints. While the latter obstacle disappeared in 1989 leaving behind a nasty legacy, the former was further strengthened by the split up of Czechoslovakia in 1993 when two even smaller countries came into being.

Nevertheless, there is one factor, omitted by Hoffmann, which makes IR studies a worthwhile project in smaller countries. Generally, small countries are much more sensitive to the international environment than great powers. They have to count on external recourses in both the economy and security. Obviously, the lack of resources may constrain scholars working in small post–communist countries, in terms of shortages of books, journals and qualified researchers, and the legacy of that still burdens the discipline. But this should not obscure the fact that smaller post–communist countries develop their own IR studies which, besides the pursuit of pure knowledge, also try to provide advice to the foreign policies of their governments.

Like the whole area of humanities and social sciences in the Czech Republic, IR studies have to deal with the legacy of the communist regime. Under communism, scholarship was burdened with ideological schemes of Marxism–Leninism while some disciplines were not allowed to exist at all. ₁ A critical reflection on social constructs, which is a precondition of a scientific inquiry in the social sciences, presented a potential challenge to the communist dogmas and practices and was thus not welcome. The research and teaching in the whole area had to stick to the strict guidelines enforced by communist supervisors.

IR gained its current status of an independent area of study and research only after the fall of communism. In the 1969–1989 period, there was no possibility of Czechoslovak students studying IR as such with the exception of those preparing for a diplomatic career at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations in the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, some IR topics were studied at the Institute of International Relations (IIR), a research institute subordinated to the Czechoslovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and they also looked into related fields like international economics, international history, international law, area studies, or sociology, which were even then all present at the Czech universities, but only within the rigid framework of Marxism–Leninism. ₂ These fields provided a platform on which the foundation of IR studies could be laid in the early 1990s. But they had to get rid of the ideological baggage themselves which did not make the task of establishing IR studies much easier. ₃

There are several ways of conceptualising the discipline of IR. The explanatory model suggested by Wæver (1998:695) is especially worth mentioning. Wæver distinguishes between three layers on which he observes different aspects of the discipline. The first layer of ‘society and polity’ includes intellectual styles, traditions of political thought, state–society relations and foreign policy, the second layer of ‘social sciences’ concerns the general conditions of social science and disciplinary divisions while the third one of ‘intellectual activities in IR’ is about the social and intellectual structure of IR and IR traditions. Wæver shows that this elaborate scheme can provide valuable insights into the heart of the discipline as it is practised in the United States and in Western Europe. But its application presupposes well–established traditions of IR thinking and of social sciences as well as a certain level of institutional development. In our case, we tread on much shakier ground and we have to put up with a somewhat cruder model.

We will conceptualise the discipline distinguishing three levels — institutions, outputs and people. There is an umbilical cord between the institutions and the discipline, i.e. the disciplines have to have the institutions within which they are cultivated. Thus, the question about the state of the discipline translates into a question about the state of institutions. This institutional dimension seems to be significant in the case of IR studies, at least. IR studies have been undertaken in a certain sense since Thucidydes, but their contemporary practitioners share ‘the assumption that international relations as a discipline began with the foundation by David Davies of the Woodrow Wilson Chair at Aberystwyth in 1919’ (Smith 1995:14).

Therefore, we will initially focus on the Czech institutions involved in IR studies. Yet, the institutions, important as they are, provide only a framework for the courses, books and articles through which ideas are transmitted within the discipline and which give content to the discipline. These transmitters of ideas which create the very essence of the discipline will be analysed in the second step. However, neither the institutions nor outputs would be possible without those people who teach and publish. In the third section we take a closer look at the practitioners of IR, i.e. at the teachers, researchers and authors of books and articles.

 

Institutions

Today there is a variety of institutions which deal with some elements of ir studies in the Czech Republic. But there are just a few which concentrate on IR as such. We base our selection on the assumption that the discipline of IR exists in the Czech Republic and that it differs from international economics, political science, international law and from history which, on one hand, contribute to IR but which, on the other, are independent disciplines themselves. American IR used a similar demarcation during the period of its origins when Morgenthau (1948/1973:17) argued in his paradigmatic text that ‘international politics as an academic discipline is distinct from recent history and current events, international law, and political reform’. The distinction between research and activism Morgenthau drew when speaking about ‘political reform’ is also important to Czech IR since many articles parading as research results still comprise the advocacy of political opinions.

While being aware that the demarcation of IR studies is far from clear–cut and that it is contested even in countries with well–established IR traditions (Guzzini 1998), our understanding of the discipline of IR as it is practised at Czech universities is based on the idea that studies of international politics form a disciplinary solid core around which the multidisciplinary IR studies exist as a distinct discipline.

The institutions we looked into can be divided into two sorts — educational institutes belonging to the universities, and research institutes. When dealing with the former we focused on two subjects, IR history and IR theory, to draw comparisons between the different ways the institutes approach IR studies. History and theory were chosen because each can claim to provide a framework or an interpretative backbone for IR studies as a whole. ₄ The distinction between history and theory is also vital for the whole discipline as it has justified the existence of the new discipline of IR as being something different to well–established history. Even as historically oriented a scholar as Bull (1972/1995:182) argued that

if there is a distinctively "theoretical approach" to the study of international relations, embracing the great variety of sorts of theorizing that have just been mentioned, and uniting theorists on any common platform, it is that which begins with rejection of the view that the subject can be or need be studied in historical terms alone.

Comparison of curricula suggests which of them was able to assert itself within the new discipline (see Table 3). We reviewed four institutes, all of them based in Prague. But this is not a complete list of the educational institutions dealing with IR. Courses in IR form part of the political science or European integration programmes which are taught at most Czech universities. Outside of Prague, several well–prepared IR courses are also taught e.g. at Palack_ University in Olomouc or at Masaryk University in Brno but there are no complete IR programmes ("Ects" Information Guide 1998). The four institutes were picked out because they offer complete IR programmes and not just IR courses within programmes whose focus lies outside IR.

 

Table 1: number of students (in 1999)

Name of institute	MA studies	Ph.D. studies
		internal	external
IPS — IR branch	60	3	12
Department of Political Science	80	3	10
IIS — all branches	160	20*
JM CIS	191**	14	37

Notes on table 1: * including both internal and external ph.d. candidates. **number of students study ir as their main specialisation. besides, there are some 180 students with a secondary specialisation.

The Jan Masaryk centre of international studies

The Jan Masaryk Centre of International Studies (JM CIS) was founded in 1991 within the Faculty of International Relations, University of Economics, Prague. ₅ The Faculty of International Relations was itself founded in 1991 to succeed the Faculty of Foreign Trade and to cultivate both economic and non–economic approaches to IR. Besides the Centre, departments of law, political science and European law as well as economic departments and language departments make up part of the faculty (Programme of Studies for the School Year 1998/1999).

The students have a strong background in economics as they can apply for programmes in international politics provided by the JM CIS only after getting a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in economics (mostly in international economics). The centre has no BA programme with the exception of four introductory courses for which the undergraduates can opt. But it provides its own master’s and Ph.D. programmes which have the highest number of students in comparison with other institutes (see Table 1). ₆

There are two obligatory historical courses in the master’s curriculum, namely on History of International Politics (two semesters) and Czechoslovak Foreign Policy (one semester), both dealing with the period 1918–1989. Furthermore, there are two obligatory theoretical courses in the master’s curriculum as well. The Theory of International Politics course combines the history of the political philosophy of IR with contemporary IR theory. It presents the thinkers and theories since Thucydides with the focus on post–war American IR theory. The Cultural Theories’ course deals with basic theoretical approaches of cultural anthropology (Programme of Studies for the School Year 1998/1999b).

The most popular topics of master’s theses written at the JM CIS are in IR history (usually after World War II), Czech foreign policy and Western European countries with an unambiguous focus on Germany (see Table 2). The position of the Near East is also noticeable especially its being as popular as European integration and more popular than Visegrad countries or Russia. This shows just how in fashion the Israel and Arab world is among students. If we look at particular security organisations, we can see that collective security organisations (United Nations — UN, Organisation for Security and Co–operation in Europe — OSCE) are a more popular topic than collective defence organisations (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation — NATO, Western European Union — WEU). The very fact that the OSCE features almost as prominently as NATO, which is at odds with relationships in the public discourse, is probably due to the influence of Alexandr Ort who is known as an OSCE expert and advocate in the Czech IR community (Ort 1995).

The JM CIS also co–operates with the Foundation of Jan Masaryk. ₇ Both institutions organise conferences and colloquia dedicated to Jan Masaryk himself.

 

Table 2: ma Theses at the JM CIS (percentage): 1993–1998

Topic of thesis	% share of the topic
International History	15
Czech Republic	12
Germany	8
Western Europe	8
International Security	7
Personalities	7
International Organisations	7
Near East	5
European Integration	5
Global Problems	4
Visegrad Countries	4
Pacific Rim	3
Soviet Union and Russia	3
International Law	2
United States	2
Developing Countries	2
IR theory	1
International Political Economy	1
Central and Eastern Europe	1
Minorities	1
Africa	1
Canada	1
Total	100
Breakdown of International Security	100
NATO	29
UN	29
CSCE and OSCE	24
WEU	18

Notes to table 2: the total is 173 theses. CSCE means conference on security and co–operation in Europe.

The Faculty of Social Sciences

The Faculty of Social Sciences at the Charles University in Prague was founded in 1990 to develop those disciplines neglected and suppressed by the communist regime and today hosts two institutes educating IR specialists — the Institute of Political Studies and Institute of International Studies.

Institute of Political Studies

The Institute of Political Studies (IPS) was founded in 1993 to succeed the Department of Political Science established in 1990. ₈ The Institute consists of two departments — the Department of Political Science and the Department of International Relations — which provide two alternative types of specialisation for graduate students who can choose between Political Science and International Relations. The undergraduates share a bachelor’s curriculum in Political Science and International Relations provided by the Institute.

The graduate students of IR study the general issues of IR with a strong theoretical background. They can choose for their optional courses to focus either on European studies or on more global topics, such as Sustainable Development, International Finance or History of International Law. ₉

Theoretical courses make up a significant part of the curriculum. Undergraduates are obliged to take the History of Political Philosophy course, which overviews essential political thinkers starting with the political thinking of Ancient Greece and finishing with the French Revolution. Then there is an obligatory two–semester course in which the basic texts in political philosophy are read. The graduate students are obliged to take the two–semester course on the Theory of International Relations, which is organised around the analysis of the following topics: international system, international actors, international conflicts, foreign policy, interdependence and international security (Programme of Studies for the School Year 1998/1999c).

Less emphasis is put on the study of history in comparison with the theory as there is just one obligatory two–semester course on the History of International Relations, which deals with the period since the French Revolution to the end of the Cold War (Programme of Studies for the School Year 1998/1999c).

Institute of International Studies

The Institute of International Studies (IIS) was founded in 1994 after the Centre for German and Austrian Studies split up from the IPS. ₁₀ The Centre was set up to cultivate the new discipline studying German–speaking countries which would reflect the needs and geopolitical re alities of the Czech Republic (K_en 1993). After becoming independent from the IPS, the Centre for German and Austrian Studies developed into the IIS which nowadays includes the Departments of German and Austrian Studies, American Studies, Russian and Eastern European Studies, and Western European Studies, with each Department offering its own master’s programme. This composition hints at the ambition of the IIS to raise area experts.

The Institute has its own bachelor’s programme. All undergraduates follow a single curriculum on International Territorial Studies. Graduate students then specialise in one of the four study areas mentioned above.

The IR theory plays a marginal role in the curriculum. Except for a one–semester course in political philosophy being taught by the teachers from the IPS, there is no IR theory subject at the IIS. On the other hand, the study of history features prominently there. Besides the three–semester course on World History, which starts with 1648 and finishes with 1989, the students are obliged to take a one–semester course in Modern Czechoslovak History (1918–1992) and to take three two–semester courses in histories of German–speaking countries, Eastern European countries and United States, respectively. The majority of optional courses are in history as well (Basic Information 1995).

Department of Political Science at the Faculty of Philosophy OF THE Charles University

The Department of Political Science was founded in 1990. ₁₁ Its students take their politological studies as part of a MA programme in combination with other disciplines taught at the Faculty, mostly with history and with foreign languages. The curriculum has elements of both political science and IR studies. Most courses have a strong leaning to political philosophy.

Besides the extensive introductory courses in the history of political philosophy (four semesters lectures, four semesters seminars) and an advanced course in contemporary political philosophy (two semesters lectures, two semesters seminars), students are obliged to take a course in the theory of IR (one–semester) as well. This course is divided into two parts. At the beginning of the course, the main theoretical approaches (realism, liberalism, and critical theory) are presented, which is followed by an analysis of three "big debates" in American IR theory. The first part is concluded with a presentation of the English School. The second part addresses specific topics that are analysed from various theoretical perspectives. The topics are power, war, collective security and integration. Students are also obliged to take a two–semester course in the history of IR, which deals with the political development in the 19th and particularly 20th centuries. The course focuses on topics which are presented with their own histories one after another, rather than in a chronological flow of events (Programme of Studies for the School Year 1998/1999a).

 

Table 3: IR Curricula for MA Students

University/ Institute Courses	IPS - branch IR	Department of Politology	IIS — all branches *	JM CIS
Czech History	4b	4	4	2
IR History	4b	4b	6b	4
IR Theory	4	2	-	2
International Law	4	-	6	4
Political Philosophy	16b	4	2b	-
International Organisations	2	-	-	2
EU Studies	2	2	-	-
United States	-	-	2	2
Soviet Union, Russia	-	-	2	2
Contemporary World Politics	-	-	4	2
European Economic Integration	2	-	-	-
Diplomatic and Consular Practice	-	-	-	2
International Conflicts	2	-	-	-
Modern Strategy	2	-	-	-
Developing Countries	-	-	-	2
Culture in IR	-	-	-	2
Language and Communication in Politics	-	4	-	-
European Nationalism	4	-	-	-

NOTE: the main goal of this table is to compare the curricula of the analysed ir institutes. the table only presents compulsory courses at master's level, facultative courses are thus not included. given the differences between curricular structures some bachelor's courses (b) are included as well. the number represents approximately one hour a week of lectures or seminars. * ma study at the iis includes four branches of area studies between which the students are obliged to choose. all of these branches are specialised and their curricula are strongly focused on the given territory. the courses which are outlined above are therefore shared by all three branches and do not represent the complete ma curricula at the iis.

Institute of International Relations

The predecessor of the IIR was founded in 1957 as an analytical centre of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Originally it was called the Institute for International Policy and Economy as it was inspired by a similar institute in Moscow — IMEMO (Soják, Hr_za, 1987: 4). ₁₂ The Institute got its current name in 1970. In the 1960s it developed into a centre of reformist communism and as such it was crushed in 1970, when all independently minded persons were sacked. The IIR turned into a dull organisation with low scientific standards. The first radical change after 1989 was connected with the return of the previously sacked researchers who took control of the IIR, Václav Kotyk, a deputy director till 1970, became the new director. He also brought in new people with various backgrounds. In 1991, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, trying to turn the IIR into a modern think–tank appointed a new director Ji_í Valenta, a Czech emigrant working as IR professor at the University of Miami, United States, who was in 1994 succeeded by another emigrant IR professor – Otto Pick from the University of Surrey, the UK. Otto Pick became Deputy Foreign Minister in 1998 and the Institute has been directed by Ji_í _ediv_ since then.

Nowadays, the Institute has a prominent place among Czech IR institutions. The research department has a dozen full–time researchers and several part–time researchers who analyse the features of IR most relevant to Czech foreign policy–making. ₁₃ The activities of the publishing department are of equal importance as the Institute publishes the only IR periodicals in the country and is probably the most important publisher of the results of domestic IR research. The IIR also has one of the best IR libraries in the country. Interestingly, about half of all the books acquired in 1993–1998 are in English, while about a fifth of them are in German (Annual Reports of the IIR).

Since 1997, the IIR has been hosting the Diplomatic Academy, a school of diplomats set up by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The most important areas of research undertaken in the IIR in the 1990s concerned the following topics (ranked by the number of projects and their duration) (Annual Reports of the IIR):

• Czech security policy and international security;
• Germany (domestic issues, Czech–German issues, Germany in Europe);
• Developing countries, Czech policy on them;
• European integration (Czech Rep. and the EU, internal development of the EU);
• Russia and the former Soviet Union;
• Czech–Slovak relations and Slovakia;
• International organisations (NATO, UN, GATT);
• Central Europe;
• Czech foreign policy, conception;
• Small countries;
• Minorities in Czech Republic and in Europe;
• International economic relations.

As for the dynamic of the topics, international security and European integration are clear leaders. About three–quarters of the budget is funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs but the Institute receives financial support from other sources as well (Annual Reports of the IIR). Project–related grants are provided by other governmental resources (Ministry of Defence, Czech Grant Agency), international organisations (NATO) and foundations (Bertelsmann Foundation, Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Pew Charitable Trust). ₁₄

 

Outputs

The analysis of outputs focused on periodicals, this provides an insight into the evolution of the discipline and into the most popular topics. All of the said journals have been started or re–launched after 1989. Even though they try to import basic scholarly standards (e.g. the use of references, double–blind peer reviews), they have to struggle with the lack of scholarly contributions. Books by Czech authors are still quite rare which is itself connected, on the one hand, with the age structure (see below) which makes most potential authors either too old or too young and, on the other hand, with the lack of publishers of scientific literature.

Periodicals

The only periodicals fully dedicated to IR are three periodicals published by the IIR – a monthly journal "Mezinárodní politika", a quarterly journal "Mezinárodní vztahy" and a bi–annual journal in English "Perspectives". "Perspectives" provides English versions of the most interesting articles from both "Mezinárodní politika" and "Mezinárodní vztahy", and occasionally it also publishes original contributions.

Besides these periodicals, IR–related topics regularly emerge in politological and economic journals. The Czech military review "Vojenské rozhledy", a quarterly journal of the armed forces, is also worth mentioning in this connection. Further on, we will focus on "Mezinárodní vztahy" and "Mezinárodní politika".

Mezinárodní vztahy

Mezinárodní vztahy (International Relations – InR) started in 1966 as a Czech journal for international politics published by the IIR. It also shared the fate of the Institute. In the late 1980s, the InR was published monthly and with few exceptions it was full of ideological phrases and superficial research.

Due to its continuity the journal became an eloquent witness to the radical changes in Czech IR studies and in the whole of society. To document the evolution, we compared four issues of the InR from the years 1989–1992, each issue being the first one of the respective year. The journal of January 1989 starts with a lead article written by the then chairman of the board of editors Vladimír _ebi_ entitled "Development of new thinking in socialist foreign policy" (_ebi_, 1989). The article consists of commented on quotations from speeches of Czech communist leaders mixed with a pinch of perestroika thinking from Soviet sources. The author mentions an anticommunist demonstration from the previous year which he denounces as a meeting of a few hooligans incited by "some negative forces in the West" and misused by Western media.

The first issue of 1990 tries to strike a different tone. The journal got a new cover and the leading article, entitled "The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Helsinki process", was written by a new member of the board Ji_í Opr_al (1990). It deals with the CSCE as the principal security organisation in the post–communist Europe while criticising the communist regime and speaking about the necessity of the withdrawal of the Soviet army from Czechoslovak territory among others. However, the board of editors remained unchanged with the exception of Opr_al.

In the first issue of 1991 the members of the board of editors are not stated at all which probably reflected the turmoil within the board. The lead article entitled "The orientation of the foreign policy of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic after the November Revolution" was written by the new director of the IIR Václav Kotyk (1991). It offers a review of the major foreign policy problems of the country concluding with the unresolved question of whether the CSCE or NATO will turn into the principal guarantor of European security.

The most radical change came in 1992 with the appointment of Ji_í Valenta at the head of the IIR. The journal got a new cover again (which remains today), the board of editors was sacked as a whole and the new chairman of the board Otto Pick created a new board composed of the Institute’s research fellows, IR teachers, journalists and civil servants. The very conception of the journal was overhauled as well. The InR became a quarterly which was supposed to get a stronger theoretical leaning providing space for research papers among others. This conception has been realised step by step since then.

The quantitative content analysis based on the period 1992–1998 suggests the following conclusions (Table 4). There is a group of areas, addressed by domestic authors, whose share exceeds 10% – Czech foreign policy, international security, IR theory, Western Europe (focused on Germany), Eastern Europe and European integration. The authors with an IR background dominate most areas with the exception of international security where half of the authors have a military background, and European integration which is dominated by economists. If we were to rank foreign countries by the attention given to them, we discover the following order — Germany, Russia, United States. Some 37% of all published articles were the contributions of authors affiliated with foreign institutions. The articles from abroad provide an even more concentrated picture where Eastern Europe accounts for more than a quarter of the articles, while Western Europe (again focused on Germany) accounts for about a fifth of them (Table 5). These two topics together with European integration and international security comprise three–quarters of all articles from abroad. The scholars from Germany are the most common ones accounting for 28% of contributions and writing mostly on their own country or on the EU. Similarly, Western European scholars addressed the EU and their own countries. On the other hand, American contributions concerned international security and IR theory.

Table 4: Domestic Articles in the Mezinárodní VZTAHY (percentage), 1992–98

Background of the author Topic of the article	IR	Economy	Military	Political Science	Sociology	Law	History	Area Studies	Journalism	Average share
Czech Republic in IR	5	2	2	0.5	2	1	1	0.5	0	14
Security	3	0	7	0.5	1	1	0	0.5	1	14
IR theory	4	0.5	1	4	1	0.5	1	0	0	12
European Integration	1	4	1	2	1	1	0	0	0	10
Germany	3	1	0.5	0.5	2	1	0	0	0	8
Global Problems, Developing Countries	1	2	0	0.5	0	0	0.5	1	0	5
Pacific Rim	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	2	0	5
Visegrad	1	0.5	1	0.5	0.5	0	0	0	0.5	4
CEE	1	1	1	0.5	0	0.5	0	0	0	4
Soviet Union, Russia	1	0.5	0	0.5	0	0.5	1	0	0.5	4
International Law	1	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	3
Western Europe	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	3
United States	1	1	0	0	0.5	0	0.5	0	0	3
Others	0	1	0.5	0	1	0.5	0	0	0	3
Near East	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2
International Political Economy	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2
History	0	0	0	0	0	0.5	0.5	0	0	1
Personalities	0	0	0	0.5	0	0	0.5	0	0	1
Minorities	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
International Organisations	0	0	0	0.5	0	0.5	0	0	0	1
Average share	24	17.5	15	13.5	9	9	6	4	2	100

 

Table 5: Articles from Abroad in the Mezinárodní Vztahy (percentage), 1992–98

Nationality Topic	Germany	Visegrad	Western Europe	Czechs Abroad	United States	Great Britain	CEE	France	Asia	Africa	Average share
EU	5	0	9	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	15
Security	3	4	1	0	3	2	1	0	0	0	14
Germany	8	1	0	2	0	1	0	0	0	0	12
Visegrad	1	9	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	12
Soviet Union, Russia	2	4	0	0	0	0	3	0	0	0	9
Western Europe	1	0	5	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	7
IR theory	1	0	0	1	3	1	0	1	0	0	7
Czech Republic in IR	3	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	5
CEE	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	3
Minorities	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	3
United States, Canada	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	3
Near East	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2
Pacific Rim	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	2
Internat. Political Economy	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	2
History	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2
Global Problems, Third World	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Personalities	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Average Share	28	19	16	10	8	6	5	4	3	1	100

note on table 5: a total of 98 articles is involved.

The only polemical debate led on the pages of the InR was faithful to the proclaimed theoretical nature of the journal. The debate between Zden_k Zbo_il (Department of Politology at the Faculty of Philosophy) and Bo_ek Hnízdo (IPS), both members of the editorial board, took place in 1994–1995. The controversy started with Hnízdo’s article "Basic geopolitical theories" (Hnízdo, 1994) where the theories of MacKinder, Haushoffer, Spykman and Cohen were presented. Hnízdo argued that the German geopolitical school of Haushoffer was abused by the Nazis but that there was no genuine connection between German geopolitics and Nazi ideology. Further on, he argued that the contemporary geopolitics got rid of the prejudices originating in its abuse by the Nazis and it became part of political geography. On the other hand, Zbo_il (1995) tried to show that Haushoffer directly influenced some Nazi leaders and actively collaborated with Hitler’s regime himself. He further argued that geopolitics is not part of political geography as it is simply not a science at all. The discussion then ended up in a confirmation of arguments stated accompanied by an exchange of personal insults.

Mezinárodní politika

Mezinárodní politika (International Politics – InP) was founded in 1990 to renew the journal of the same name published between 1957–1969. The journal was relaunched by the Foundation of George from Pod_brady which was founded by the people who were active in the IR in the reformist 1960s led by Alexandr Ort. In 1992 the journal was taken over by the IIR.

The InP has been published monthly without interruption since its relaunch. It targets a broader audience than the InR. The journal tries to be both topical and analytical, and to approach the public interested in IR, not just a limited circle of IR experts. The average length of articles is about two pages. Because the InP also provides space for a qualified debate of controversial topical issues, it has already hosted several discussions of this nature.

The concentration of topics in the InP is much lower than with the InR (Table 6) which is due to the different purpose of the journal. But the leading topics are the same. Most time–series in the table, depicting the evolution of popularity of a given topic, do not suggest any trends and usually are highly volatile. That high volatility is connected with the fact that the circle of authors is narrow and therefore the way the topic is treated often depends on a few individuals. Monothematic orientation also plays its role as each edition is focused on a chosen theme.

Table 6: Articles IN MEZINÁRODNÍ POLITIKA (percentage), 1990–98

Year Topic	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	Average share
Czech Republic in IR*	11	12	12	13	8	3	6	8	14	9
IR theory	8	6	3	7	7	8	12	12	8	8
Western Europe**	14	5	8	7	8	8	12	5	9	8
EC, EU	5	10	8	4	7	6	11	11	5	7
Security***	6	10	5	8	9	5	5	3	4	6
The economy	-	5	7	6	6	7	2	2	5	5
Global problems	3	6	8	5	1	4	4	5	5	5
Germany	1	7	3	2	9	5	5	2	8	5
CEE ****	6	5	6	3	7	5	4	5	6	5
Asia	6	1	1	8	2	6	4	6	8	5
Latin America, Africa	3	7	7	3	7	2	5	2	4	4
United States, Canada	3	2	6	6	1	6	4	3	-	4
Soviet Union, Russia	8	4	6	2	2	3	7	2	5	4
Czech Security	-	5	-	2	3	6	1	5	3	3
International Organisations	-	1	1	7	1	6	2	3	4	3
Middle East	6	6	5	3	-	3	2	2	1	3
Personalities	15	1	2	2	3	1	5	4	1	3
CSCE, OSCE	3	3	5	-	-	1	-	3	1	2
NATO	1	-	1	1	3	5	2	1	2	2
China	1	1	-	3	5	1	1	5	1	2
Balkans	-	3	2	1	-	3	3	1	1	2
Slovakia	-	-	-	3	7	2	-	6	2	2
France	-	-	2	4	3	3	2	2	2	2
Czech Republic and the EU	-	-	2	-	1	1	1	2	1	1
Number of articles	67	142	155	142	147	178	187	175	177	100

* Item "CZECH REPUBLIC" includes czechoslovakia (referring to the period 1990-1992). ** the overall topic of western europe is composed of the individual countries which were addressed in the monothematic issues, e.g. spain, great britain, italy, austria, belgium, netherlands, northern european countries etc. especially austria as one of the czech neighbours is frequently discussed. *** the topic security also includes disarmament, problems of drug trafficking and terrorism. **** the overall topic of central and Eastern Europe includes both individual countries from the region (especially the neighbours — Poland and Hungary — are mentioned a lot) and regional co-operation (E.G. VISEGRAD, CEFTA, CEI)

 

The first discussions were incited by the notion of the "national interest" which was made popular by a grand–scale research project organised by Ji_í Valenta. The research results were published in a widely discussed book "Máme národní zájmy?" (Do we have national interests?; 1992a). The book itself was co–authored by 33 authors mainly from the IIR but also from ministries and other research institutes. The goal of Valenta was to introduce the term of national interest as a framework for conceptual discussions of Czechoslovak foreign policy. He drew on the realist school’s understanding of the notion mentioning especially Hans Morgenthau and Arnold Wolfers (Valenta, 1992b). Valenta recommended the work of Wolfers as fitting best to the Czechoslovak situation claiming that he merged the concept of national interest, coming from realpolitik, with moral democratic principles. But Valenta also tried to combine the American IR theory with the Czech tradition of political philosophy which was being revived after 1989. Therefore, he referred to T.G. Masaryk, the first president of Czechoslovakia. He interpreted Masaryk as somebody who was able to "harmonise interests and ideals" both in word and in deed (Valenta, 1992b:21). His emphasis on the parallels between Masaryk’s and Wolfers’s thinking also made (or primarily made?) sense from a tactical point of view as the notion of the national interest was supposed to get a positive spin by connecting it with the highly respected figure of the founder of Czechoslovakia as Valenta might have expected some resistance to the notion within the then Czechoslovak IR community. The rest of the book is a collection of heterogeneous papers trying to define Czechoslovak interests with respect to the essential territories and issues.

The discussion concerning the national interests coincided with the book and with Valenta being the director of the IIR. The first article with "national interest" in the title appeared in January 1992 (the book was published in spring) while it almost disappeared from the titles after 1993 when Valenta returned to Miami. National interests were discussed from various points of view. Some have spoken about the connection between the Czech national interest and Czech national identity criticising alleged self–flagellation (Rozenhal, 1992), others put into doubt the very concept of "national" in Czechoslovakia consisting of two nations and striving to find its base in the civic principle (Seifter, 1992). The connection between "national" and "European" was also dealt with by arguing that the Czech national interest lay in European structures (Labudek, 1992). In a similar vein, a national interest in multilateral co–operation was stressed (Had, 1993). Some criticised the very concept reminding one of the universalistic tradition in Czech political thinking personified by Comenius and Masaryk (Seifert, 1992) while others took issue with the general confusion between nation and state, and between the goals and means permeating the whole discussion (_ediv_, 1997). The keenest supporters of the concept even embraced a Morgenthauan reading of the national interest (Lobkowicz, 1992) only to be rebuked by the critics arguing that realpolitik concepts, which were developed for policies of great powers, are inadequate for a smaller country like Czech Republic and that political realism a la Morgenthau hardly acts as a reliable guide in the world at the end of the century (_ediv_, 1993).

A series of articles by Oskar Krej_í presented a special contribution to the debate. His five articles called "Máme národní zájmy!" (We do have national interests! Krej_í, 1992, 1993) were supposed to be in answer to the question in the title of Valenta’s book. He drew both on Morgenthau and on the pre–war Czech geopolitical school. His main arguments concerned the primacy of power as opposed to law in international politics claiming that Masaryk understood it well and making a brief geopolitical analysis of Czechoslovak territory since the fall of Roman empire. He also raised the spectre of German domination of the Czech Republic suggesting two alternative scenarios of European integration – a German dominated empire and a cultivated balance of power, the latter being in the Czech national interest.

Another extensive discussion flared up in 1995 concerning Czech membership in NATO. The debate was provoked by the article "Na co NATO?" (Why NATO?) by Oskar Krej_í (1995a). Krej_í sharply criticised the official Czech policy of striving for NATO membership. He made several arguments against it. The geopolitical argument was that the Czech territory is worthless for Western great powers and thus they would not be willing to defend it irrespective of being in NATO or not. He further argued that there was no imminent threat to Czech security and, on the contrary, joining NATO would only increase tension in Europe due to Russian dissatisfaction. He concluded that NATO membership was extremely costly and the suggested alternatives were either to build small, mobile, high–tech forces or to scrap the army altogether and to replace it with a sort of national guard.

Antonín Ra_ek, a defence expert from the social democratic party, rejected the argument that the country is completely safe and drew attention to the threats of economic dislocations in the neighbourhood, of fundamentalism and of drug trafficking (Ra_ek, 1995). He suggested that the enlargement would stabilise European security while reminding that to fulfil this goal a thorough transformation of NATO would be essential. He also criticised the Czech foreign policy for its failure to cultivate relations with the Visegrad countries. Václav Kotyk rejected the argument that Czech territory would be worthless claiming that it formed part of the highly valued Central European space. He was even more explicit in his criticism of the official lack of interest in developing security co–operation with the Visegrad countries. Unlike Krej_í, he was not against NATO expansion outright but proposed a more cautious and friendlier approach towards Russia.

Krej_í then further developed his ideas claiming that NATO’s transformation was supposed to ensure the world hegemony of the United States. He also warned against the role of Germany which would get a free hand in Central Europe as a reward for supporting American hegemony. He again put into doubt the raison d’être of the Czech army. Finally, he recommended free riding as the Czech security policy. The free–riding proposal (and the rest of the article as well) was rebuked by Ji_í _t_panovsk_, chairman of the Czech Atlantic Commission, who argued that assuming responsibility for European security would give more clout to the country (_t_panovsk_, 1995). The discussion about the merits of Czech NATO membership also included contributions unrelated to the discussion around Oskar Krej_í, having the focus on the OSCE instead of on the NATO was suggested by Ort (1995), insufficient preparations for joining NATO were criticised by Josef Fu_ík (1995) among others.

Books and Study Materials

As far as the history of IR and Czech foreign policy is concerned, a plethora of books and study materials has been published. The general public is usually interested in historical works offering alternative interpretations to the communist ones taught in the schools for many decades and publishers can expect that a book on history will pay off unlike other non–fiction titles. Moreover, many founders and practitioners of the discipline are historians by training and thus a sufficient supply is guaranteed as well. Table 7 indicates the position of historical topics in Czech IR literature when 15% of all reviewed books, i.e. one–third of the reviewed Czech books, dealt with history (first column of the items "History" and "Personalities"). Table 8 shows that more than a quarter of IR books in the National Library fall into this category ("History" — 17%, "Personalities" – 9%).

Obviously, international law enjoys the benefits of a well–established discipline as well (Table 8). Publications on the EU also seem to be catching on as they provide much needed information (e.g. Had, 1997; Jak_, 1997; Jak_, 1998). But they are usually of a descriptive and informative nature and are not based on genuine research. More theoretical literature barely exists. From published translations, books by Zbygniew Brzezinski’s "Out of Control" and "The Grand Chessboard", Paul Kennedy’s "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" and "Preparing for the Twenty–first Century", and Henry Kissinger’s "Diplomacy" are worth mentioning (Brzezinski, 1993; Brzezinski, 1999; Kennedy, 1996a; Kennedy, 1996b; Kissinger, 1996)15. None of the books that have shaped the discipline in any significant way (Allison, 1971; Aron, 1962; Bull, 1977; Carr, 1964/1939; Der Derian, 1987; Deutsch, 1957; Gilpin, 1981; Haas, 1964; Jervis, 1976; Kaplan, 1957; Kissinger, 1954; Keohane, 1984; Morgenthau, 1973/1948; Waltz, 1979; Schelling, 1966; Spykman, 1944; Wallerstein, 1974 etc.) have been translated and, given the size of the local academic community, they are also unlikely to be translated in the future. A good deal of these books is not even available in Czech libraries yet. The most significant IR book by a domestic author is Krej_í’s "Mezinárodní politika" (International politics. Krej_í, 1997), a monumental compilation of American IR theories published in the middle of the 1990s but reflecting the state of the discipline in the early 1980s.

IR literature has to deal with a double shortage. Firstly, the shortage of authors as the discipline needs time to develop and IR studies is still a new discipline in Czech Republic. Secondly, a shortage of demand as the population of 10 million does not provide a market wide enough for specialised IR publications nor are sponsors usually interested in this kind of project.

Table 7: Book reviews in the Mezinárodní Vztahy (percentage), 1992–98

Language of the book Topic	Czech	English	German	Eastern European Languages	French	Italian	Total Share
Germany	7	3	11	0	0	0	21
Personalities	9	0	1	0	0	1	11
History	6	1	1	1	1	0	10
Czech Republic in IR	6	1	1	0	0	1	9
IR theory	3	5	0	0	0	0	8
Global Problems, Developing Countries	3	4	0	0	0	0	7
Security	3	2	0	0	1	0	6
International Political Economy	2	1	0	1	1	0	5
Visegrad	0	2	1	1	0	0	4
EU	1	2	0	1	0	0	4
Western Europe	1	0	1	0	1	0	3
International Law	1	0	0	1	0	0	2
Pacific Rim	0	2	0	0	0	0	2
CEE	1	1	0	0	0	0	2
Soviet Union, Russia	0	1	1	0	0	0	2
United States and Canada	1	1	0	0	0	0	2
Near East	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
Minorities	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Total share	45	27	17	5	4	2	100

Note on table 7: the total involved is 109 reviews.

 

Table 8: Books published in 1990–1998 (percentage)*

Topic	European integration	International law	History	Czech Republic in IR	IR general topics	Personalities
Share	24	17	17	9	9	9

Notes on table 8: the total involved is 164 books. the remaining 15% of the total sum deal with the topics as indicated above, i.e. security, western europe, international economics, international organisations and others. * the data in the table come from the database of the national library in prague to which any czech publisher is obliged to send an exemplar of the book published in the country. the table was produced on the bases of the list generated by the keywords "international relations", "international politics", "international law", "european union", "european integration" and "politology". about 80% of the books were written by CZECH authors while 20% are translations.

 

People

Ir scholars can be assessed from various angles be they education, affiliation, area of interest etc. In the Czech conditions, the criterion of age seems to be particularly interesting. It is due to the discontinuities the country underwent this century whereby each generation has had a very different life experience and has been exposed to different influences that are necessarily reflected in the work and thus in the discipline. >From this point of view, three generations of scholars can be distinguished. We try to characterise each generation firstly by making general remarks and, secondly, by sketching out a profile of a particular representative of the generation.

The first generation was born before World War II. The first turning point of their adult life was 1948 when the communists came to power. Some of them left the country but most stayed either as being too young or welcoming of communism or simply being unwilling to emigrate. Those who stayed studied in the 1950s and started to build their careers in the 1960s unless they ended up in communist jails. Most were members of the Communist Party, either out of conviction or out of opportunism. In the late 1960s, the most successful of them collected sufficient knowledge and skills to get senior positions at the universities, in research or in the civil service. Most of them supported and contributed to the liberalisation of the communist regime of the period. Then the second turning point came. The Soviet invasion in 1968 gave them three choices – to emigrate, to approve of the invasion (which meant for the majority to betray their own convictions) or to put up with a quasi–dissident existence. The last ones played a key role in the establishment of the discipline in the 1990s, being relatively untainted after 20 years of disgrace and having the necessary knowledge and skills. This generation includes figures like Václav Kotyk, Jan K_en, Alexandr Ort or Theodor Syllaba who, nearing or already having reached retirement age, set up and led the institutions immediately after 1989. This generation still has the highest share in publications in the two periodicals reviewed (Table 9).

Professor Jan K_en (born 1930) is representative of the whole generation. He graduated in history at the School of Politics and Economics in 1953. He then worked as a university teacher publishing extensively on modern history (K_en, 1969a; K_en, 1969b). In 1968 he became head of the Department of History at the newly established School of Politics. The school was abolished at the onset of normalisation in 1969 and K_en, a supporter of the reforms during the Prague spring, lost his job in 1970 after a short spell at the Charles University without being allowed to continue his professional activity. From 1970 to 1989, he was forced into a manual worker’s job, servicing water pumps. At the same time, K_en was active in a type of samizdat literature. After the fall of communism, he returned to the Charles University where he founded the Centre of German and Austrian Studies in 1992 and the Institute of International Studies in 1994 to become its first director. K_en also worked as guest professor at renowned universities in German–speaking countries in the 1990s. His numerous professional activities included among other things a co–chairmanship of the Czech–German commission of historians, set up by the governments of both countries to study the common history. His publications in the 1960s dealt with the history of Czechoslovak resistance during World War II, while his works published in the 1990s focused on Czech–German relations in the 19th and 20th centuries as well as on the general problems of Czech history (K_en, 1990; K_en, 1992; K_en, 1993). K_en teaches courses in the history of German–speaking countries since the 18th century and in the history of Czech and Central European countries since the 17th century.

The second generation is a post–war generation. It already grew up under the communist regime. 1968 was for them what 1948 was for the first generation. Thus, this generation has its emigrants as well. Those who stayed studied from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, most of this period being the communist "Counter–Reformation" officially called "normalisation". In their professional activity, they had to choose between either active collaboration with the system with the outlook of professional growth and a career or to withdraw into an inner exile doing what was necessary to keep their jobs but nothing more than putting up with staying in junior positions. Few chose the third option to stand up against the regime outright and to thus jeopardise their own futures and those of their families. Normalisation put serious limits on any research in social sciences both through formal rules and the absence of spiritual freedom. This was reflected in the level of scholarship then undertaken. Moreover, many scholars left their disciplines to get more lucrative jobs in the private sector or in politics after 1989, while some left because of their collaboration with the communist regime. This is the case of e.g. Oskar Krej_í, an active participant in the mentioned IR discussions, who is today barred from university teaching posts despite his qualifications because he was prominent in the communist regime. Nowadays, representatives of this generation are taking over the positions which the first generation established in the early 1990s e.g. Zuzana Lehmannová succeeding Alexandr Ort as the head of the JM CIS or Ji_í Pe_ek succeeding Jan K_en at the IIS. The second generation of scholars was weakened both by the suppression of communism and by the opportunities of capitalism, which is also reflected by their share in published articles (Table 9). We would expect this generation to lead as it includes the biggest demographic group (the 35–60 age group) consisting of those people at the peak of their professional activity. All the same, their share is slightly lower than the one of the pre–war generation.

The third generation, born in the 1960s and 1970s, witnessed and contributed to the fall of communism when still at high schools and universities. They got the opportunity to study in the West and to get in touch with the discipline. The very fact that they participated in the process of the build up of the new IR discipline, sometimes having the expertise which other generations lack, gives them a position within the discipline that their generation counterparts in the West do not have judging by their share of contributions to specialised journals (a quarter of the articles in the reviewed periodicals) or senior positions occupied by them e.g. the director of the IIR (Ji_í _ediv_) or the deputy–director of policy planning at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Petr Lu_ák). All the same, the opportunities of the capitalism are even more relevant to this generation than to the previous one. Ji_í _ediv_ (born 1963) started his university studies only after the fall of communism, having made his livelihood as a worker and then as a musician in the 1980s. He studied English and political science at the Faculty of Philosophy at the Charles University (1990–1993). In 1994 he received an MA in War Studies at King’s College in London. Since 1995, he has been teaching courses in IR theory and in European security at the Department of Politology, where he defended his Ph.D. thesis in the genealogy of the balance of power theory as well. He has also been working at the IIR since 1996, becoming its director in 1998. Since 1993 he has been publishing on European security and on IR theory (e.g. _ediv_, 1993; _ediv_, 1997a; _ediv_, 1997b; _ediv_, 1997c; _ediv_, 1998; Lu_ák, _ediv_, 1998). He has also been involved in both domestic and international research projects concerning international security.

Due to several waves of emigration there is a sizeable Czech community abroad including IR experts. Some of them have been instrumental in renewal of the discipline. Ji_í Valenta and Otto Pick have already been mentioned in connection with the rebuilding of the IIR. The Faculty of Social Sciences invited probably two of the most prominent American IR scholars of Czech origin to teach there in the early 1990s, Ji_í (or George) Liska teaching IR theory and Vojt_ch Mastn_ teaching the history of the Cold War. ₁₅

Table 9: Authors of articles published in the mezinárodní vztahy and in the mezinárodní politika (percentage), 1992–98

Age Institute/ country	< 35	35 — 60	60 <	Total share
Government*	3	7	6	16
IIR	3	5	7	15
Charles University	6	2	3	11
Western countries	2	5	4	11
CEE	3	5	2	10
Journalists	1	4	3	8
University of Economics	2	2	3	7
Other Universities, Research Institutes	2	2	2	6
Academy of Science	0	2	3	5
NGOs	0	1	3	4
EU	1	1	1	3
Business	1	0	1	2
United States	0	0	1	1
Asia	0	0	1	1
Total share	24	36	40	100

Note: this table was prepared on the basis of materials provided by the publisher. the list of authors publishing articles in the period 1992-1998 included 348 names, which is slightly less than the actual number of authors. the data were incomplete in 88 cases (25%) which are not included in the table. the table thus represents 75% of all contributors. * about 60% of this item is composed of authors working at the ministry of foreign affairs.

 

Conclusions and Prospects

The constraints stemming from the position of the country being small and post–communist manifest themselves in the state of CZECH IR. The discipline is still in its nascent stage and suffers from all manner of shortages.

Accordingly, the influence of those disciplines with which its roots lay is still considerable. Traditionally, IR draws on international history, political philosophy and international law. Out of these sources, history features in Czech IR in a dominant way. That dominance can be seen in the composition of the IR curricula (Table 3), with Czech history and IR history being the only subjects taught at all of the reviewed institutes in the topics of MA theses (Table 2) or in the topics of published books (Table 8).

Its relative novelty and the weak theoretical background of the discipline can at least partly explain the poverty of the theoretical debate. Neither schools nor paradigms can be identified here yet. The discussions do not usually go beyond the specific topics and a more abstract perspective is thus lacking. Exceptions have been relatively rare (see e.g. some contributions to the discussion on national interests). The theoretical concepts in use are unreflective, or slavish to use Hoffmann’s terminology, in imports either from another space like Anglo–Saxon IR literature or from another time like Czech pre–communist thinkers. Valenta’s attempt to synthesise both traditions and to apply the result in the analysis of current affairs failed. On the other hand, this transmission of ideas may create an environment in which genuine schools of thought will be bred.

The generation gap further contributes to the weakness of the discipline. The Czech IR community consists of an active group of seniors (the generation of 1968) and of an equally active group of juniors (who studied after 1989). The scientific potential of the middle generation which would in normal circumstances lead the discipline was decimated by both the oppression of communism and by the attractive opportunities of capitalism.

Even though the most powerful influences in terms of ideas come from the United States and the UK, the geographical proximity of Germany shapes the discipline in a significant way. There is no other country to which so much attention is paid whether we judge it by the number of articles (Tables 4,5,6), the number of book reviews (Table 7) or if we take into account that the IIS, one of the leading educational institutes, is still dominated by German studies. The activity of German institutions sponsoring Czech IR research is also of vital importance. But the actor whose influence on Czech IR studies is increasing in most dynamically is the EU. Its prominent position on the agenda is likely to grow further during the continuing accession talks. Nowadays we are witnessing various centres of EU research being set up with both universities and non–state institutions, while generous EU funds and prospects of EU jobs are attracting significant brain capacity. The EU is turning into the single most important issue both at the political and research agenda levels.

 

References

"Ects" Information Guide (1998). Olomouc: Palack_ University.

A Basic Information (1995). Prague: Institute of International Studies at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Charles University (in Czech), htttp://www.fsv.cuni.cz.

ALLISON, Graham (1971) Essence of Decision. Boston: Little, Brown.

Annual Report of the Institute of International Relations (1993—8). Prague: Institute of International Relations (in Czech).

ARON, Raymond (1962) Paix et guerre entre les nations. Paris: Calman–Lévy.

AZUD, Ján (1983) Vedeckotechnická revolúcia mierové spolu_itie a medzinárodné právo. Bratislava [Revolution in science and technology, peaceful coexistence and international law]: Veda.

BLAHO_, Josef (1983) Opu_t_ná cesta [The Abandoned Road]. Bratislava: Pravda.

BRZEZINSKI, Zbygniew (1993) Bez kontroly: Chaos v p_edve_er 21. století [Out of Control: Chaos on the Eve of the 21st Century]. Prague: Victoria Publishing.

BRZEZINSKI, Zbygniew (1999) Velká _achovnice [Big Chessboards]. Prague: Mladá fronta.

BUK, Josef. and Milan. __RA (1964) Mezinárodní vztahy po druhé sv_tové válce [International Relations after the Second World War]. Prague: SNPL.

BULL, Hedley (1995/1972) The Theory of International Politics, 1919–1969. In James DER DERIAN (ed.) International Theory: Critical Investigations, 181–211. New York: New York University Press.

BULL, Hedley (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Macmillan.

BURE_, Jaroslav (1998) Evro–st_edomo_ské partnerství v kulturní oblasti a _eská republika [Euro–Mediterranean Partnership in the Cultural Sphere and the Czech Republic]. Bulletin Spole_nosti p_átel Afriky Spole_nosti _esko–arabské, 1.

BURE_, Jaroslav (1999) T_etí evro–st_edomo_ská ministerská konference ve Stuttgartu [The Third Euro–Mediterranean Ministerial Conference in Stuttgart]. Bulletin Spole_nosti p_átel Afriky Spole_nosti _esko–arabské 2, 18–24.

CARR, Edward H. (1964/1939) The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939. New York: Harper and Row.

CAVARA, Jozef (1980) Základy vojenské ekonomiky [Basics of Military Economics]. Prague: Na_e vojsko.

COLLECTIVE OF AUTHORS (1983) Zahrani_ní politika _SSR [Foreign Policy of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic]. Prague: Svoboda.

COLLECTIVE OF AUTHORS (1986) Socialistické spole_enství v boji za bezpe_nost a spolupráci v Evrop_ [Community of socialist countries fighting for security and cooperation in Europe]. Prague: Na_e vojsko.

_EBI_, Vladimír (1989) Rozvíjení nového my_lení v socialistické zahrani_ní politice [Developments in New Thinking of Socialist Foreign Policy]. Mezinárodní vztahy 24(1), 2–14.

DAVID, Vladislav and Ji_í MALENOVSK_ (1983) Mezinárodn_právní aspekty potla_ování mezinárodního terorismu [Aspects of International Law Concerning the Fight Against International Terrorism]. Brno: J.E. Purkyn_ University.

Department of Political Science and European Studies (1998): "Ects" Guide. Olomouc: Palack_ University.

DER DERIAN, James (1987) On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

DEUTSCH, Karl W. et al. (1957) Political Community and the North Atlantic Area. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

DRULÁK, Petr (1998a) Malé státy ve velkém tisku [Small States in Capital Letters]. Mezinárodní politika 22(7), 20–1.

DRULÁK, Petr (1998b) Identita malého státu v mezinárodní politice [The Identity of Small States in International Politics]. Mezinárodní politika 22(11), 9—11.

DRULÁK, Petr (1999) Je_t_ ke kooperaci a konfliktu mal_ch stát_ [Once more about Co–operation and Conflict of Small States]. Mezinárodní politika 23(2), 36–7.

EHL, Martin and Ladislav CABADA (1999) Kosovská krize a perspektivy Balkánu [The Kosovo Crisis and the Prospects of the Balkans]. Mezinárodní vztahy 4, 11–8.

EICHLER, Jan (1998) Bezpe_nostní politika _R rok po Madridu [Czech Security Policy one year since Madrid]. Mezinárodní politika 22(10), 36–8.

EICHLER, Jan (1999a) Od rovnováhy strachu k rovnováze opatrnosti: Jaderné zbran_ po skon_ení studené války [From the balance of fear to the balance of caution: Nuclear weapons after the end of the Cold War]. Vojenské rozhledy 8(1), 118–25.

EICHLER, Jan (1999b) Bezpe_nostní politika _R a teorie mezinárodních vztah_ [Security Policy of the Czech Republic and Theories of International Relations]. Vojenské rozhledy 8 (special issue), 52–4.

EICHLER, Jan (1999c) _eská ve_ejnost a atlantismus [The Czech Society and Atlanticism]. Aliance 1, 18–19

FÁREK, Ji_í (1984) Energetická krize a socialistické spole_enství [The Energy Crisis in Socialist Economies]. Prague: Academia.

FIGURA, Ivan (1983) Krize neokolonialismu a jeho ideológie [The Crisis of Neocolonialism and its Ideology]. Bratislava: Pravda.

FU_ÍK, Josef (1995) P_íli_ jednoduchá rovnice obrany [Too simple an equation of defence]. Mezinárodní politika 19(8), 27–9.

GEDLU, Mesfin (1998a) Subsaharská Afrika, problémy demokracie, nacionalismu a mezinárodních vztah_ [The Sub–Saharan Africa, problems of democracy, nationalism, and international relations]. Prague: Institute of International Relations.

GEDLU, Mesfin (1998b) Colonialism & Communism: The Malaise in Building New Societies. Perspectives 10, 47–55.

GEDLU, Mesfin (1999a) Nové boje v Angole: mo_nost vzk_i_ení ideál_ angolské revoluce [New fighting in Angola: Possibilities of resurrection of ideals of Angolian revolution]. Mezinárodní politika 23(2), 20–1.

GEDLU, Mesfin (1999b) Zamy_lení na africkou realitou [Thoughts about the African Reality]. Mezinárodní politika 24 (7), 34–6.

GILPIN, Robert (1981) War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

GUZZINI, Stefano (1998) Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold. New York and London: Routledge.

HAAS, Ernst (1964) Beyond the Nation State: Functionalism and International Organization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

HAD, Miloslav (1993) _eské národní zájmy [National Interests of the Czech Republic]. Mezinárodní politika 17(3), 18.

HAD, Miloslav, ed. (1997) Evropská spole_enství: První pilí_ Evropské unie [European Communities: The First Pillar of the European Union]. Prague: Institute of International Relations.

HAD, Miloslav and Václav KOTYK, eds. (1998) Malé zem_ — velcí sousedé [Small Countries — Big Neighbours]. Prague: Institute of International Relations.

HALAXA, Petr and Petr LEBEDA (1998) Mnohostranná rozvojová pomoc _eské republiky [Multilateral Development Assistance of the Czech Republic]. Mezinárodní politika 22(4), 7—9.

HNÍZDO, Bo_ek (1994) Základní geopolitické teorie [Basic of Geopolitical Theory]. Mezinárodní vztahy 4, 72–9.

HOFFMANN, Stanley (1995/1977) An American Social Science: International Relations. In James DER DERIAN (ed.) International Theory: Critical Investigations, 212–41. New York: New York University Press.

HOLUB, Alois and Jaroslav FOLT_N (1989) Zrcadlo rozvojov_ch zemí — ekonomika [The Looking Glass of Developing Countries – Economics]. Prague: Horizont

HOU_VI_KA, Václav (1998) Deutschland mit den Augen eines Einwohners des Grenzgebietes. In Editors (eds.) Deutsche und Tschechen — Zeit nach der Erklärung, 146—60. Prague: Prago–Media–News.

HOU_VI_KA, Václav (1999) Germany as a Factor of Differentiation in Czech Society. Czech Sociological Review VI, 219–39.

HRAB_, Josef (1987) Armády NATO v období americké strategie "p_ímé konfrontace" [NATO Forces in the Period of American Strategy of "Direct Confrontation"]. Prague: Na_e vojsko.

JAK_, Jaroslav (1985) Západní Evropa — United States — Japonsko. Partne_i nebo rivalové? [Western Europe — United States — Japan. Partners or Rivals?] Prague: Svoboda.

JAK_, Jaroslav (1997) Co je to, kdy_ se _ekne Evropská unie [European Union — What is it?]. Prague: Centrum pro demokracii a svobodné podnikání.

JAK_, Jaroslav (1998) Quo vadis Evropská unie [Quo Vadis European Union]. Prague: ETC Publishing.

JANK_, Vladimír (1985) Politika mírového sou_ití a uvol_ování nap_tí: P_edpoklady, v_sledky a perspektivy [Policy of peaceful coexistence and detente: conditions, results and outlooks]. Prague: Svoboda.

JERVIS, Robert (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

JUNGBAUER, Radomír (1982) Latinská Amerika ve strategii United States [Latin America in the Strategy of the United States]. Prague: Na_e vojsko.

KAPLAN, Morton (1957) System and Process in International Politics. New York: John Wiley.

KENNEDY, Paul (1996a) Sv_t v 21. století [The World in the 21st Century]. Prague: Lidové noviny.

KENNEDY, Paul (1996b) Vzestup a pád velmocí [The Rise and Fall of Great Powers]. Prague: Lidové noviny.

KEOHANE, Robert O. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

KHOL, Radek, ed. (1998a) Reforma OSN a zájmy _R [The UN Reform and the Interests of the Czech Republic]. Prague: Institute of International Relations

KHOL, Radek (1998b) Mezinárodní organizace a _R [International Organisations and the Czech Republic]. Mezinárodní politika 22(4), 4–6.

KISSINGER, Henry (1954) A World Restored. Boston: Houghon Mifflin.

KISSINGER, Henry (1996) Um_ní diplomacie [Diplomacy]. Prague: Prostor.

KOPAL, Vladimír (1981) Mezinárodn_právní politika _SSR [International Law and the Politics of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic]. Prague: Panorama.

KOPAL, Vladimír (1983) Problémy nové kodifikace mezinárodního práva mo_ského, se zvlá_tním z_etelem na práva a zájmy vnitrozemsk_ch stát_ [The Problems of New Codification of International Law of the Sea with Special Reference to the Rights and Interests of Land–locked Countries]. Prague: Academia.

KOTYK, Václav (1991) Zam__ení zahrani_ní politiky _eské a Slovenské federativní republiky po listopadové revoluci [Foreign Policy Orientation of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic after the November Revolution]. Mezinárodní vztahy 1, 2–8.

KOVÁ_, Jind_ich (1984) Islám a muslimské zem_ [Islam and Muslim Countries]. Prague: Svoboda.

K_EN, Jan (1969a) Do emigrace. Západní zahrani_ní odboj [To emigration: Czechoslovak resistance in the West]. Prague: Na_e vojsko.

K_EN, Jan (1969b) V emigraci. Západní zahrani_ní odboj [In emigration: Czechoslovak resistance in the West]. Prague: Na_e vojsko.

K_EN, Jan (1990) Konfliktní spole_enství: _e_i a N_mci 1780–1918 [Conflicting Partnership: The Czechs and the Germans 1780–1918]. Prague: Academia.

K_EN, Jan (1992) Historické prom_ny _e_ství [Historical changes in Czechness]. Prague: Karolinum.

K_EN, Jan (1993) _esk_ projekt n_meck_ch a rakousk_ch studií [Czech project of German and Austrian studies]. Mezinárodní politika 17(9), 25–8.

KURAL, Václav, ed. (1998) Sudeton_mecké krajanské sdru_ení v SRN 1989—1996 [Associations of Sudeten Germans in Germany 1989–1996]. Prague: Institute of International Relations.

LABUDEK, Vladislav (1992) Zájmy vzbudily zájem: nejen národní [National interests have awaken a lot of interest: not only national]. Mezinárodní politika 16(8), 30.

LACINA, Karel (1981a) Politika apartheidu [The Politics of Apartheid]. Bratislava: Pravda.

LACINA, Karel (1981a) Politikové v uniformách [Politicians in Uniforms]. Prague: Mladá fronta.

LACINA, Karel (1984) Na jih od rovníku [Southwards from the Equator]. Prague: Horizont.

LARISCHOVÁ, Kristina (1998a) Mythos oder Misere? Das "tschechische Modell" der Transformation. Internationale Politik 53(6), 8—14.

LARISCHOVÁ, Kristina (1998b) _as n_meck_ch zájm_ [The Time of German Interests]. Ekonom 42(33), 55.

LARISCHOVÁ, Kristina (1999) Ohlédnutí za n_meck_m p_edsednictvím v Rad_ EU: Priority, okolnosti, o_ekávávní a v_sledky [Overview of the German presidency of the EU: priorities, circumstances, expectations and results]. Mezinárodní politika 23(8), 6–9.

LE_KA, Vladimír (1998) Ukrajina, st_ední Evropa a Slovensko — zájmy a perspektivy [Ukraine, Central Europe and Slovakia — Interests and Perspectives]. Mezinárodní vztahy 2, 56–65.

LE_KA, Vladimír (1999a) Mezinárodní postavení Slovenska a jeho bezpe_nostní situace [International position of Slovakia and its security]. Mezinárodní vztahy 1, 55–67.

LE_KA, Vladimír (1999b) Obnovená spolupráce (Co–operation Restored). Mezinárodní politika 23(11), 32–3.

LISKA, George (1968) Nations in Alliance: The Limits of Interdependence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

LISKA, George (1990a) The Ways of Power: Pattern and Meaning in World Politics. Oxford: Blackwell.

LISKA, George (1990b) Fallen Dominions, Reviving Powers: Germany, the Slavs, and Europe’s Unfinished Agenda. Washington, DC: The Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy Institute.

LISKA, George (1994) Return to the Heartland and Rebirth of the Old Order: Reconceptualizing the Environment of Strategies for Central–Eastern Europe and Beyond. Washington, DC: The Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy Institute.

LI_KA, Ji_í (1992) Stát a zahrani_ní politika: Historie. Geopolitika. Státov_da [State and Foreign Policy: History. Geopolitics. Politics]. Prague: Institut pro st_edoevropskou kulturu a politiku.

LI_KA, Ji_í (1994) Labyrint sv_ta a historie: Dv_ knihy o demokracii [The Maze of the World and History: Two Books about Democracy]. Praha: Prostor.

LOBKOWICZ, Michal (1992) Zahrani_ní politika _R jako v_slednice národních zájm_ a síly státu [Czech foreign policy as a product of national interests and force of the state]. Mezinárodní politika 16(11–12), 33.

LU_ÁK, Petr and Ji_í _EDIV_ (1998) The Czech Republic in an Atlantic Europe: a Small State’s Ambitions, Roles and Responsibilities. Romanian Journal of International Affairs IV( Special Issue 3), 272–86.

MAHLER, Old_ich (1966) Pom_r sil a strategie Západu [Ratio of forces and strategy of the West]. Prague: Na_e vojsko

MASTN_, Vojtech (1979) Russia’s Road to the Cold War. New York: Columbia University Press.

MASTN_, Vojtech (1992) The Helsinki Process and the Reintegration of Europe, 1986–1991: Analysis and Documentation. New York: New York University Press.

MASTN_, Vojtech (1996) The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years. New York: Oxford University Press.

MASTN_, Vojtech, ed. (1972) East European Dissent. New York: Facts on File.

MATOU_, Milan (1974) Fronta bez p_ím__í [A Front Without Truce]. Prague: Svoboda

MATOU_, Milan (1982) Spiknutí proti Polsku [A Plot Against Poland]. Prague: Svoboda.

MATOU_, Milan (1985a) K povaze a p_í_inám zm_n v ideologickém zápase [About the nature and causes of changes in ideological conflict]. Prague: Svoboda.

MATOU_, Milan (1985b) Ideologick_ zápas jako forma t_ídního boje [Ideological conflict as a form of class conflict]. Prague: Svoboda.

MIKULKA, Václav (1987) Sukcese stát_ [Succession of states]. Prague: Nakladatelství _eskoslovenské akademie v_d.

MORGENTHAU, Hans (1948/1973) Politics among the Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

MUZIKÁ_, Josef, ed. (1987) Islám v politice [Islam in Politics]. Prague: Svoboda

NOVÁK, Miroslav (1984) NSR a úsilí socialistick_ch stát_ o mírové sou_ití [Germany and the efforts of socialist countries for peaceful coexistence]. Prague: Svoboda.

NOVOTN_, Adolf (1983) Teoretické a metodologické otázky medzinárodn_ch vztahov [Theoretical and Methodological Issues of International Relations]. Bratislava: Pravda.

NO_INA, Miroslav, ed. (1997) Mezinárodní organizovan_ zlo_in v _eské republice [International Organised Crime in the Czech Republic]. Prague: KLP Praha.

NO_INA, Miroslav (1999a) _eská republika na k_i_ovatkách mezinárodního zlo_inu [The Czech Republic at the Crossroads of International Crime]. Mezinárodní politika 23(3), 4–7.

NO_INA, Miroslav (1999b) Bad Cops Feel the Heat. The Geopolitical Drug Dispatch 93, 4–5.

OPR_AL, Ji_í (1990) _eskoslovenská socialistická republika a Helsinsk_ proces [The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Helsinki Process]. Mezinárodní vztahy 25(1), 2–7.

ORT, Alexandr (1959) Francie v období II. etapy v_eobecné krize kapitalismu [France in the Period of the Second Stage of the General Crisis of Capitalism]. Prague: MZV.

ORT, Alexandr (1960) Zahrani_ní politika gaullistické Francie [The Foreign Policy of Gaullist France]. Prague: Svobodné Slovo.

ORT, Alexandr (1968) Francouzskákoloniální politika po 2. sv_tové válce [The French Colonialist Policy after the Second World War]. Prague: Academia.

ORT, Alexandr (1992) Jak se chopit moci [How to take over power]. Prague: Mladá fronta. ORT, Alexandr (1994) Úvod do studia mezinárodních vztah_ [Introduction into the Study of International Relations]. Prague: University of Economics.

ORT, Alexandr (1995) NATO – anebo? [NATO — or?] Mezinárodní politika 19(10), 24–6. ORT, Alexandr (1996) Evropa od rozd_lení k jednot_ [Europe from Division to Unity]. Prague: University of Economics.

PAVLÍK, Petr (1998a) Economic Transformation in Central and Eastern Europe in the Context of the Process of European Integration. Perspectives 9, 89–96.

PAVLÍK, Petr (1998b) Is the Czech Economy Ready for EU Accession? In Ilja SRUBAR and Frane ADAM (eds) Problems of European Integration: the Case of the Southern and East Central European Countries. A special issue of Journal of Social Sciences/Dru_boslovne Razprave XIV(26), 82–99.

PICK, Otto (1997) The Czech Republic in the World. Perspectives 8, 5–11.

POTO_N_, Miroslav (1980) Mezinárodní organizace [International Organisations]. Prague: Svoboda.

POTO_N_, Miroslav and Elena A _IBAJEVOVÁ (1984) Právo mezinárodních organizací [The Law of International Organisations]. Prague: Panorama.

POTO_N_, Miroslav (1985) Organizace spojen_ch národ_: _tvrté desetiletí [The United Nations: the fourth decade]. Prague: Svoboda.

POTO_N_, Miroslav, ed. (1988) Slovník mezinárodního práva a politiky [Dictionary of International Law and Politics]. Prague: Svoboda.

Programme of Studies for the School Year (1998/1999a). Prague: Department of Political Science at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Charles University (in Czech).

Programme of Studies for the School Year (1998/1999b). Prague: University of Economics (in Czech).

Programme of Studies for the School Year (1998/1999c). Prague: Faculty of Social Sciences of the Charles University (in Czech).

RA_EK, Antonín (1995) V_voj na_ich vztah_ k NATO [Evolution of our relations with NATO]. Mezinárodní politika 19(4), 30–2.

ROZEHNAL, Du_an (1992) Nové zájmy v nové Evrop_ [New Interests in New Europe]. Mezinárodní politika 16(1), 20.

SCHELLING, Thomas (1966) The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge; MA: Harvard University Press.

SEDLÁK, Jaromír (1985) Globální problémy lidstva: Ke konstituování a perspektivám marxisticko–leninské a ke kritice nemarxistické globalistiky [Global problems of mankind: towards creating and perspectives of Marxist–Leninist approaches to globalism and about the critique of non–Marxist approaches]. Prague: Svoboda.

SEIFERT, Antonín (1992) Zájmy vzbudily zájem: máme a m_li jsme [National interests awoke a lot of interest: we have them and we had them]. Mezinárodní politika 16(8), 29.

SEIFTER, Pavel (1992) O nesamoz_ejmosti _s. národních zájm_ [On the missing self–evidence of Czechoslovak national interests]. Mezinárodní politika 16(4), 3.

SMITH, Steve (1995) The Self–Images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory. In Ken BOOTH and Steve SMITH (eds.) International Relations Theory Today, 1–37. Cambridge: Polity Press.

SOJÁK, Vladimír (1962) Sv_t po druhé sv_tové válce [The World after the Second World War]. Prague: Orbis.

SOJÁK, Vladimír (1976) Mezinárodní vztahy na_í doby [International Relations of Our Time]. Prague: Horizont.

SOJÁK, Vladimír (1981) Mezinárodní vztahy [International Relations]. Prague: SPN.

SOJÁK, Vladimír and Miroslav HR_ZA (1987) K 30. v_ro_í v_zkumu mezinárodních vztah_ [The 30 years of IR research]. Mezinárodní vztahy 22(7), 3–9.

SOUKUP, Miroslav (1984) Strategie rozvoje zemské civilizace [Development strategy of Earth civilization]. Prague: Svoboda.

SPYKMAN, Nicholas J. (1944) America’s Strategy in World Politics. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.

SYLLABA, Theodor and Milo_ BÁRTA (1964) V_deck_ komunismus. Díl 11. Socialistická demokracie [Science of Communism. Part 11. Socialist Democracy]. Prague: SPN.

_EDIV_, Ji_í (1993) Zahrani_ní politika _R pouze jako v_slednice národních zájm_ a síly státu?[Czech foreign policy just a product of national interests and force of the state?] Mezinárodní politika 17(8), 17.

_EDIV_, Ji_í (1997a) Národní zájem: ohlédnutí za jednou debatou [National interest: review of a debate]. Mezinárodní politika 21(1), 26–8.

_EDIV_, Ji_í (1997b) Czech–NATO Relations: A Dynamic Process. In Tadayuki HAYASHI (ed.) The Emerging New Regional Order in Central and Eastern Europe, 129–46. Sapporo: SRC Hokkaido University.

_EDIV_, Ji_í (1997c) _eská republika v novém strategickém prost_edí: role armády a její vnímání ve_ejností [The Czech Republic in the New Strategic Environment: the Role of the Army and its Public Perception]. Mezinárodní vztahy 1, 12–8.

_EDIV_, Ji_í (1998) _eská republika v novém strategickém prost_edí — transformace role ozbrojen_ch sil a její vnímání spole_ností [The Czech Republic in the New Strategic Environment — transformation, role of armed forces and their public perception]. In _tefan SARVA_ (ed.) Bezpe_nost a armáda v moderní spole_nosti, 25–34. Prague: Charles University.

VALENTA, Ji_í, ed. (1992a) Máme národní zájmy? [Do We Have National Interests?] Prague: Institute of International Relations.

VALENTA, Ji_í (1992b) Národní zájmy demokratické principy a postkomunistické _eskoslovensko [National Interests and Democratic Principles in Postcommunist Czechoslovakia]. In Ji_í VALENTA et al. (eds) Máme národní zájmy? [Do We Have National Interests?], 12–24. Prague: Institute of International Relations.

VRAN_, Jan (1982) Suroviny a rozvojové zem_ [Raw Materials and Developing Countries]. Prague: Svoboda.

VRAN_, Jan, ed. (1985) Západní Afrika I. a II. [Western Africa I. and II.]. Prague: Institut zahrani_ního obchodu/_TK — Pressfoto.

VYCHODIL, Franti_ek (1987) Hnutí nezú_astn_n_ch zemí — vlivná síla sv_tové politiky [Non–aligned movement — an influential force in world politics]. Prague: Svoboda.

WÆVER, Ole (1998) The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations. International Organization 52(4), 687–727.

WALLERSTEIN, Immanuel (1974–8) The Modern World–System, Vol. I–II. New York: Academic Press.

WALTZ, Kenneth (1979) Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House.

ZBO_IL, Zden_k (1995) O politické geografii, geopolitice a n_kter_ch nectnostech [On political geography, geopolitics and some vices]. Mezinárodní vztahy 2, 112–7.

 

Endnotes

Note *:Petr Drulák, Ph.D., is Director of Studies at the Institute of International Relations, Prague. Radka Druláková is Ph.D. candidate at the Jan Masaryk Center of International Studies, University of Economics, Prague.Back

We would like to thank Bo_ek Hnízdo, Jan K_en, Zuzana Lehmannová, Jan Mu_ka, Ji_í _ediv_, Zden_k Zbo_il, the staff at the Institute of International Relations and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful advice and for materials. Of course, the views represented here are solely those of the authors.

Note 1:It was also the case of books dealing with IR topics (see e.g. Buk and __ra 1962; Soják 1962; 1976; 1981; Mahler 1966; Ort 1968; Matou_ 1974; 1982; Novotn_ 1983).Back.

Note 2:The IR books published in the 1980s addressed the following areas: developing countries particularly neo–colonialism (Lacina 1981a; 1981b; 1984; Jungbauer 1982; Vran_ 1982; 1985; Figura 1983; Racz 1983; Ková_ 1984; Muziká_ 1987; Vychodil 1987), international law (Poto_n_ 1980; 1985; 1988; Kopal 1981; 1983; Azud 1983; David and Malenovsk_ 1983; Mikulka 1987; Poto_n_ and _ibajevová 1984), international history (Blaho_ 1983), security studies (Cavara 1980; Novák 1984; Jank_ 1985; Collective of Authors 1986; Hrab_ 1987), international economics (Fárek 1984; Jak_ 1985; Holub and Folt_n 1989), Czechoslovak foreign policy (Collective of Authors 1983; Hulínsk_ 1988), current affairs (Matou_ 1982), and Marxist–Leninist IR theory (Soják 1981; Novotn_ 1983; Soukup 1984; Matou_ 1985a; 1985b; Sedlák 1985).Back.

Note 3:Even though hardly any IR approach is ideologically neutral, democratic societies provide grounds for a plurality of ideologies in IR research and these ideologies are subject to free discussion. Ideological baggage from formerly totalitarian IR research is reflected in the absence of critical thinking and inability to accept the existence of competing approaches.Back.

Note 4:For history/theory discussion, see articles in e.g. International Security 22(Summer 1997).Back.

Note 5:The centre was set up by Alexandr Ort (1959; 1960; 1968; 1992; 1994; 1996), former deputy–director of the IIR in 1969, who was sacked in 1970 because of his support of the reforms in 1968. The centre was named after the last pre–communist foreign minister Jan Masaryk, which symbolises both the continuity and discontinuity of Czech IR and their studies.Back.

Note 6:The master’s programme is called International Politics and Diplomacy and its students receive the title Ing. (Engineer) like any graduate from the University of Economics. The Ph.D. programme is called International Political Relations.Back.

Note 7:The Foundation of Jan Masaryk was founded in the early 1990s. It supports the study and promotion of the personality of Jan Masaryk. Back.

Note 8:The leading personalities among the founders were Rudolf Ku_era and Alena Hromádková, each of whom graduated in the 1960s and turned into dissidents in the 1980s.Back.

Note 9:All students from the Charles University receive the title Mgr. (magister) which is comparable with the title of M.A. Back.

Note 10:The Centre was founded in 1992 by Jan K_en, the renowned historian (discussed in the third chapter).Back.

Note 11:The Department was set up by Theodor Syllaba (Syllaba and Bárta 1964), a political philosopher who cultivated political science in the late 1960s as the head of the first department of political science in the country, losing his job after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.Back.

Note 12:Its first director was the leading Czech Marxist–Leninist IR theorist Vladimír Soják (Soják and Hr_za 1987:3).Back.

Note 12:Besides the research projects which are addressed below, the most recent publication activity of the research fellows includes No_ina (1997; 1999a; 1999b), Pick (1997), _ediv_ (1997a; 1997b; 1997c; 1998), Bure_ (1998; 1999), Drulák (1998a; 1998b; 1999), Eichler (1998; 1999a; 1999b; 1999c), Ehl and Cabada (1999), Gedlu (1998a; 1998b; 1999a; 1999b), Had (1997), Had and Kotyk (1998), Halaxa and Lebeda (1998), Hou_vi_ka (1998; 1999), Khol (1998a; 1998b), Kural (1998), Larischová (1998a; 1998b; 1999), Le_ka (1998; 1999a; 1999b), Lu_ák and _ediv_ (1998) and Pavlík (1998a; 1998b). Back.

Note 13:There is no specific information available about the resources of the other discussed institutes. But because of their being university departments they are funded from the budget of the Ministry of Education. They also receive grants from other state agencies and from the EU. Private donations are quite rare. Back.

Note 14:Especially Kissinger’s Diplomacy enjoys high popularity having been re–published twice since the first edition in 1996.Back.

Note 15:There is no book by Mastny available in Czech but Czech libraries offer some of his books published in English (Mastn_ 1972; 1979; 1992; 1996). Two of Liska’s books were translated into Czech (Li_ka 1992; 1994), English editions of his books in Czech libraries include Liska, (1968; 1990a; 1990b; 1994).Back.