J. Sanecka-Tyczyńska
{"title":"Spór polityczny między PiS i PO wokół modelu integracji europejskiej","authors":"J. Sanecka-Tyczyńska","doi":"10.15584/polispol.2022.4.19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The dispute over the model of European integration and around the proposals for reform and change of the European Union, which appear time and again, has become one of the main axes of conflict in Polish politics. The aim of this article is to analyse the political views of the two main actors in this dispute – Law and Justice (conservative current) and Civic Platform of the Republic of Poland (liberal current). Representatives of both ideological currents, despite significant axiological differences, were in favour of European integration. While the Law and Justice party presented a Eurorealist stance, the views of PO politicians can be described as Euro-enthusiastic. Sharp disagreements arose when the scope and extent of European integration and the model of the EU needed to be clarified, which de facto boiled down to a debate around the role and significance of the nation-state in international relations. The theoretical layer of political thought is particularly exposed in the study, as the acceptance of a realist or liberal paradigm of international relations by the parties studied was tantamount to support for a particular model of the European Union. It also seemed crucial to examine the relevance and importance of political values such as the state and its sovereignty, collective identity or security and their relationship to the desired vision of the EU.","PeriodicalId":403819,"journal":{"name":"Polityka i Społeczeństwo","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polityka i Społeczeństwo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15584/polispol.2022.4.19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

围绕欧洲一体化模式和欧盟改革改革提案的争论屡屡出现,已成为波兰政治冲突的主轴之一。本文的目的是分析这场争论的两个主要参与者的政治观点——法律与正义(保守派)和波兰共和国公民纲领(自由派)。两种意识形态流派的代表,尽管在价值论上存在重大差异,但都支持欧洲一体化。虽然法律与正义党提出了欧洲现实主义的立场,但PO政治家的观点可以被描述为欧洲热情。当欧洲一体化的范围和程度以及欧盟的模式需要澄清时,尖锐的分歧出现了,这实际上归结为围绕民族国家在国际关系中的作用和意义的辩论。政治思想的理论层面在研究中特别暴露,因为所研究的各方接受现实主义或自由主义的国际关系范式,就等于支持某种特定的欧盟模式。审视政治价值观的相关性和重要性,如国家及其主权、集体认同或安全,以及它们与欧盟理想愿景的关系,似乎也至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Spór polityczny między PiS i PO wokół modelu integracji europejskiej
The dispute over the model of European integration and around the proposals for reform and change of the European Union, which appear time and again, has become one of the main axes of conflict in Polish politics. The aim of this article is to analyse the political views of the two main actors in this dispute – Law and Justice (conservative current) and Civic Platform of the Republic of Poland (liberal current). Representatives of both ideological currents, despite significant axiological differences, were in favour of European integration. While the Law and Justice party presented a Eurorealist stance, the views of PO politicians can be described as Euro-enthusiastic. Sharp disagreements arose when the scope and extent of European integration and the model of the EU needed to be clarified, which de facto boiled down to a debate around the role and significance of the nation-state in international relations. The theoretical layer of political thought is particularly exposed in the study, as the acceptance of a realist or liberal paradigm of international relations by the parties studied was tantamount to support for a particular model of the European Union. It also seemed crucial to examine the relevance and importance of political values such as the state and its sovereignty, collective identity or security and their relationship to the desired vision of the EU.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信