The Naval Disarmament Conference was held in Geneva between 20 June – 4 August 1927 on the initiative of the American President Calvin Coolidge. It was a continuation of the process initiated during the Washington Conference (12 November 1921 – 6 February 1922). It was then that Great Britain, the United States of America, Japan, France and Italy determined the ratio of the naval forces in the class of battleships and aircraft carriers in line with the following: 5 : 5 : 3 : 1.75 : 1.75. During the so-called Coolidge Conference (1927) the American party did its best to conclude an international treaty and consequently achieve parity between the US Navy and Royal Navy in all classes of warships. The British government accepted an invitation to the Geneva Conference (1927) assuming that their delegation would succeed in forcing through the disarmament plan formulated by the Admiralty. The plan was aimed at modifying the Washington Treaty in order that the British Empire could make savings and at the same time improve her national security. The British plan was aimed at prolonging the service life of battleships and aircraft carriers, reducing the displacement and calibre of guns carried by battleships, and, last but not least, dividing the cruisers into heavy and light as well as imposing limitations only on the number of the former. The British plan met with strong objection from the American delegation. Attempts made to reach a consensus over parity between the Royal and US Navy in the class of cruisers were unsuccessful, and the conference eventually turned into a fiasco. Such a state of affairs had to do with strategic, political and economic issues. The Admiralty opposed to reaching an agreement which put the security of the British Empire at a serious risk, and the majority of the British ministers were inclined to believe that the conference breakdown would be lesser evil than agreeing to the American demands. The British diplomats strove for adopting a common stance with the Japanese delegation in order that the responsibility for the conference collapse rested with the American party.

Polish-Belgian relations are not just about economics or joint membership in European institutions. Rather, they are a story of centuries-old friendship between two nations that cherish freedom. This was the leitmotif of a conference held on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. The conference took place at the headquarters of the Belgian Ambassador in Poland on 11 April 2019, with Polish Senator Anna Maria Anders in attendance.

W artykule omówiono metodę Konferencji Grupy Rodzinnej, która została wprowadzona na grunt polski przed dziesięciu laty przez J. Przepierskiego. Metoda przedstawiona jest w kontekście historycznym, jej założeń teoretycznych, szczególnych walorów praktycznych, uzasadniających zastosowanie w pracy z rodziną w sytuacji kryzysowej, oraz utrudnień, które stanowią przeszkodę w jej stosowaniu.

The present article attempts to discuss whether a medical conference poster intended for a specific English-speaking discourse community shares the properties of discourse colony (Hoey 1986). The author analyses 12 e-posters, which were displayed during an international neurological conference, presenting findings on epilepsy treatment. First, the author characterises the conference poster, which is followed by a description of discourse community and discourse colony. Next, the analysis of the e-posters is carried out and the results of the analysis are presented. On the basis of these results it might be said that the medical conference poster could be considered a discourse colony as it shares some of its properties.

In the article a short historical outline of noise control conferences organized in Poland is given. Those conferences with the participation of Polish specialists have been organized since 1964; since 1976 they have been evolved into International Noise Control Conferences. Silhouettes of four Polish scientists, which have made a large contribution to the noise and vibration control in Poland, are presented. Also the current state of threats by noise and vibrations have been briefly mentioned. The significance of such conferences has been emphasized.

The essence of the “border problem” between Poland and the FRG reaches back to the provisions of the Potsdam Agreement of 1945. The Polish position was unambiguous from the beginning: the border on the Odra and Nysa Łużycka rivers was established under international law in the Potsdam Agreement, while the subsequent actions undertaken within the framework of the “peace settlement” could only have complementary, declaratory significance. On the other hand, in the FRG an official legal position was developed according to which the former eastern German territories were only given to Poland (and the USSR) “under their administration”, and the final decision on the border was left to be taken by the future unified Germany in a “peace treaty” or a “peace settlement”. This position was not changed by the Normalization Treaty between Poland and the FRG of 1970, because it was interpreted in the FRG as only a “treaty about the renunciation of force”, an element of a modus vivendi which was to last until the unification of Germany. On the other hand, the Zgorzelec Treaty of 1950 between Poland and the GDR was interpreted as not binding for the future unified Germany. Such a position deeply destabilized political relations between the FRG and Poland in the post-war period and had a conflict-generating significance in a number of areas. At the beginning of 1990 the political changes in Poland coincided with the process of German unification. The democratic opposition in Poland, and thereafter the government of Tadeusz Mazowiecki, unequivocally supported the right of the German people to self-determination, at the same time expecting an unequivocal position on the Polish-German border. This fundamental problem was closed in 1990 under two international agreements: the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (2+4 Treaty) and the Treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany (united Germany) and the Republic of Poland on the confirmation of the border between them. Thus for thirty-plus years now the “border problem” has been removed from the agenda of political discussions in Polish-German relations, which proves the effectiveness and durability of the agreement reached, which was reflected in both treaties.

The article is devoted to the memory of Professor Franciszek Ziejka, Rector of Jagiellonian University (1999–2005) and presents the most important areas of his outstanding activity. The Professor was a historian of literature, an expert in Polish culture of XIX century – especially so called “Young Poland” period – and an excellent promoter of Polish literature and history. He had a significant impact on the development of academic life in Poland, as Chairman of the Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland and initiator of changes to the regulations governing higher education in Poland. Professor Franciszek Ziejka passed away 19 of July 2020.

This article explores the legal principles that govern the interpretation of “secondary instruments” in international law. A “secondary instrument” under international law is, for the purposes of this article, a written document adopted by a body empowered by a treaty to take action with respect to the treaty, but which is not itself a treaty. Such instruments find increasing application in international law. The article specifically examines the interpretation of secondary instruments arising in five settings in international practice: the United Nations Security Council, the International Maritime Organization, the International Seabed Authority, the International Whaling Commission, and conferences/meetings of the parties under multilateral treaties. This selection of practice will serve to illustrate principles of interpretation across a range of international institutional settings for the purpose of determining the rights and obligations of state-parties to a treaty regime.

The issue of war reparations was a subject of controversy in Polish-German relations for a long time. This was due to the position of the Federal Republic of Germany that this issue had been deferred to the moment of German unification. The German concept of reparations also included the individual claims of Polish victims of National Socialism (Nazism). The case for interstate reparations from Germany to Poland was closed as a result of the Polish waiver of 1953, while the issue of individual compensation for Polish victims was symbolically resolved as a result of agreements between Poland and the Federal Republic of Germany only in 1990 and 2000. The scope and amount of any new payments depends on the agreements of particular countries or organizations with the Federal Republic of Germany. As long as the victims are still alive, new pragmatic solutions should not be ruled out.

Post-Versailles Europe saw the emergence of new, quasi-state territorial corporations (enjoying a great deal of autonomy, but not sovereignty). These included the Free State of Fiume/Rijeka (1919- 1924), Free City of Danzig/Gdańsk (1920-1939), Free State of Memel/ Klaipeda (which emerged between 1920 and 1923, before being incorporated into Lithuania with partial autonomy still remaining), as well as, slightly later, the autonomous Åland Islands (1922), and the Republic of Hatay (1938-1939). In theory, those international law constructs were supposed to resolve tensions (including those erupting on the grounds of nationality) between neighbours vying for control over strategic territories (and cities). However, they proved to primarily spark new conflicts of varying length. The article constitutes an attempt at comparing the geneses and development of the first three of the abovementioned “free cities”, as well as identifying their role in the newly-formed League of Nations. In addition, the article attempts to determine the degree to which the principle of national self-determination played a role in the establishment of these entities, as well as the methods used to ensure that the national minorities which found themselves within the borders of these “free cities” were protected.

Opracowanie podejmuje kwestie wyzwań, przed którymi stoi prawo morza. Wprawdzie UNCLOS określana jest słusznie jako konstytucja prawa morza, ale nie daje ona i nie może dać odpowiedzi na wszystkie problemy i wątpliwości, które powstają w praktyce i są związane z ociepleniem klimatu, ochroną różnorodności biologicznej, statusem prawnym zasobów genetycznych, kontrowersjami dotyczącymi żeglugi, delimitacją obszarów morskich czy ochroną podwodnego dziedzictwa kulturalnego. Stąd powstaje pytanie, jakie są drogi i środki dalszego rozwoju prawa morza. Niewątpliwie jedną z możliwości jest wypracowanie porozumień implementacyjnych, z których trzecie poświęcone jest ochronie i zrównoważonemu korzystaniu z morskiej różnorodności biologicznej poza granicami jurysdykcji narodowej i jest przedmiotem konferencji międzynarodowej zwołanej przez Zgromadzenie Ogólne, którego rezolucje w obszarze prawa morza odgrywają istotną rolę. Niewątpliwie ważne znaczenie ma też działalność organizacji systemu Narodów Zjednoczonych, jak IMO, FAO, UNESCO, UNEP. Istnieje też możliwość przyjmowania umów podejmujących kwestie pozostawione przez UNCLOS bez rozwiązania czy zdefiniowania. Nie bez znaczenia jest też miękkie prawo oraz praktyka państw, a także stanowisko organów powołanych przez UNCLOS.

The article presents personal memories of Professor Aleksander Koj’s alumni. Professor Aleksander Koj was a world-class biochemist of significant scientific achievements, a renowned authority in the field of acute-phase response regulation and acute-phase proteins. He was an excellent academic, a true Master, admired and followed by many Polish biochemists. Thrice he served as the Rector of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków. He navigated the University through a difficult time of political transformation in Poland, modernized the management system of the University and led to the commencement of the construction of the new University campus. He was the co-creator and the first Chairman of the Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland. He will be remembered as a devoted community worker aiming at strengthening the bond between the Polish community abroad and our homeland, propagating knowledge, promoting the concept of European integration, democracy and tolerance, as well as the collaboration between scientists, artists and men and women of culture. He was wise, righteous, and noble. Many had the honor of calling him their friend, and a great many saw in him a moral authority.