Bringing Pyongyang Back: the Prospects for Establishing Multilateral Cooperation Mechanism in East Asia

In this interconnected world, the multilateral mechanisms become more and more present and relevant. However, East Asia is a notable exception with no such institutionalised tool. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) remains the most troubling state and the main reason why collaboration has not resulted in strengthening the stability in East Asia. Although a formal dialogue called the Six Party Talks exists, it currently remains in deadlock after two nuclear tests conducted by Pyongyang in 2009. The actions that took place throughout last year have once again drawn greater attention to the Korean Peninsula, raising the possibility of resuming the negotiations. Nevertheless, the question about what this new agenda should include remain relevant. The purpose of this paper is to outline international relations in Northeast Asia from both theoretical and practical perspective and provide ideas on what can be done to facilitate the cooperation between the states.

“Non-Recognition” of the EAEU by the European Union: Political Aspects

The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) positions itself as an open integration formation and considers the cooperation with external partners as a key feature of its functioning. However, while it is developing a growing network of trade agreements in the framework of a Great Eurasian Partnership, it faces difficulties in establishing a formal dialogue with a neighboring integration formation – the European Union (EU). In this article we propose to analyze political causes of such “non-recognition”, conditioned by the context of political tensions between Russia and the EU countries and by the perception of the EAEU as a tool for promotion of an integration model, alternative to the European one. The article offers recommendations to enhance the dialogue between the two integration unions, oriented at strengthening of objective economic prerequisites for EU ‒ EAEU cooperation, as well as at the formation of the EAEU identity, separate from the identities of its member-states.

BELAJAR DENGAN DIALOG (Deep Dialog dan Critical Thiking Sebagai Model Penerapan Pendidikan Karakter)

The caregivers of the Church Soya, in carrying out the sagat learning process, were accustomed to using monotonous lecture methods, the use of methods, strategies and learning media rarely seen in the learning process. This study aims to find out what the learning process is with the dialogue on Church Formal Education (PFG) for GPM Soya's. The data of this study were analyzed using qualitative research methods with data collection techniques are observation, interviews and literature and data analysis techniques are data reduction, display data and draw conclusions and verification. By using Deep Dialog and Critical Thiking Theory with dialogue methods in the learning process with results indicators are Silence, community building, concept discovery activities, reflection and evaluation.The results found in this study were that caregivers found it very difficult to use the method of dialogue with students, so the teaching and learning process carried out was very monotonous by using the lecture method. Children's creativity and caregivers are not honed and have no development. In-depth dialogue with children's goals and caregivers are open, honest, respectful of others and independent learning has not occurred in the learning process. These findings are analyzed by means of learning with silence in establishing internal and external dialogue, building a class community for democratic dialogue, finding concepts for independence in dialogue, reflection as an educational and evaluation dialogue as a means of achieving learning with dialogue.Keyword: Church Formal Dialogue and Education (PFG)

Rethinking the Social Welfare Regime Model: The Case of Public Policy Toward Israeli Philanthropists

Following a study on the changing relations between government and philanthropy in Israel, this study highlights the need to rethink the typology of social welfare regimes proposed by Anheier and Daly (2007). The findings of our study indicate that there has been a rapprochement between government and philanthropy in Israel. This trend has led to formal dialogue and collaborations. This trend has also promoted the development of policies toward philanthropy in various government ministries and agencies. The development and implementation of these policies have been facilitated by changes in the unique contextual factors of Israel’s welfare regime. Based on the findings, we propose a conceptualization for understanding governmental policies toward philanthropy in shifting welfare regimes. With regard to the theoretical and practical implications of the study, we propose a model for hybrid welfare regimes that are experiencing ongoing changes.

Dialogical logic

Dialogical logic characterizes logical constants (such as ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘for all’) by their use in a critical dialogue between two parties: a proponent who has asserted a thesis and an opponent who challenges it. For each logical constant, a rule specifies how to challenge a statement that displays the corresponding logical form, and how to respond to such a challenge. These rules are incorporated into systems of regimented dialogue that are games in the game-theoretical sense. Dialogical concepts of logical consequence can then be based upon the concept of a winning strategy in a (formal) dialogue game: B is a logical consequence of A if and only if there is a winning strategy for the proponent of B against any opponent who is willing to concede A. But it should be stressed that there are several plausible (and non-equivalent) ways to draw up the rules.

A Dialectical Analysis of the Ad Baculum Fallacy

This paper applies dialectical argumentation structures to the problem of analyzing the ad baculum fallacy. It is shown how it is necessary in order to evaluate a suspected instance of the this fallacy to proceed through three levels of analysis: (1) an inferential level, represented by an argument diagram, (2) a speech act level, where conditions for specific types of speech acts are defined and applied, and (3) a dialectical level where the first two levels are linked together and fitted into formal dialogue structures. The paper adds a new type of dialogue called advising dialogue that needs to be applied at the third level.

From Speech Acts to Semantics

Frege introduced the notion of pragmatic force as what distinguishes statements from questions. This distinction was elaborated by Wittgenstein in his later works, and systematised as an account of different kinds of speech acts in formal dialogue theory by Hamblin. It lies at the heart of the inferential semantics more recently developed by Brandom. The present paper attempts to sketch some of the relations between these developments.

Methodological Issues for the Logic of Questions and Commands

There has been much recent interest in logics for questions and commands. The authors approve, but they argue that methodological issues must be addressed, before it is possible to understand what such logics are for and what they should be like. In particular, the authors deny that the formulas in such logics correspond directly to sentences in ordinary language. Logic is not linguistics. What then are the semantics for the formulas of logics of questions and commands? The focus here is mostly on questions. The authors argue that logics designed to capture the conditions for correct reasoning involving questions require a semantics that treats question-answer pairs as values. They also argue that formal dialogue approaches to the logic of questions should be interpreted in the light of the denial that logic is about language.