Tato stať se zabývá analýzou veřejného mínění obyvatel neevropských zemí a jejich pohledem na Evropskou unii. Studie přitom není analýzou zahraniční či obchodní politiky těchto zemí, nýbrž vychází z postojů obyvatel těchto zemí. Občané těchto zemí hodnotí EU nejčastěji jako „soft power“ a jako ekonomickou velmoc. Vysoce ceněné jsou nadále také aktivity v oblasti mírových rekonstrukcí bývalých válečných regionů, vytýkáno je jí však, že málo využívá svého ekonomického potenciálu při řešení konfliktů. Shodně jí však také kritizují za protekcionistickou politiku v oblasti dovozu. Politicky ovšem unie nadále zůstává víceméně nevýznamným aktérem mezinárodních vztahů., This article deals with the analysis of public opinion in the non-European countries and with their view about the European Union. The study is not yet an analysis of foreign and trade policies of these countries, but it based on the opini - ons of their inhabitants. The citizens of these countries assessed the EU as “soft power” and as an economic superpower. Highly valued are the activities in the field of peaceful reconstruction of the former war regions, however, it is alleged that it uses few use its economical potential in resolving conflicts. However the Union is criticized for their protectionist policies in the import. Politically remains the union largely unimportant player in international relations., and Lukáš, Novotný.
This article examines the inner workings of a private company’s participation in the European policy game. The qualitative analysis shows that the promotion of a company’s interests and its positioning at the level of the European Union is not self-evident and results from internal battles in which European public affairs employees play a pivotal role. Under what conditions do the European public affairs employees of a leading multinational firm endorse, manage, and promote an active position in the Brussels’ polity sphere? This article highlights the process by which these ‘professionals of Europe’ adapt to the specific requirements of the EU and mobilise an informal network to contribute to European policy-making. These lobbyists appear as ‘double entrepreneurs’: as entrepreneurs on behalf of both their employers’ interests and the European cause as they place themselves as the auxiliaries of EU civil servants. Maintaining a delicate balance, interest representatives occupy a position of dependence, both on their employer and on the polity field in which they valorise their ‘European institutional capital’. This position allows these social agents to serve as a broker between their employer and the European arena. In doing so, they nurture the porosity between (economic) interests and the public sector, which cuts across the field of ‘Eurocracy’.