tsm2020.indd Torun Interna onal Studies No. 1 (7) 2014 Rafał Zajęcki*1 ORCID: 0000-0001-6081-0150 Antonina Shuliak**2 ORCID: 0000-0002-5234-0758 Olesya Fesyk***3 ORCID: 0000-0002-2583-9481 USING PUBLIC DIPLOMACY FOR CREATING INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY THE CASE OF POLAND AND SWEDEN ABSTRACT In the period of democratisation and mediatisation, public diplomacy became a significant part of foreign policies of many states. Today’s governments notice and appreciated its role in coordinating and implementing strategic activities consisting in shaping such an external environment that supports the foreign policy of a given state by understanding, properly informing and influencing global public opinion. A positive image of the state on the inter- national arena strengthens its credibility and voice in the debate on global issues and policies, which in turn enables it to achieve its goals more effectively. Apart from social and economic spheres, public diplomacy activities may also strive to ensure security and stability in a given part of the world. Thus, the aim of this article is to analyse the phenomenon of public diplo- macy and its impact on creating international norms of security. A comparative method used herein is aimed at answering the following question: how does Polish and Swedish public diplomacy activities contribute to creating the world’s peace and security. In the article, the perspective of constructivism referring, among others, to the issue of national identity as a causal factor for states’ activities, was used. Keywords: public diplomacy, soft power, constructivism, Sweden, Poland * Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce (Poland), e-mail: rafal.zajecki@phd.ujk.edu.pl ** Lesya Ukrainka Eastern European National University in Lutsk (Ukraine), e-mail: antonina. mytko@eenu.edu.ua *** Lesya Ukrainka Eastern European National University in Lutsk (Ukraine), e-mail: olesf2908@ukr.net 2020, No. 1 (13), pp. 165–175 Published online July, 2020 DOI: h p://dx.doi.org/10.12775/TIS.2020.012 R Z , A S , O F166 1. INTRODUCTION Today’s world forces the redefinition of modern diplomacy forms due to an increasing num- ber of international entities, much more dense network of contacts as well as growing num- ber of communication channels (Jędrzejewska, 2020). Many national governments have realised that in order to be able to carry out foreign policy effectively, it is necessary to use not only hard power, including, for example, economic and military potential, but also soft power. The term soft power was coined by Joseph Samuel Nye in the late 1980s, who stated that one state may achieve its goals without resorting to coercion because other actors of in- ternational relations may want to act in the manner desired by the former. According to him, the assets of soft power comprise culture, political values and foreign policy, including public diplomacy, as well as such elements as technology, science and education, development aid, and migration (Nye, 2004). It is noteworthy that the majority of soft power assets consists of non-material elements. Public diplomacy is one of the types of soft power (Szczepanik, 2011). According to Eytan Gilboa (2008), public diplomacy is a direct way of communication with communities of other states with no official sphere in which a political dialogue of leaders, authorities and represent- atives of nations takes place. And, as specified more precisely by the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2014), public diplomacy is conducted in a multi-dimensional way and covers a wide spectrum of information activities aimed at shaping a favourable foreign public opinion and strengthening prestige on the international stage. Moreover, it stimulates relations and cooper- ation among foreign partners in the political, economic, scientific, social and cultural areas. As noted by Kristina Plavšak Krajnc (2004), public diplomacy may serve as a tool for implement- ing economic and non-economic goals set by a given state to be achieved through conducting internal and external relations (Chugaiev, 2015). Bearing in mind this article’s point of view, non-economic goals which may be either social or political, seem to be more important as the former ones strengthen citizens’ internal sense of belonging and national pride, while the latter ones strengthen state’s reputation and improve its image on the international stage. Public diplomacy is a relatively well understood and adequately described concept in the research literature in the field of political sciences. However, the researchers in public diplo- macy usually consider it in a broad sense or from the angle of its cultural dimension and other dimensions such as economic, political or social one are rarely taken heed of. The most fre- quently chosen geographical areas among researchers in public diplomacy abroad include the states of Western and Northern Europe (e.g. Robin Brown, James Pamment, Tim River, Josef Batora). The Central and Eastern European states, including Poland, are most often analysed by Beata Ociepka and Marta Ryniejska-Kiełdanowicz. Research on public diplomacy in the European Union or European Union as a whole is dealt with by: Maria K. Davis Cross, Anna Michalski, Steffen Bay Rasmussen, Peter van Ham, and Jan Melissen. The phenomenon of public diplomacy and its impact on creating international peace and security was analysed using the perspective of constructivism being one of the main theoret- ical standpoints in international relations, developed in 1980s. It denies the realistic reifica- tion of such concepts as states, interests and power, providing them with social background, and theorises that: states’ interests result from national identity, and these are history- and culture-dependent; and norms as well as values are the key element of international structure and are endowed with causal power as they are being internationalised and disseminated on the international stage (Ryniejska-Kiełdanowicz, 2019). USING PUBLIC DIPLOMACY FOR CREATING INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY... 167 2. MATERIAL AND METHODS Nowadays, constructivism seems to be widely recognised for its ability to capture significant features of global politics and is viewed as an important theory of international relations. The representatives of this theory seek to develop an approach focused on where states’ interests come from, while those who represent realism tend to simply take states’ interests as given. They believe that the states’ conception of their interests, the way how they are perceived on the international stage, and its activities may be changed due to inter-state interactions. States, just like people, tend to see themselves as others see them (Goldstein, 2007). Constructivism is a social theory being widely concerned with the relationship among agents and structures; however, it is not a substantive theory as the constructivists have dif- ferent arguments regarding, for example, the rise of sovereignty and the impact of human rights on states (Tomala, 2019). Some of them rely on James March and John Meyer and organisational theory; while the others – on Michel Foucault and discourse analysis. Some of them prioritise agents and other structures; whereas the others – focus on inter-state politics or transnationalism (Baylis, 2005). Constructivism concerns human consciousness and its role in international life. Much of international theory, particularly neo-realism, is materialistic as it focuses on how balance of power is defined by the distribution of material power among states and explains the behav- iour of states. Therefore, the constructivists openly reject such a one-sided material approach by saying that the most important aspect of international relations is social, not material one. They perceive the international system as a human creation which is not material or physical, but purely ideational and intellectual. In the light of this perception, the international system is a set of norms, ideas and thoughts which have been arranged by certain people at a particu- lar time and place. Thus, the core insight of social constructivism is the social construction of reality, and the greatest attention is paid to the socially constructed nature of actors and their identities and interests (Prabhu & Mohapatra, 2014). The constructivists argue that actors are not born outside and prior to society, as it is claimed by individualists. They would rather contend that actors are produced and are a function of the cultural environment in which they exist. This means that reality is not out there waiting to be discovered, and quite the con- trary, historically produced and culturally bound knowledge enables individuals to construct reality and provide it with meaning. As a result, the social construction of reality shapes what is perceived as a legitimate action as well (Baylis, 2005). The social construction of reality also emphasises certain concepts which have become part of humans’ social vocabulary. For example, such concepts as power, security, human rights or humanitarian aid have not always existed. They were rather a product of historical forces and human interactions that have shaped humans’ understanding about the interaction among existing ideas and institutions. So that they all may be interpreted in different ways and thus convey some different meanings (Prabhu & Mohapatra, 2014). By taking the above into account, one may say that constructivism is a social theory which operates at a high level of abstraction, i.e. it tells something about international relations, but is not concerned with international relations specifically. By contrast, constructivist theories of international relations focus particularly on how international relations may be better understood and explained using a constructivist approach (Guzzini, 2000). Furthermore, the international- isation of norms defines to a great extent the behaviour and identities of the international actors. For example, norms related to humanitarianism, citizenship, military intervention, R Z , A S , O F168 security, human rights, natural environment, etc. not only regulate what states do, but also may be connected to their identities and thus express how they define themselves and their interests on the international stage. That is why, the constructivists are interested particularly in how norms influence states’ interests and behaviour (Baylis, 2005). In view of the above, the article is aimed at answering the following question: does public diplomacy have any impact on creating international peace and security, and if so, to which extent? In order to answer this question, a comparative method was used, thanks to which it was possible to compare Poland and Sweden based on the Soft Power 30 index which is the world’s first composite index for measuring the soft power of states. The index was developed by Jonathan McClory in 2015 and since then it has been used as a benchmark by many gov- ernments around the world (“The Soft Power 30 – A Global Ranking of Soft Power”, 2015). The Soft Power index takes a comprehensive range of factors influencing perceptions of a giv- en state in the world. It assesses selected soft power resources of states by combining both objective and subjective data. The objective data is structured into six categories, i.e. “Gov- ernment”; “Digital”; “Culture”; “Enterprise”; “Engagement”; and “Education”. This kind of data is drawn from a range of respected and commonly cited third-party sources, very often authored by the World Bank, United Nations (e.g. World Tourism Organisation, UNESCO, World Intellectual Property Organisation), Amnesty International, OECD, among others. Each category functions as an independent sub-index with an individual score and corre- sponding ranking for each state. The subjective data, in turn, is collected through an online international polling conducted by means of computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) in selected states. The polling samples within each state are nationally representative in terms of age, gender, and region, and they usually consist of 250 to 500 respondents who use an 11-point numeric answer scale (from 0 to 10). The subjective data received through the international polling is then grouped into 7 categories, such as “Cuisine”; “Tech Products”; “Friendliness”; “Culture”; “Luxury Goods”; “Foreign Policy” and “Liveability”. Each of these categories may function as an independent sub-index and has its own percentage weight. In 2019, these were: 12.0%; 8.3%; 20.6%; 5.2%; 7.6%; 31.0%; and 15.3%, respectively (“The Soft Power 30 – A Global Ranking of Soft Power”, 2019). It is also worth mentioning that the percentage ratio between objective data and subjective data is 65% and 35%, respectively. 3. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The external conditions for an objective foreign policy of a given state is its position in the system of international relations and roles (Zięba, 2013). Based on the constructivist para- digm, the most successful in this regard are these states whose culture and values are close to the global norms (liberalism, pluralism, autonomy); which have access to many information channels, and thus have an impact on what issues are raised in these channels; and whose credibility is strengthened by their internal and international activities (Nye, 2004). Accord- ing to Joseph Samuel Nye (2004), the higher the state’s position in the system, the greater its ability to influence other states’ ways of behaviour. Thanks to it, one state admires the values of another state, imitates them or wants to achieve such a level of openness and prosperity as the one boasted by the state being admired. In view of the above, Sweden may be this state which has a higher position in the sys- tem of international relations than Poland as it successfully initiates, creates and implements USING PUBLIC DIPLOMACY FOR CREATING INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY... 169 global norms and values in many areas, for example, economic growth, environmental pro- tection and sustainable development; and therefore, it is well-known for achieving the best results in the world rankings of competitiveness, innovation or sustainable development. Sweden is also ranked very high by the Global Ranking of Soft Power; that is why, there is no doubt that Sweden has many achievements in the broadly-understood spheres of patterns in social life, culture, science and design, and thus it has potential to diffuse and promote norms and values created by it in the international environment. Poland, in turn, has practically been creating its international image since 1989; it is included in the Global Ranking of Soft Power, but ranked low. In contrast to Sweden, Poland is regarded as the first Central-Europe- an state which has successfully undergone political, economic and social transformation and thus it serves as an example to follow by those states which are at the beginning of their path to democracy. All Sweden and Poland’s ranking positions in the Soft Power 30 Rank List in the years 2015–2019 are presented in Table 1. Tab. 1. Sweden and Poland’s ranking positions in the Soft Power 30 Rank List in the years 2015–2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Poland Rank 24 23 24 24 23 Score 46.50 48.07 51.27 54.14 55.16 Sweden Rank 9 9 9 8 4 Score 66.49 66.97 69.32 74.77 77.41 Source: own elaboration based on (The Soft Power 30 – A Global Ranking of Soft Power (2014–2015)). In the analysed five-year period, Poland was occupying either 23rd or 24th place, ending up at the 23rd position in 2019, i.e. one position higher than in the previous year. It should be noted, however, that Poland’s score was gradually getting higher year by year. Yet, it is still one of the last positions in the ranking. In the case of Sweden, this state’s score has been ranked in the top ten since the very beginning, jumping from the 8th to 4th position in 2019. Also in 2019, it is noteworthy that Sweden achieved better results that the United States (5th rank) and Switzerland (6th rank), and left other Nordic states, like Norway, Denmark and Finland (12th, 14th and 15th ranks, respectively) behind. Those states which were occupying positions higher than Sweden are France, the UK and Germany. All scores received by Poland and Sweden in individual sub-indices of the Soft Power 30 Rank List in the years 2015–2019 are presented in Table 2. Certainly, Sweden has been ranked very high because it prefers soft power activities due to its limited military and economic potential, and that all its activities are influenced by its chiefly neutral policy. This policy, however, is not of a doctrinal nature, but is a pragmatic tool for implementing its national interests, adapted to current security conditions (Sob- czyk, 2015). That is why, Sweden is mainly known for its exemplary model of governance with well-protected civil rights, high quality of human development, low levels of income inequality, and very strong commitment to peace-keeping missions (Anioł, 2013). This may explain why Sweden has remained one of these states which are most involved in internation- al peace-support operations since the beginning of the United Nations, the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, even in the form of military contribution. And, R Z , A S , O F170 Tab. 2. Scores received by Poland and Sweden in individual sub-indices of the Soft Power 30 Rank List in the years 2015–2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Poland Digital 23 22 16 19 20 Enterprise 26 24 24 24 24 Education 15 24 24 22 21 Culture 28 23 20 22 21 Engagement 22 18 21 24 24 Government 19 21 23 24 23 Polling 24 27 25 29 26 Sweden Digital 13 8 7 9 9 Enterprise 4 8 7 3 2 Education 10 13 11 11 4 Culture 18 21 18 13 14 Engagement 13 7 16 10 11 Government 3 3 3 1 4 Polling 8 8 7 8 4 Source: own elaboration based on (The Soft Power 30 – A Global Ranking of Soft Power (2014–2015)). according to the creators of Swedish foreign policy, this military contribution does not stay in conflict with Sweden’s commitment to traditions of neutrality, because as Swedes believe, it strengthens the security of the world – and, at the same time, the security of Sweden (Czarny, 2018). It is because Sweden, by having been involved in numerous operations aimed at main- taining peace and security in post-conflict states, promotes such values as armed conflict prevention, sustainable peace, gender equality and women’s rights, sustainable development, disarmament and non-proliferation, international law, as well as human rights (Government Offices of Sweden, 2018). Being a relatively small state, Sweden values international organisa- tions as well as international norms and invests in them. In addition, Sweden is still searching for various international roles and tasks which ensure Sweden’s specific international profile, created by its independent and active policy on mediation and arbitration. Thus, on many occasions, Sweden perceives itself as a bridge between the East and the West (Bildziukiewicz, 2013). When it comes to “Government”, Sweden is recognised for championing global causes, such as gender equality, poverty and disease or climate change, which had a greater impact on the region and the world. It should be taken into account that Sweden became the first state to publicly adopt a “feminist foreign strategy” in 2014, and has shown commitment to cutting its carbon emissions to net zero by 2045. Sweden is also characterised by strong performance in “Enterprise”, which may be due to the fact that Sweden is an active member of many global economic organisations, including the World Trade Organisation and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It is also a vigorous participant in the European Union’s economic relations on the world stage, such as the EU Free Trade Agreements concluded with many regions of the world. Sweden belongs to several dozen USING PUBLIC DIPLOMACY FOR CREATING INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY... 171 international financial, industry and business-related organisations as well (Heyman et al., 2019). As far as “Education” is concerned, Sweden has established itself as a world-leading tech hub. It demonstrates its strengths in global innovation as well, considering some household names like H&M and IKEA, and more recently – tech unicorns, like Spotify or Skype. This may stem from that Sweden is in favour of strengthening the innovation of its economy and increasing the competitiveness of its enterprises. It particularly emphasises the role of services, including digital services and e-commerce, for the development of the EU economy and its global competitiveness (Viana & Cuncha, 2016). And these innovation-friendly policies have made Sweden a world-leading tech hub, which should be an important element of its global soft power narrative. Nevertheless, what is noticeable is that Sweden has the worst performance in “Culture”. It does not mean that Sweden lacks in culture as it has a diverse music industry and is very famous especially for its design industry. Yet, it was observed that Sweden is not as good as other states in appealing to global audiences through culture. The key elements of Swedish national identity which may have an impact on its high positions in relevant rankings are thus neutrality, military non-involvement, national self-determination, and democracy. There is no doubt that these elements are manifested in Sweden’s ongoing foreign policy by adopting such values as solidarity, peaceful settlement of disputes, universal prosperity, human rights, support of law and international organisations, social justice, and feminism (Broś, 2017). While discussing Sweden, it is also worth mentioning that its relations with the other Nordic states are an important element of its international activities. Sweden is a member of the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers, the Nordic Investment Bank and the Nordic Development Fund. It is also very active in the Baltic Sea region, especially in the Council of Baltic Sea States and the Helsinki Commission. Sweden is the initiator and active participant of activities under the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. It also participates in the Energy Cooperation Forum of the Baltic Sea Region States. Swe- den, together with Poland, is a co-initiator of the EU Eastern Partnership project. Sweden’s activity in the northern part of the world is of a high importance for it (Crombois, 2019). Therefore, it is a member of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, the Arctic Council and the Northern Dimension. Poland, in turn, has only recently undertaken actions to coordinate public diplomacy activities conducted by various partners; however, still the major part of its foreign policy is dominated by traditional diplomacy. In spite of this, Poland is being more and more no- ticeable on the international stage as it has become, over a short period of time, a member of all major economic and political organisations at regional (Europe, Central Europe) and global levels, such as the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, World Trade Organisation, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the latest one – the European Union. It is worth mentioning that a membership in majority of these or- ganisations or close cooperation with them supported the Polish intensive period of political changes and economic development after 1989 (Bogdan et al., 2015). As can be seen in Table 2, Poland has risen slightly over the five-year period, allowing it to clinch 23rd place in the ranking thanks to such sub-indices as “Culture” and “Education”. And “Enterprise” does not belong to those sub-indices which may improve the international image of Poland. This is due to the fact that the innovative position of Poland in Europe and in the world is rather low, but it does not correspond with Poles’ aspirations (Węglarz, 2018). R Z , A S , O F172 “Digital” involving ongoing investment in ambitious digital infrastructure and technol- ogies seems to be one of Poland’s best assets as well. However, in general, other sub-indices either remain at the same level or shift by one position. This relative stability contrasts with a rather more unstable internal situation in Poland, which has inevitably an impact on the perceptions and position of Poland in the world. The sub-indices like “Government” and “Engagement” are widely influenced by the government’s policies, very often regarded as controversial by some domestic and international audiences. According to Paweł Boski (2009), the key elements of Polish national identity are human- ism, Sarmatism, materialism and liberalism. That is why, Poland seems to derive its historical and civilisational aspirations from the traditions and Christian roots of the Western world, as well as from its legacy of patriotism and struggle for independence. Therefore, using such values as democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights and Christian principles, as well as global peace and stability is somehow justified in Poland ongoing foreign policy. Also noteworthy is that Poland, since joining the European Union in 2004, has increased its efforts to preserve peace and ensure stability, especially in those states which are at the beginning of their path to true democracy. That is why, Poland’s unique formula of mod- ernisation and development have become a major export asset in its public diplomacy (The World Bank, 2015). Poland, just like Sweden, is still looking for its place in the world, and it usually acts as a bridge between the Post-Soviet states and the According to Zbigniew Brzeziński (2008), the US President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, Poland takes advantage of the process, as he called it, as “global political awakening”. If he is right in saying that “for the first time in history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive, [while] global activism is generating a surge in the quest for cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world scarred by memories of colonial or imperial domination”, then Poland presents itself as a state being capable of offering enriching and inspiring lessons to other states (Brzeziński, 2008). In this regard, Poland creates its image as an inspiring success story and thus indicate how to enter a path of steady development and ensure it in the long run. Therefore, the majority of Poland’s public diplomacy activities are based on its modernisation and transition towards a state with democracy and rule of law. And this seems to be communicated to the wider world, especially to the EU Eastern Partnership states. As put by Olga Bogorodetska (2018), because of many public diplomacy activities, Poland is strongly represented in different spheres of social life in the EU Eastern Partnership states. Poland, thanks to numerous institutions, structures and non-governmental organisations, makes a lot of effort to create and keep its positive image there by supporting democratic transformations, helping in implementing reforms, providing international propaganda as well as spreading its science and culture. An evidence of this is, for instance, the increasing number of cultural events and students’ exchanges in the states grouped within the EU East- ern Partnership (Bogorodetska, 2018). USING PUBLIC DIPLOMACY FOR CREATING INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY... 173 CONCLUSIONS Despite the soft nature of the resources employed in the article, which have a large impact on the international attractiveness of Poland and Sweden, it also indicates a certain possibility of the influence of both these countries on the international community. This is confirmed by including both Sweden and Poland in the Soft Power 30 Rank List since the creation of this indicator which analyses the attractiveness and strength of soft power of selected 30 states in the world. However, Sweden’s position in the top ten from the very beginning, and the fact of being ranked even higher than the USA in 2019, shows that this state has a much greater opportunity to influence the international community than Poland. According to the theory of social constructivism included in the article, the possibility of having an impact by a given state on other entities on the international arena is the same as in the case of people and their socialisation by norm and values widely-accepted in society. However, when it comes to Poland and Sweden, this impact occurs in different ways. Sweden bases its public diplomacy strategy on activities and achievements in the field of internation- al humanitarian aid, solving global problems, environmental protection and human rights, combating poverty and disease, promoting democratic standards, as well as commitment to peacekeeping missions. And the majority of Swedish activities on the international are- na are underpinned by such values as those mentioned above. Therefore, Sweden’s foreign policy contributes a lot to creating peace and security mainly through preventive efforts, peace diplomacy and stable relations with other states. What is noticeable here is also the fact that Sweden is being admired not only by developing states which would like to follow it in such spheres as economy, culture or education, but also introduces some democratic standards, and indirectly, peace and security into poor states which are covered with its de- velopment assistance. What additionally makes Sweden successful in this field is the fact that it makes considerable efforts to capitalise the widespread belief in its society that Swedes are “a peaceful nation” with a mission to fulfil, thanks to which Swedish strong commitment to peace-keeping missions appeals to broad public opinion. Poland, in turn, has still a large impact on what is happening in the states of the former Eastern Bloc, particularly in the so-called EU Eastern Partnership. Poland, by acting as a pro- moter of democratic changes in those states, also helps to bring peace and security there by sharing its experiences and best practices in the field of political, economic and social trans- formation. An invaluable resource for Poland in these activities is the fact that it is the first state which threw off the yoke of communism and started to transform itself to such a degree that no other state had done it before. Thus, while performing activities in the field of public diplomacy, Poland tends to create its image and serves as an example of how to transform itself into a democratic state with free-market economy by offering numerous good practices. The majority of them is available to be followed. The ideals thereby meant are much cher- ished by many other states, usually those grouped within the EU Eastern Partnership. R Z , A S , O F174 REFERENCES Anioł, W. (2013). The Northern Path. Modernisation the Scandinavian Way. Warsaw: Univer- sity of Warsaw. Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (2005). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bildziukiewicz, M. (2011). Swedish Participation in International Military Peace Support Operations. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska Sectio K, 18(2), 23–34. Bogdan, W., Boniecki, D., Labaye, E., Marciniak, T., & Nowacki, M. (2015). Poland 2025: Europe’s New Growth Engine. New York: McKinsey & Company. Bogorodetska, M. (2018). Public Diplomacy of the Republic of Poland in Eastern Partner- ship Countries. Historia i Polityka, 24(31), 99–111. Boski, P. (2009). Cultural Framework of Social Behaviour. Warsaw: PWN Publishing House. Broś, N. (2017). Social Media in Swedish Foreign Policy. Political Preferences, 16, 37–50. Brzeziński, Z. (2008). The global political awakening. New York: The New York Times. Chugaiev, O. (2015). National Economic Image and Soft Economic Power Evaluation. To- run International Studies, 1(8), 13–25. Crombois, J. (2019). The Eastern Partnership: Geopolitics and Policy Inertia. European View, 18(1), 89–96. Czarny, R. M. (2018). Sweden: From Neutrality to International Solidarity. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG. Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 55–73. Goldstein, J. S. (2007). International Relations. Delhi: Dorling Kindersley Pvt. Ltd. Guzzini, S. (2000). A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 147–182. Heyman, F., Norbäck, P. J., & Persson, L. (2019). The Turnaround of the Swedish Econo- my: Lessons from Large Business Sector Reforms. World Bank Research Observer, 34(2), 274–308. Jędrzejewska, K. (2020). Hasbara: Public Diplomacy with Israeli Characteristics. Torun Inter- national Studies, 1(13), 105–118. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2014). Nowe wymiary dyplomacji. Dyplomacja publiczna – raport 2013–2014. Warsaw. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs. Plavšak Krajnc, K. (2004). Public Diplomacy: Basic Concepts and Trends. Journal Theory and Practice, 41(3–4), 643–665. Prabhu, S.S., & Mohapatra, N. (2014). Reconstructing India’s Identity in World Politics: An Emerging Convergence between Public Diplomacy and Constructivism. Sociology and Anthropology, 2(6), 227–231. Ryniejska-Kiełdanowicz, M. (2019). Public Diplomacy of the European Union. Warsaw: Scholar Publishing House. Sobczyk, K. (2015). Sweden’s Security Policy – Neutrality and Non-Affinity and their Pros- pects in the Face of the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict. National Security, 4, 41–61. Sweden’s priorities in the UN. (2018). Stockholm: Government Offices of Sweden. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://www.government.se/government-policy/sweden-and-the- un/swedens-priorities-in-the-un/ USING PUBLIC DIPLOMACY FOR CREATING INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY... 175 Szczepanik, R. (2011). Soft Power in the International Relations: Redefinition of the Con- cept of Cultural Diplomacy. Horizons of Politics, 2(3), 197–210. The Soft Power 30 – A Global Ranking of Soft Power. (2015). London: Portland PR limited. Retrieved May 4, 2020, from https://softpower30.com The Soft Power 30 – A Global Ranking of Soft Power. (2016). London: Portland PR limited. Retrieved May 4, 2020,from https://softpower30.com The Soft Power 30 – A Global Ranking of Soft Power. (2017). London: Portland PR limited. Retrieved May 4, 2020,from https://softpower30.com The Soft Power 30 – A Global Ranking of Soft Power. (2018). London: Portland PR limited. Retrieved May 4, 2020, from https://softpower30.com The Soft Power 30 – A Global Ranking of Soft Power. (2019). London: Portland PR limited. Retrieved May 4, 2020, from https://softpower30.com The World Bank. (2015). Poland as a global development partner. Towards Poland’s global en- gagement. Washington DC: The World Bank. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from http://pub- docs.worldbank.org/en/228061435014173462/Poland-Global-engagement.pdf Tomala, M. (2019). The Nordic Council as Inter-Parliamentary Body for Cooperation in the Nordic Countries. A Constructivist Approach. The Sejm Review, 5(154), 85–102. Viana, A. G., & Cunha, P. H. F. (2016). The Swedish Model: An Alternative to Macroecono- mic Policy. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, 36(2), 266–285. Węglarz, M. (2018). Innovation of the Polish Economy in comparison with the EU Member States. Economic and Environmental Studies, 18(2), 971–993. Zięba, R. (2013). Poland’s Foreign Policy in the Euro-Atlantic Area. Warsaw: University of Warsaw Publishing House.