Search results

Pedeset godina nakon stjecanja neovisnosti države Afrike su i dalje u lošijoj ekonomskoj situaciji nego ostatak svijeta. Cilj ovog rada je analizom dostupnih znanstvenih radova i literature ocijeniti predstavljaju li državne granice prepreku ekonomskom razvoju Afrike. Granice koje su ucrtavali kolonijalni vladari uzrok su brojnim ratnim sukobima. Brojni narodi u Africi su dolaskom kolonizatora izgubili svoje države i kraljevstva. Važan segment kulturnog identiteta nekog naroda je granica. Granice su podijelile narode između dviju ili više država te im znatno otežale položaj u novostvorenim državama. Afričko rudno bogatstvo predstavlja problem u pograničnim područjima, gdje je nerijetko dolazilo do ratnih sukoba. Međunarodni sud pravde je u zadnjih pedeset godina riješio brojne granične sporove, no brojni su ostali neriješeni. Na prostoru Afrike djeluje mnogo međunarodnih i regionalnih ekonomskih organizacija koje pokušavaju potaknuti ekonomski rast i razvoj Afrike. Sadržaj diplomskog rada dobra je podloga nastavnicima geografije za pripremu i izvedbu nastavnih sati za realizaciju ishoda u četvrtom razredu gimnazije o državnim granicama. ; Fifty years after independence, African countries are still in a worse economic situation than the rest of the world. The aim of this paper is to analyze the available scientific papers and literature to assess whether state borders are an obstacle to the economic development of Africa. The borders drawn by the colonial rulers are the cause of numerous war conflicts. Numerous peoples in Africa lost their states and kingdoms with the arrival of the colonizers. An important segment of a nation's cultural identity is the border. Borders divided peoples between two or more states and made their position in the newly created states much more difficult. African mineral wealth is a problem in border areas, where war conflicts have often occurred. The International Court of Justice has resolved several border disputes in the last fifty years, but unfortunately there are still many ...

Whilst completing the largest enlargement round in its history, European Union faced the need to define both its identity & nature & limits of its future borders. In the aftermath of the failed constitutional referenda & suspension of the ratification process, the pace of future enlargement will inevitably slow down. This has already been the case with the East European countries during the 1990s, whose membership perspective was overclouded by Union's internal issues. Expansion of the EU will undoubtedly continue, but its present absorption capacity has reached endpoint. The chance for the institutional reform, through which future enlargement would keep momentum, has been discarded together with the rejection of Constitutional Treaty. The main issue of todays EU's relations with immediate neighbourhood is the way to ensure democratic consolidation & Europeanisation of these states in absence of the full membership perspective. Upon that European Neighbourhood Policy was envisaged, through which EU offers "everything, but institutions.". References. Adapted from the source document.

The author is of the opinion that with the fall of the Berlin wall, not all obstacles to the free circulation of goods & people were eliminated -- either in Europe or in other regions of the world -- since there are numerous other walls standing in the way of establishing a global world or even a European order. In that context, agreement among the members of the European Union on the comprehensive control of "its borders" against nonmember European countries is considered by the author as a type of new "curtain," not "iron" any longer, but electronic. Its function, the author claims, is to divide Europe into EU & non-EU, which is harmful for the promotion of the European idea in the spiritual & material senses in many ways. Adapted from the source document.

Different parts of state territory on land, sea, & in the airspace are explained first. The concept of territorial sovereignty is envisaged through principles of its all-inclusiveness & its exclusivity, subject to many exceptions & restrictions imposed either by rules of general international law or by specific treaty obligations that can be assumed by a state. The concept of state servitudes was not assimilated in the practice of international courts & tribunals. Besides, it can be the cause of some misconceptions & confusion in public international law. Within the explanation of territorial boundaries are discussed the so-called natural boundaries -- such as rivers, lakes, & mountain boundaries -- as well as the artificial boundaries. An explanation of the principle of uti possidetis, of procedures of fixing boundaries, & of special legal scope of boundary treaties in international law is offered in conclusion. Adapted from the source document.

The author contends that it is, in principle, legitimate to talk about global justice/fairness. Everybody has the right to humane living conditions, irrespective of borders & places of birth. However, we cannot expect the emergence of a world state, not even in the form of a world federation: namely, there is no analogy between the individual's natural state & the states' natural state. States are already an established legal state. This means that any association of states, any federation, even a world state, can come into being only by means of an agreement, which is not very likely. The question is how much the existing borders can & should be open? Is there a universal right to the freedom of movement, the freedom of entering a country, the freedom of employment & immigration? According to the author, the universal moral expectation that every person has exactly the same, unlimited rights in these respects founders over the ethical limitations of universalism. In modernity, the universalistic moral & the ethics of closeness, ie, the responsibilities towards people as such & the responsibilities towards one's own solitary community, have been at variance. To live in modernity means that we cannot apply only one criterion as there are at least two & they allow for the prevalence of one perspective over the other only on a case by case basis, but not generally. Adapted from the source document.