Search results

The author is of the opinion that with the fall of the Berlin wall not all obs the free circulation of goods and people were eliminated - neither in Europe n other regions of the world, since there are numerous other walls standing in the way of establishing a global world or European order. In that context, the agreement among the members of the European Union on the comprehensive control of "its borders" towards the non-member European countries, is conside by the author as a specific form of a new "curtain", not "iron" any longer, but electronic. Its function, the author claims, is to divide Europe into the Union and the Non-Union, which is harmful for the promotion of the European idea in the spiritual and the material sense in many ways. (SOI : PM: S. 30)

The author analyzes the process of the NATO expansion in Europe following the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Paradoxically, after the end of the cold war, the security conditions in Europe have not improved. On the contrary, the danger of military conflicts has increased. That is why most former communist countries, including the newly created states which emerged after the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, have been trying to eliminate this danger and strengthen their security by joining NATO. The Russian Federation is the main opponent of the NATO expansion in Eastern Europe, particularly on the states which came into being after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The author describes in detail the geostrategical and geopolitical implications of the admittance of the first group of Eastern-European countries into the NATO (Poland, Czech Republic and Romania), as well as the prospects of the NATO expansion onto the other countries in the region. He sees the American initiative for the cooperation in Southeastern Europe as a complement to the process of the NATO expansion. In the end he criticizes NATO's process of selection of new members, the process which has left Croatia (for the time being) in a sort of a geostrategical void. (SOI : PM: S. 118)

The Serbo-Albanian conflict on Kosovo has had direct repercussions for the Balkan security in the last 150 years. That is why the international community would from time to time pay more attention to this conflict, but never long enough to resolve it for good. Both the Serbian and the Albanian side put in a lot of effort towards the resolution of the conflict and came up with several proposals, ranging from various modes of Kosovo autonomy to the idea of cantonisation and re-federalisation of SR Yugoslavia to the independence of Kosovo or its being turned into a protectorate. All these suggestions had mostly been one-sided, either pro-Serbian or pro-Albanian, none of them conducive to a compromise. All this eventually resulted in a military conflict and the attempt to impose solutions by force. Nevertheless, after the NATO intervention, negotiations will have to be resumed and the familiar proposals for the resolution of the Kosovo question will have to be rehashed, only this time this will require much more good will and willingness to make compromises, both on the Albanian and the Serbian side, as well as a considerable support of international community. (SOI : S. 60)

When analysing the role of the individual in society or even in international relations, there are two polar opinions, and neither can be documented or corroborated with definite and irrefutable evidence. According to the first opinion, the history of mankind is, in fact, the result of the exploits of several prominent individuals, while the other views history as the outcome of social, political, and economic circumstances and processes, which are basically unalterable. The reality and practice of today's international political relations are, naturally, much more complex than might be gathered from these two contrary approaches. In searching for a consensual attitude towards the role of the individual in international relations, there are still many more unanswered questions than acceptable answers, the reason which makes this topic a subject of vigorous and persisting debates among today's theoreticians of international political relations. (SOI : S. 192)

Different parts of State territory on land, sea and in the airspace are explained first. The concept of territorial sovereignty is envisaged through principles of its all-inclusiveness and its exclusivity, subject to many exceptions and 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 and tribunals. Besides, it can be the cause of some misconceptions and confusion in public international law. Within the explanation of territorial boundaries are discussed the so-called natural boundaries such as boundary rivers and lakes and mountain boundaries, as well as the artificial boundaries. Follow explanation of the principle of "uti possidetis, of procedures of fixing boundaries and of special legal scope of boundary treaties in international law. (SOI : PM: S. 74)

The situation in Kosovo up to 1999, and all attempts which failed in order to find a just and lasting solution for that problem, have fully justified the above criteria for a lawful humanitarian intervention which was undertaken by the NATO forces against the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It seems, however, that the responsible persons in the NATO were not aware of the competence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to investigate to prosecute persons responsible for use of prohibited arms and for destruction of some objects. Some of these unlawful acts constitute grave breaches of the 1959 Geneva Conventions and violations of laws and customs of war. In these circumstances it is the legal duty of the Prosecutor to undertake an investigation. In case that he fails in his duty, there are no statutory limits in respect of the crimes provided in the Statute of the Tribunal. (SOI : SOEU: S. 98f.) + Most legal writers in their writings confuse notions of humanitarian intervention, intervention of a State in order to protect its citizens abroad and humanitarian relief. The use of force for protection of citizens abroad, when they are in immediate danger of losing their lives or suffering serious injury, can exceptionally be justified by a state of necessity as regulated in article 33 of Drafts Article on State Responsibility by the International Law Commission. Further conditions for such an intervention are provided in the wording of the US State Secretar, Daniel Webster in the Caroline case of 1837, relating to the self-defence. Actions of humanitarian relief have nothing unlawful in their character, but a question can arise of the obligation of parties to a conflict to receive and allow its distribution to a who are in need. The 1949 Geneva Conventions and the First Protocol of 1977, provide in this respect a legal obligation of all parties to internation armed conflicts. Such relief actions can be imposed as obligation to parties to internal armed conflicts as well, by UN Security Council resolutions based on Chap. VII of the UN Charter. + In the view of this author there is no rule of positive international law granting a right to foreign States to intervene by force, either in protection of their citizens, or when a humanitarian intervention is required. The matter can only be of exceptional circumstances precluding wrongfulness of the use of force, which otherwise remains prohibited. When the matter is of humanitarian intervention, circumstances precluding the wrongfulness would, according to this author, be the following: (1) There should be a situation of systematic, repeated and widespread commission of international crimes by a State authority against its own citizens. Special problems are created to the international community by widespread practices of ethnic cleansing. (2) Such a situation constitutes itself a "threat to the peace" calling for an enforcement action by the Security Council according to the Chap. VII of the UN Charter. (3) In case that the Security Council fails in its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security and when there are no other means, a group of States or an organization can undertake a humanitarian intervention by use of force in order to stop the commission of crimes. In these circumstances it acts as de facto organ of the entire international community of States. (4) In these extreme and exceptional circumstances, States taking part in such an action cannot obtain any advantages in their profit. (5) Collective intervention by a single State acting in the name of several other States or an organization. However, even such an intervention should have priority over humanitarian intervention undertaken by a State acting in its o name. (6) It is self-evident that in performing a humanitarian intervention there should not be committed international crimes especially against protected persons, including civilian population