Search results

The disintegration of the socialist regime in Europe did away with the bipolar model of world order and inaugurated a new phase in seeking a new structure and model of international relations. This new world order, only broadly outlined and characterised by (mostly) unilateral leadership, has already been challenged. Two superpowers China and Russia - condemn the hegemony, unilateralism and the attempts at dictating the international relations. China and Russia are supported by a group of disgruntled countries who also think that a broadly-based multi-polarity is the direction that inter-national relations and the new world order should take. Judging by these challenges and criticisms it might be said that only multilateral co-operativeness can guarantee validity to the nascent world order. (SOI : PM: S. 93)

After World War Two there have been opposing views of the role and the importance of the state in international affairs. Some think that the importan the state is slowly decreasing, since the increasing interdependence of the wo has an enormous influence on internal and foreign policies of a state. On the hand, some point out that the state has not lost any of its importance and tha the contrary, this importance will only be enhanced since the world community has not as yet come up with a model by which to replace sovereign state entities. States generate the structure which has a significant influence on individual group security. This particularly applies to the post-cold-war period since th problems and the threats of the present-day world - economic collapse, politic oppression, poverty, ethnical conflicts, nature degradation, terrorism, crime diseases - directly affect many other elements of security. It is these very problems that turn our attention to the state as the most important institution of the day world which still has at its disposal the resources for reducing or eliminating these threats. (SOI : PM: S. 43)

Following the disintegration of the socialist system in Europe and the end of the bloc-based relations, American politics has changed the course of its operation. In present-day circumstances, Southeastern Europe is becoming increasingly prominent in American foreign-policy projections, particularly during Clinton's administration. Clinton has defined a clear-cut policy towards Europe's southeast due to its vicinity to certain neuralgic points of American engagement (Near East, the Caspian region, the Gulf, eastern Mediterranean). In this way American politics has proved its leading global role. At the time of scarcity of foreign-policy events, Clinton's team has thus been served on a platter a major foreign-policy arena, in which its engagement - which has all the symptoms of a long-lasting one - has not proved too costly. (SOI : PM: S. 20)

In today's world, marked by an increasing interdependence, national security is becoming a component of international security, which is not a mere sum of individual national securities, but a permanent international framework of universally acceptable values. Interethnic relations today are central for a state's security, as well as for international order. There is the question whether the international system must guarantee individual and collective security of ethnic groups/minorities, regardless of the state they live in. Today, human and minority rights have become an important institutionalized international factor of security and stability and a concern of the entire international community, despite the fact that many states still claim that minority policy is their internal problem into which international community has no right to interfere. The affirmation of the rationalist approach to contemporary security implies that the responsibility for guaranteeing security lies not only on individual states and unions but also on the international system as a whole. (SOI : PM: S. 35)