Search results

In his examination of the basic coordinates of Croatian foreign policy, the author points to the need for good neighborly relations -- through the mechanism of the Conference on Security & Cooperation in Europe -- with the countries that were, until recently, parts of the former Yugoslavia as well as with those that became independent long ago. He stresses the need to develop relationships with the great powers, especially with the US, & to develop bilateral relationships with nonaligned countries. One of the aims is to develop good relations with Europe through economic & political links as well as cooperation in matters concerning security. The subregional frameworks of international cooperation in which Croatia participates appear to be insufficient for solving political & security questions. Special consideration ought to be devoted to NATO as a mechanism that could protect the security of Croatia. As a new state, Croatia must demonstrate that, in both its internal development & its international activities, it is ready to fulfill the obligations imposed by its membership in the UN. Adapted from the source document.

Seen in its totality, the defense system of France is enclosed within the NATO pact. The French do not deny this & even stress it as a fact of essential significance, because the mutual support & solidarity with allies in case of danger & aggression is a matter of interest to all. An analysis of the French conception of national security shows nevertheless that the stress is on independence, especially where making decisions about the use of particular forces (nuclear ones, in particularly) & the use of its territory by its allies. The French cherish their alliance, but in ways that will allow them to decide their own destiny without being obligated to accept common solutions & decisions on the part of the organs of the NATO pact. This fact explains the heightened interest for the study of the conception of national security & the defense system of France & its specific features when compared to the defense systems of other countries within NATO. 24 References. Adapted from the source document.

Since its initiation, the European Community has been facing the same problem -- nationalism on the level of state interests. This problem has prevented the establishment of the Community's political system, endangered the efficiency of its legal system, & reduced the effectiveness of its economic system. In the absence of a political system of its own, the regulatory process in the Community depends almost completely on the national interests of the member states. Consequently, every addition of new states to the Community manifests itself also as a struggle for potential new allies. Croatia therefore faces two interconnected tasks: to achieve the consensus of the member states necessary for the signing of the association contract & to secure the satisfaction of its national interests while not affecting the balance of their interests. Adapted from the source document.

Changes in the European Community will have far-reaching consequences for Croatia's relations with this association. The basic preoccupation of the European Community is to establish order within its own ranks in the context of the European Union Contract. It is therefore unrealistic to expect Croatia to become a full member of this association, at least in the next ten years. There are, however, numerous ways of adaptation to the requirements of the market that the European Community fosters within the relationships among its own members; Croatia ought systematically to apply these while introducing changes into its economic system. Adapted from the source document.

The problem with sovereignty is that it is marked by traditional paradoxes: namely, it represents a stance that presumes an institutional solution, & simultaneously empowers all institutions of a given community (& thus is above them). Sovereignty has the form of a legal instance, but it is also the prerequisite of an entire (positive) legal system of a community; it manifests itself always as a political problem, but nowhere is its solution purely political; & finally, sovereignty is considered a fundamental national categorical (constitutional) basis for existence of a nation, but simultaneously it is always considered, affirmed, &, to some degree, determined in the international context. Adapted from the source document.

The author shows that it is not possible to formulate a consistent theory of freedom, tying together the internal perspective of action & the external perspective of rational description & explanation of action. In the history of philosophical discussion about freedom as a fundamental concept of liberalism, Kant & Hegel represent two extremes. Each tried to formulate consistently a concept of freedom & its moral & political consequences, but both paid the price of one-sidedness. Kant postulates the primacy of the internal perspective of the moral subject, which is ideally expressed by his categorical imperative. However, the concept of freedom defined from the stance of autonomous morals loses contact with the historical world of traditional values, with the consequence of moralizing politics & unrealistically disregarding the nation as a characteristic framework of politics. Hegel points out the priority of the external perspective, which gives him an analytical advantage relative to liberal theories of natural law & Kant's moralist position. However, as warned by the German political theorist Hermann Heller, Hegel's position results in defining the sphere of collective morality as superior to individual action, disregarding the protection of individual liberties against the state & accepting national politics of power as the only criterion for international politics. The author concludes that liberal constitutions, unlike totalitarianism, must then be inconsistent. Adapted from the source document.