Search results

The article puts forward an answer to the following question: why is Iran, thirty years after the 1979 revolution, still at the center of world politics, & why is it, on top of that, a legitimate candidate for the status of one of global powers in the new, multi-polar international order. The author stresses that Iran has been the main obstacle to global ambitions of liberal democracy since 1989, & that it has developed a specific ideological & political system based on the idea of theocratic-republican dualism. Furthermore, after the end of the Cold War, it was convenient to the West to have Iran as the Antagonistic Other (and vice versa). The relative American failure in the war against Iraq (2003-) opened up for Iran the options of connecting on a wider basis with Russia, China, Venezuela & the countries of "Old Europe" (Germany & France). Since the relatively prosperous neighboring countries -- China & the four Asian tigers -- are also founded on dualistic principles, Iran did not have to be liberalized in the way that Eastern Europe was liberalized after the Cold War. As the author concludes, the election of Barack Obama for American president presents a new opportunity to normalize relations between Iran & the West, but the opportunity will be seized only if the USA is willing to accept the multi-polarity of international relations & to renounce the doctrine of liberal interventionism. Regardless of the outcome, however, there is still a very real danger of a conflict between Israel & Iran. Adapted from the source document.

Foreign policy & diplomatic skills played a key role in the survival & development of the Dubrovnik Republic for more than four & a half centuries. Throughout the period, the Dubrovnik Republic had foreign-policy sovereignty, which was manifest in the fact that it autonomously decided upon its relations with other states (including recognition of other states), signed international contracts, & established & maintained diplomatic & consular relations. Through timely awareness of the advantages of their geopolitical position & through their orientation towards the sea, the people of Dubrovnik entered into numerous international political & trade relations, both with countries in their continental background & with countries throughout, & beyond, the Mediterranean. They were able to assess & utilize such geopolitical & other relevant characteristics wisely & skillfully in the defense of their independence, sovereignty & economic growth, resorting almost exclusively to diplomatic means & diplomatic skill. The Dubrovnik foreign policy was based on the principle of remaining neutral in international conflicts & of stressing its position of the last Christian enclave in south-eastern Europe. As a small country with no military force, Dubrovnik managed to survive by seeking protection of powerful states, such as the Ugric-Croatian Kingdom, the Pope, the Spanish King and, finally, Turkey. In spite of the fact that first the Ugric-Croatian Kingdom, & then Turkey, provided it with "supreme protection," the Dubrovnik Republic succeeded in establishing & preserving for centuries all relevant components of state sovereignty. Adapted from the source document.

The article puts forward an answer to the following question: why is Iran, thirty years after the 1979 revolution, still at the center of world politics, & why is it, on top of that, a legitimate candidate for the status of one of global powers in the new, multi-polar international order. The author stresses that Iran has been the main obstacle to global ambitions of liberal democracy since 1989, & that it has developed a specific ideological & political system based on the idea of theocratic-republican dualism. Furthermore, after the end of the Cold War, it was convenient to the West to have Iran as the Antagonistic Other (and vice versa). The relative American failure in the war against Iraq (2003-) opened up for Iran the options of connecting on a wider basis with Russia, China, Venezuela & the countries of "Old Europe" (Germany & France). Since the relatively prosperous neighboring countries -- China & the four Asian tigers -- are also founded on dualistic principles, Iran did not have to be liberalized in the way that Eastern Europe was liberalized after the Cold War. As the author concludes, the election of Barack Obama for American president presents a new opportunity to normalize relations between Iran & the West, but the opportunity will be seized only if the USA is willing to accept the multi-polarity of international relations & to renounce the doctrine of liberal interventionism. Regardless of the outcome, however, there is still a very real danger of a conflict between Israel & Iran. Adapted from the source document.

This article critically examines the answers to the following questions: "Why are there nation-states?," ie., "Why isn't there only one nation-state?," asked by Jacques Bidet in his work General Theory of Modernity. In the first part of the article, Bidet's analogy between the emergence of nation-states & more complex states such as the EU is discussed, with particular emphasis on the possibilities of creating a worldwide democratic state, which Bidet innovatively conceives as a guarantee of equality between nations. Still, in view of the normative character of Bidet's theory, the author raises doubts about the possibility of clarifying Bidet's assertion that "the time has not yet come for a universal state-order." In the second part of the article, the author attempts to find an answer to Bidet's questions with the help of Marx's class analysis. On the one hand, such an analysis makes it possible to explain why (worldwide) capitalism benefits from "freezing" the extant order of nation-states. On the other hand, not even Marx's analysis makes it possible to elucidate the conditions for building a worldwide state, particularly the one condition which Bidet cares about most of all: a relation between nations characterized by equality & lack of rivalry. Adapted from the source document.

The author's comprehensive research project, of which this article is but an introductory outline, inquires into the kind of history written out by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). In order to investigate the interrelation between criminal law & history, the author faced the following question: what would the history of the disintegration of Yugoslavia & of conflicts in its territory look like if all we had were the judgments of the Hague Tribunal? The author bases his reply on an analysis of first-instance judgments of the Trial Chamber, from which he singles out "historical facts," & rejects the reflections of the Chamber on legal & procedural issues. As a model case he uses the first ICTY judgment pronounced against Dusko Tadic (the trial started on May 7, 1996, & the judgment was pronounced a year later). Although he estimates that the first judgment was not written in an optimal way, the author deems that most preliminarily established historical facts were relevant to historiography, & that, in particular, the judgment offers a universally acceptable notion of the history of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia & of socialist Yugoslavia. He is of the opinion that the extensive documentation of ICTY (the "Hague Tribunal") will have a major influence on the work of future generations of historians. Such a unique & replete archive of historical material is increasingly available to the public & to scientists through ICTY's online database. The most recent scientific works dealing with the former Yugoslavia also make use of the Tribunal's judgments & documentation. Scientists will have to pay due attention to the narratives included therein. Adapted from the source document.