Search results

It is an indisputable fact that the Group of Twenty (also known as the G-20 or G20) is the result of an immediate control response to the economic and financial crisis in Southeast Asia. Its relevance was confirmed over the outbreak of a new crisis in 2008, which was similar in content, but significantly more disastrous as regards its scope and consequences. However, the G20 remains also as an actor of global governance in circumstances that are not significantly marked by crisis events. This multilateral diplomatic process of 19 countries and the European Union continues the governing practices distinguished by at least two outstanding features: a) in its operations, the G20 provides visible effects of networking the various actors of international relations, and b) the scope of its operations, in terms of the considered agenda, goes beyond the needs for remediating the consequences of a crisis. The object of research was to identify contemporary processes of global governance, the effects of which are visible in the work of the G20's multilateral diplomatic process, and to examine the relations among them. This was done by transparent observation from two selected angles: a) the 'overlapping membership' of the participants in the G20 multilateral diplomatic process and their affiliation to certain structures of multilateral diplomacy, and b) the consideration of the opened issues that dominate the agenda of global governance of the multilateral world in different structures of multilateral diplomacy. Taking prominent place in this research is an analysis of understanding the concept of global growth and development on the G20 summits, from 2008 Washington to 2014 Brisbane, with an ultimate goal to provide an answer to the question of whether the G20 is a production point of the agenda for managing the global growth and development. ; Nesporna je činjenica da Grupa 20 (G20) predstavlja rezultat neposrednog upravljačkog odgovora na ekonomsku i finansijsku krizu u Jugoistočnoj Aziji. Njena relevantnost potvrđena je izbijanjem nove krize 2008. godine, sadržajno iste, ali prema opsegu i posledicama znatno pogubnije. Ipak, G20 opstaje kao globalni upravljač i u okolnostima koje nisu značajno obeležene kriznim događajima. Ovaj multilateralni diplomatski proces 19 država i Evropske unije nastavlja sa praksama upravljanja koje odlikuju najmanje dve izdvojene osobine: a) u njenom delovanju vidljivi su učinci umrežavanja različitih aktera međunarodnih odnosa i b) domašaj delovanja, u pogledu razmatranog dnevnog reda, prevazilazi potrebe saniranja posledica krize. Za predmet istraživanja autori izdvajaju identifikovanje savremenih procesa globalnog upravljanja, čiji su učinci vidljivi u radu multilateralnog diplomatskog procesa G20, i ispitivanje odnosa među njima. Učiniće to preglednim posmatranjem iz dva izabrana ugla: a) 'preklapajućeg članstva' učesnica multilateralnog diplomatskog procesa G20 i njihove pripadnosti određenim strukturama multilateralne diplomatije i b) razmatranja pokrenutih pitanja koja dominiraju dnevnim redom globalnog upravljanja multilateralnim svetom u različitim strukturama multilateralne diplomatije. Istaknuto mesto u istraživanju zauzima analiza shvatanja koncepta globalnog rasta i razvoja na samitima G20, od Vašingtona 2008. godine do Brizbejna 2014. godine, sa krajnjim ciljem davanja odgovora na pitanje: da li je G rupa 20 mesto proizvodnje dnevnog reda za upravljanje globalnim rastom i razvojem?.

The main strategic goal and foreign policy priority of Republic of Serbia, from 2000 onwards, is membership of the European Union. Striving to achieve the set objective was strongly supported by majority of Serbian citizens. However, Serbia has never encouraged broad internal discussion about potential advantages and/or disadvantages of thus established state policy. Even a attempt to check costs and benefits of membership of EU is sharply proclaimed as a regress of Serbia to nineties, chaos and hopelessness. 'Non-alternatives' policy of European path is as a rule accompanied by the lack of expert analysis on validity of EU alternatives. We find, in above written facts, scientific and social justification also of undertaking research on, primarily, the existence of alternative for 'Europe', and then their feasibility in Serbian context. The authors of this paper presents the results of the economic analysis of strategic shift of Serbia towards two mutually overlapping directions of external economic relations: a) Increased economic cooperation and foreign direct investment from BRICS countries; b) Serbia's accession to the European Economic Area. The paper examines two focal questions: Is it shifting to BRICS countries a valid alternative to European path of Serbia? Second, whether Serbian prospective membership of European Economic Area provides economic benefits, similar to those in political and economic membership in EU. Intellectual ignorance of the BRICS and the need of explanation of this multilateral diplomatic process, imposes answers on two corrective questions: what is BRICS actually and what are the areas of their cooperation. The genesis and the current state of the European Economic Area will also be explained in order to obtain better understanding of the Serbian position towards that institutional arrangement. Finally, the main goal of the research is to check is it justified for Serbia to give up its European path, bearing in mind offered and analyzed alternatives. ; Članstvo Republike Srbije u ...