Search results

Yugoslavia's importance to the evolution of nonalignment is emphasized as Alvin Z. Rubinstein examines the domestic and foreign determinants shaping Yugoslavia's turn to the new nations of Asia and Africa and its role in pioneering nonalignment. He discusses the policies of Yugoslav leaders in their search for security and international influence and traces the many ways in which Yugoslavia established close ties to the nonaligned nations to become the only European country prominent among the nonaligned.He analyzes the relationship between Tito and Nasser, Belgrade's role in the Moscow-Peking rift, the interaction between Yugoslavia and the nonaligned countries in the United Nations, and nonalignment's changing role in the international relations of the postwar era.Originally published in 1970.The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905

Yugoslavia's importance to the evolution of nonalignment is emphasized as Alvin Z. Rubinstein examines the domestic and foreign determinants shaping Yugoslavia's turn to the new nations of Asia and Africa and its role in pioneering nonalignment. He discusses the policies of Yugoslav leaders in their search for security and international influence and traces the many ways in which Yugoslavia established close ties to the nonaligned nations to become the only European country prominent among the nonaligned. He analyzes the relationship between Tito and Nasser, Belgrade's role in the Moscow-Peking rift, the interaction between Yugoslavia and the nonaligned countries in the United Nations, and nonalignment's changing role in the international relations of the postwar era. Originally published in 1970. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

Debating the End of Yugoslavia is less an attempt to re-write the dissolution of Yugoslavia, or to provide a different narrative, than to take stock and reflect on the scholarship to date. New sources and data offer fresh avenues of research avoiding the passion of the moment that often characterized research published during the wars and provide contemporary perspectives on the dissolution. The book outlines the state of the debate rather than focusing on controversies alone and maps how different scholarly communities have reflected on the dissolution of the country, what arguments remain op.

Compares German and French foreign policies toward the Yugoslav crisis in the framework of the European Community, 1991-93.

The choice between modern nation-building and integration into supranational European and Euro-Atlantic structures remains a strategic challenge for the Balkan countries. Success in solving this problem of predominantly mono-ethnic Croatia and Slovenia has not yet become a model to follow. Serbian and Albanian national issues cannot be resolved. Serbia's defeat in the Balkan wars of 1991–1999 over the creation of a "Greater Serbia" led to the country's territorial fragmentation. Two Albanian national states emerged in the Balkans. Attempts to create a union of Kosovo and Albania could turn the region into a whirlpool of ultra-nationalist contradictions. The European Union has started accession negotiations with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Northern Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro. The success of these negotiations depends on the readiness of the EU and the ability of these Balkan states to adopt European norms and rules. The accession of all Balkan nation-states to the European Union must finally close the "Balkan window" of the vulnerability of the united Europe. Nation-building in the Balkans on the basis of ethnic nationalism sharply contradicts the purpose and current values of the European integration process. For more than three decades, the EU has been pursuing a policy of human rights, the rule of law, democracy and economic development in the Balkans. The region remains vulnerable to the influences of non-European geopolitical powers: the United States, Russia, Turkey, and China. The further scenario of the great Balkan geopolitical game mainly depends on the pro-European national consolidation of the Balkan peoples and the effectiveness of the European Union's strategy in the Balkans.

The choice between modern nation-building and integration into supranational European and Euro-Atlantic structures remains a strategic challenge for the Balkan countries. Success in solving this problem of predominantly mono-ethnic Croatia and Slovenia has not yet become a model to follow. Serbian and Albanian national issues cannot be resolved. Serbia's defeat in the Balkan wars of 1991–1999 over the creation of a "Greater Serbia" led to the country's territorial fragmentation. Two Albanian national states emerged in the Balkans. Attempts to create a union of Kosovo and Albania could turn the region into a whirlpool of ultra-nationalist contradictions. The European Union has started accession negotiations with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Northern Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro. The success of these negotiations depends on the readiness of the EU and the ability of these Balkan states to adopt European norms and rules. The accession of all Balkan nation-states to the European Union must finally close the "Balkan window" of the vulnerability of the united Europe. Nation-building in the Balkans on the basis of ethnic nationalism sharply contradicts the purpose and current values of the European integration process. For more than three decades, the EU has been pursuing a policy of human rights, the rule of law, democracy and economic development in the Balkans. The region remains vulnerable to the influences of non-European geopolitical powers: the United States, Russia, Turkey, and China. The further scenario of the great Balkan geopolitical game mainly depends on the pro-European national consolidation of the Balkan peoples and the effectiveness of the European Union's strategy in the Balkans.

Liquid Nationalism and State Partitions in Europeis Stefano Bianchini'smagnum opus, reflecting a lifetime of working on the issues of ethno-nationalism in Europe, from Southeast Europe through Central Europe and the former Soviet space to all of western Europe. It is more than a book; it is an entire seminar, ranging not only geographically but also historically, from the Enlightenment to the second decade of the 21stcentury. Simply a list of the gems I learned would usurp all the space I have been given for this essay and much more. I choose to focus on one small part, what I take to be the primary motivation behind this book, namely his anguish over the lessons for western Europe "not learned from the dismemberment of Yugoslavia" (the title of Chapter 10), a case he knows so well. That chapter then begins with a quotation from another specialist on Yugoslavia, Jacques Rupnik, inLe Mondein 2014, "the greatest obstacle to the Europeanization of the Balkans is the Balkanization of Europe" (185). Nor are Bianchini and Rupnik alone in this concern. Already in 2012, Ivan Krastev convened two parallel seminars at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna on what he called, "The Logics of Disintegration" – of the Soviet case (Part I) and the Habsburg and Yugoslav cases (Part II) and their lessons for the European Union.

Argues that the Yugoslav socialist federal system collapsed because ethnic nationalism was built into its constitution, and that elites used this ethnic principle in the 1980s to legitimize political power in their respective federal units and increased ethnic tensions to the point where dissolution became inevitable. The shift in the 1970s away from Leninist democratic centralism to a federal state organized on the ethnic principle.

In this paper, we analyse the language game "the journalist as a socio-political worker", which was the professional label for journalists' action in the former socialist Yugoslavia. The text is divided into two main parts. The first part uses a historical-conceptual method to analyse the mentioned formulation in normative texts, covering programmatic and engaged texts produced at the time. This approach seeks to enter into the meaning of the term from the inside, into the pulse and spirit of the time, and above all to understand what its creators wished to achieve and communicate with this expression. We find that journalism and the journalist's action as a socio-political worker were understood as an important political factor, as a political force on one hand contributing to the development and implementation of a new socio-political order, i.e., a socialist community based on self-management and, on the other hand, the journalist who through their own products tried to influence the broader consciousness of the masses, as manifested through the idea of the education for the new man: the self-manager. The second part of the paper complements the first since through the qualitative method of in-depth semi-structured interviews with former journalists who had been professionally active in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and via their recollections, we continue to internally reconstruct the meaning, understanding and use of the formulation at that time. In particular, we observe the relationship with politics that the concept essentially contains. Empirical analysis thus led us to different conclusions: some interviewees (the minority) described the term affirmatively, that the journalist as a socio-political worker had a special mission, while most approached the use and meaning of the expression with a critical distance, namely, that the journalist as a socio-political worker was harnessed to the needs of daily politics and thereby seen as non-autonomous in their labour and actions.

Should the Persian Gulf war of 1990-1991 be characterized as an "international enforcement action" of the United Nations Security Council or as a campaign of collective self-defense approved, encouraged, and blessed by the Security Council?This is not simply a nice and rather metaphysical legal issue, but an extremely practical one. The question it presents is whether the control and direction of hostilities in the gulf, their termination, and the substance of the settlement they produce were handled by the Council as the Korean War was handled, that is, as a campaign of collective self-defense, or as the United Nations' first "international enforcement action." According to some international lawyers, characterizing the gulf war as a Security Council "enforcement action" under the untried procedures of Articles 42-50 of the Charter would in effect eviscerate Article 51, make the exercise of each state's "inherent" right of self-defense subject to the permission of the Security Council, threaten the veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council, and thus lead to extremely grave and perhaps insoluble political difficulty. It could even destroy the United Nations.