Suchergebnisse

In recent years, International Relations scholarship has looked back to the 19th century as a watershed epoch for the formation of the current international order and the development of 'Standards of Civilization' to legitimate that order. However, limited attention has been paid to the role played by society's relationship with the natural world in constructing these civilizational standards. This article argues that the control and exploitation of nature as a standard of civilization developed in the 19th century to constitute membership in a civilized European international society. The standard dictated that civilized polities must both demonstrate internal territorial control and uphold external obligations towards other actors. In examining 19th-century political contestations over the Danube River as a natural highway between Europe and the near periphery, I demonstrate that in the eyes of Western Europe, Russia failed to uphold the taming of nature as a civilizational standard, contributing to the delegitimization of its authority over the Danube. In its place, the Western powers following the Crimean War created an international commission to manage the Danube delta — a rational and scientific body to rectify the troublesome absence of civilized authority. These civilizational assumptions underpin the 1856 Danube Commission as an early international organization, and through its success, continue to have implications for today's international order.

In recent years, International Relations scholarship has looked back to the 19th century as a watershed epoch for the formation of the current international order and the development of 'Standards of Civilization' to legitimate that order. However, limited attention has been paid to the role played by society's relationship with the natural world in constructing these civilizational standards. This article argues that the control and exploitation of nature as a standard of civilization developed in the 19th century to constitute membership in a civilized European international society. The standard dictated that civilized polities must both demonstrate internal territorial control and uphold external obligations towards other actors. In examining 19th-century political contestations over the Danube River as a natural highway between Europe and the near periphery, I demonstrate that in the eyes of Western Europe, Russia failed to uphold the taming of nature as a civilizational standard, contributing to the delegitimization of its authority over the Danube. In its place, the Western powers following the Crimean War created an international commission to manage the Danube delta — a rational and scientific body to rectify the troublesome absence of civilized authority. These civilizational assumptions underpin the 1856 Danube Commission as an early international organization, and through its success, continue to have implications for today's international order.

A difference of opinion of more than usual interest has recently developed with regard to the composition of the International Commission of the Danube. The question at issue turns upon the interpretation of certain articles of the Treaty of Versailles in the light of the important constitutional changes which have occurred within Germany since 1919. Under the Treaty of Versailles, the International Commission was to include "two representatives of German riparian States," in addition to representatives of the other riparian and certain non-riparian States. Since the signature of the Treaty, there has been a gradual redistribution of powers within Germany, culminating in 1934 when the sovereign powers of the German states were transferred to the Reich. When the German representatives at the session of the International Commission in December, 1934, presented full powers issued in the name of the Reich alone, their eligibility was challenged, and they were allowed to take their seats only under a modus vivendi pending settlement of the issue. At the request of the British and French Governments, in which other States represented on the International Commission subsequently joined, the dispute was referred to the League of Nations Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit.

Reprinted from Political science quarterly, v. 33, no. 1, March 1918. ; Caption title. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

I. The Danube: Its Role and Significance -- Geographical Setting -- Benefits and Deprivations -- Economic Interests Prior to 1945: Some Facts and Figures -- Struggles for Control Prior to World War I -- World War I and Its Aftermath -- II. Goals and Interests: American and Soviet -- Objectives of American Foreign Policy -- Objectives of Soviet Foreign Policy -- III. The Background: Nazi Germany vs. Soviet Russia -- Russia's Acquisition of Bessarabia, A Gateway to the Danube -- Liquidation of the International and European Commissions -- IV. Encounters and Methods: American and Soviet -- The Armistice Agreements -- Allocation of Zones of Occupation in Austria -- From Potsdam to Paris -- The Peace Treaties of 1947 -- Preparations for Belgrade -- V. Further Encounters and Methods: American and Soviet -- The Question of the Danube Barges Before the Economic and Social Council -- The Interpretation of "German Assets" as a Tool of Soviet Diplomacy -- The Device of "Joint Companies" -- Showdown at Belgrade -- VI. Changed Setting: Law and Politics of the New Danube Commission -- Dissension -- Rapprochement -- Cooperation -- Retrospect and Prospect -- A Selective List of Works on the Danube -- Name Index.

In The European Commission of the Danube, 1856-1948 Constantin Ardeleanu offers a history of the world's second international organisation, an innovative techno-political institution established by Europe's Concert of Powers to remove insecurity from the Lower Danube. Delegates of rival empires worked together to 'correct' a vital European transportation infrastructure, and to complete difficult hydraulic works they gradually transformed the Commission into an actor of regional and international politics. As an autonomous and independent organ, it employed a complex transnational bureaucracy and regulated shipping along the Danube through a comprehensive set of internationally accepted rules and procedures. The Commission is portrayed as an effective experimental organisation, taken as a model for further cooperation in the international system

This article analyses the foreign policy of Romania, Ukraine, and Moldova as well as the evolution of institutional establishment in the region of the Danube. Research shows that the Danube Commission is the main platform for policy coordination but at the same time the interstate dialogue on regional problems is maintained at other levels, by implementing the EU Strategy for the Danube Region and establishing Euroregions for cross-border cooperation. Considering this, it is necessary to specify the concrete spheres of cooperation between the countries: the development of transport, infrastructure, communication, as well as cooperation in environmental protection and the humanitarian field.The article draws attention to certain factors that determine the moderate character of the relations between the countries of the Triangle "Romania–Ukraine–Moldova". First and foremost the problems of bilateral cooperation, second — the existing external and internal conditions.In this regard, the author specifies certain risks that the countries of the region face. It is difficult to resolve disputes between the states because of their different statuses. It is also worth noting that ignoring strategic risks can also lead to transport isolation. ; Статья посвящена анализу дунайского направления внешней политики Румынии, Украины и Молдовы. Прослежена эволюция институционального формирования Дунайского региона. Выявлено, что Дунайская Комиссия — ключевая площадка для согласования политики отдельных стран. Одновременно определено, что межгосударственный диалог по дунайской проблематике реализуется и в рамках других форматов: посредством имплементации Стратегии ЕС для Дунайского региона, а также в рамках еврорегионов на приграничном уровне. В этой связи, уточнены основные области сотрудничества стран. Ключевыми из них являются: развитие транспортных, инфраструктурных и коммуникативных возможностей, экологическое и гуманитарное сотрудничество.При определении особенностей межгосударственного взаимодействия в треугольнике Румыния-Украина-Молдова выявлены некоторые факторы, которые обусловили сдержанный характер сотрудничества. В первую очередь, комплекс проблем двустороннего уровня. Во-вторых, комплекс внешнеполитических и внутриполитических условий.В связи с этим автор обращает внимание на наличие некоторых рисков для стран региона. Проблемным представляется разрешение межгосударственных споров, в частности, исходя из «статусных» различий, а также риски стратегического характера, игнорирования которых, могут привести к транспортной изоляции.