Apart from the former EFTA members (Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) and afew former republics of the Soviet Union (Bjelorussia, Moldova and Ukraina) the countries ofthe Western Balkans are the only European states outside of the European Union. They are verykeen to join the Union. The Balkans have always been the poorest part of Europe. The appeal ofthe wealthy European Union is apparent. Access to the largest market in the world, investment,modern technologies and generous regional funds give a hope that by joining the EU the WesternBalkans countries will join the rich club. At the moment performance of the Western Balkancountries does not guarantee that they will become rich by joining the European Union. Theircurrent production and trade structure makes it likely that the Western Balkan countries will belocked in inter-industry trade in which they will export products of low and medium technologicaland developmental level and import products of high technological and developmental level. Thismight lead to divergence rather than convergence between them and the European Union. Inother to overcome this problem the Western Balkan countries need to conduct radical reformsin the public sector, fiscal policy, industrial trade and investment policy. They also need to tacklecorruption, simplify administrative procedure, strenghten property rights and the lawful state. Allthis with the aim to change economic structure and shift from achievements of the second andthird to fourth technological revolution. Only if these reforms are successfuly implemented theWestern Balkan countries can hope to avoid the Greek scenario and possibly experience the Irishscenario.
EU Enlargement Policy, one of the newest EU policies created during the last decade of the 20th century, is facing a very difficult period of its development, similar to the challenges facing the EU today. This Policy has been under constant evolution on the basis of experiences with the new Member States, and it has been closely connected with the wider context of European Integration of the Member States. In this article we present an overview of the major challenges for the Union as well as for candidate countries and to point out that there is no good reason why, even in the crisis situation, enlargement should not be continued. It is, we argue, part of the solution to the problems of EU, and not yet another problem. ; Politika proširenja EU, jedna od novijih politika Unije nastala tokom devedesetih godina, u velikoj meri proživljava veoma težak period koji je opšte obeležje izazova sa kojima se danas suočava EU. Ona se tokom vremena konstantno uobličavala na osnovama iskustava sa novim članicama i uvek je bila u uskoj vezi sa širim kontekstom evropskih integracija država članica EU. U ovom članku smo pokušali da prikažemo osnovne izazove za Uniju, ali i za države kandidate regiona Zapadnog Balkana, i da ukažemo da nema nijednog valjanog razloga zašto, čak i uslovima krize u EU, nastavak proširenja ne bi trebalo da bude posmatran kao deo rešenja, a ne kao deo problema.
The main objective of this paper is to determine the level of relevance of the economic development and the level of pollution of thirteen states that joined the European Union (EU) in the last three enlargement rounds (2004, 2007, and 2013), with the length of transitional periods, i.e. the number of regulations that have agreed transitional periods. The initial assumption is that the level of economic development of countries joining the EU and the level of pollution are affecting the length of transitional periods and the number of regulations that are agreed upon transitional periods. Accordingly, the paper points to the level of economic development (measured by GDP) and the level of pollution (emissions measured by CO2/pc and CO2/gdp). All the states are grouped into five regional groups (Mediterranean, Central Europe, the Baltics, South-East Europe and the member states of the former Yugoslavia) . Separate part of the paper analyzes in detail the types of regulations relating to the agreed transitional periods, and the number and length of transitional periods that are contracted by the states of the five groups. For the analysis we used the transitional periods in the field of energy, environment and transport, given their potential importance for CO2 emissions. The final part of the paper analyses perceived relevance between the level of economic development, levels of pollution, the length of transitional periods and the number of regulations that are agreed upon transitional periods.
In this article Dr Pribicevic analyses the impact of Kosovo crises on Serbian EU integrations and shaping of political scene of Serbia. Dr Pribicevic pointed out how crises started in spring 2011 when idea of split of Kosovo appeared again in Serbia and then continued with the clashes between KFOR and Serbs from north of Kosovo in order to get the control of administrative crossing Jarinje and Brnjak. During the summer 2011 German chancellor Merkel visited Serbia and asked government in Belgrade to normalize its relations with Kosovo and dissolve "parallel institutions" of Serbs in the north of Kosovo. Following this visit Serbian government continue its negotiations with Pristina and find out solutions for administrative crossings. On the other side, Belgrade and Pristina didn't find solution for the problem of presentation of Kosovo on the regional gatherings after what European council, under the German influence, decided to postpone the decision to give Serbia the status of candidate for the EU. Therefore, Serbia remains without EU candidaturein December 2011 in spite of the fact that government in Belgrade handedover general Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic to Hague Tribunal as well as conducted a number of successful reforms which got very high marks from EU commission. In this article Dr Pribicevic is trying to answer several questions. Why Washington and Berlin imposed such a strong pressure on Serbia in this moment? Is split of Kosovo possible solution? Could Serbian government continue with current politics of EU and Kosovo or it should take one of these politics as a priority? How Kosovo crises influenced Serbian political scene? At the end, Kosovo crises opened the crucial question: could Serbia enter EU without "recognition of territorial integrity of Kosovo"as described by German foreign minister Westervele. Having in mind forthcoming elections in spring time 2012 author thinks that ruling Democratic Party as well as leading opposition party Sebian Progresive Party will continue with current politics "both EU and Kosovo". Such politics will be in accordance with the public mood in Serbia which shows that support for EU integrations is declining with the growing pressure of US and Germany on Serbian Kosovo's politics. On the other side, Serbian politics "both EU and Kosovo" is not sustainable on the long run and Serbia has to face difficult decisions in future. Also, according to the author opinion Kosovo crises showed weakness of Serbian international position. It is without important allies among key Western powers which has dominant influence in this part of Europe. Serbia has support of Russia but key influence on Kosovo has US, GB, France and Germany. These powers connected Serbia's further progress towards EU with normalization its relations with Kosovo, knowing in advance that the time when Serbia is seeking for the EU candidature is the best time to ask Belgrade to make concessions in its Kosovo's politics. Western powers do not expect Serbia to recognize Kosovo but they expect Serbia to accept " territorial integrity of Kosovo", including its north part. Why Kosovo become so important for leading Western powers? Author thinks that several reasons influenced such tough behavior of Western power towards Serbia. First, after helping them to create an independent state, US perceived Albanians as the most reliable ally in this part of Europe. Second, Germany and other big powers in Europe wants to prevent creation of new frozen conflict in Europe similar to Cyprus one, Third, all big Western powers has reserves towards Serbian foreign policy and its orientation on EU but as well as on Russia, nonalignment world, China which quite often is described in the West as sitting on the two chairs, Last but not the least, Germany as well as France is not very eager of politics of enlargement of EU in the eve of forthcoming elections in these countries scheduled for 2012 and 2013. Therefore its hesitation in this moment towards further enlargement with US pro Albanian politics creates tough dillemas for Serbian politics in foreseeable future.
Европска унија представља по много чему специфичну међународну организацију. Њено основно и препознатљиво обележје је наднационалност у креирању и спровођењу јавних политика. Настала удруживањем ресурса угља и челика брзо је прерасла у зону слободне трговине и сарадњу држава чланица у питањима као што је атомска енергије. Европска интеграција од свог почетка до данас зна искључиво за проширење чланства и повећање броја области сарадње на добровољној основи. Да ли ће међународне околности у којима се ЕУ налази данас и односи са другим међународним организацијама одбрамбеног карактера допринети већој интеграцији држава чланица ЕУ у домену одбране основна је тема овог рада. Трагање за различитим сценаријима развоја заједничке безбедносне политике ЕУ зависи пре свега од међународне институционалне и безбедносне архитектуре у Европи и свету, историјско политичких трендова у развоју европске интеграције, правног оквира ЕУ и међународног стратегијског окружења. Савремене међународне организације, посебно оне са преовлађујућим обележјима наднационалности (у конкретном случају ЕУ) имају тенденцију да у области одбране и безбедности комбинују наднационална обележја са међувладиним у покушају да што ефективније искористе структуру организације за остваривање њених циљева и интереса, али без већег преноса надлежности са држава чланица на саму организацију. ; The European Union represents in many ways a specific international organization. Its basic and recognizable feature is that of supranational policy and decision making. It was created by pooling the resources of coal and steel which had quickly developed into a free trade zone and ever closer Union in many policy areas. European integration from its inception to the present days was all about expanding membership and increasing the number of areas of cooperation. Namely widening and deepening of the EU was on the agenda. Will the current international circumstances and relations with other international defense organizations contribute to deepening integration in the field of defense is to be researched in this work. Search for different scenarios in the development of EU Common Security and Defense policy depends primarily on the international institutional and security architecture in Europe and the world, the historical political trends in the development of European integration, the EU legal framework and international strategic environment. Contemporary international organizations, especially those with the prevailing supranational characteristics (in this case the EU) tend to combine intergovernmental and supranational approach in the area of defense and security in an effort to more effectively utilize the structure of the organization for the realization of its goals and interests, but without significant transfer of powers from Member States on the organization itself. The main goals and interests of the EU integration in the field of defense and security are to (1) ensure durable and everlasting peace among member states, (2) to address common security challenges, risks and threats autonomously or in cooperation with other States and/or international organizations, (3) pool and share resources leading to more effective achievement of military economic interests, mainly through the development and transfer of military technology and equipment. In addition to the mentioned goals and interests, (4) particular interests of the Member States would be to improve their own political, economic and military performance. EU Integration in the field of defense, may rest in the future on (1) the current state of integration (status quo), (2) progress in areas that are not conflicting with the individual interests of key actors in the European arena (3) the deepening of integration leading to progressive framing of common defense policy with an ultimate goal to establish common defense. (4) The fourth model is possible and has been seen in the other EU policy areas.
For over a century, rumours have been spread from Croatia about Serbia's intention to create a Greater Serbia and its aspirations to greater Serbian hegemony. This has been a constant refrain in all anti-Serbian speeches delivered both before the Yugoslav and international public. On the one hand, the Serbs and Serbia were presented as aggressors with great territorial appetites, whereas on the other, the aim was to conceal one's own aggression and territorial pretensions to the ethnic, state and historical territories that belonged to others. Though such tactics is a well-known and long-lasting feature of Croatian politics, it has not been given an appropriate place and explanation in Serbian and foreign historiography. Croatia inherited such political approach from Austria-Hungary which demonised and satanised the Serbian intentions aimed at liberation and unification all the more so as its appetites towards the territories in the Balkans increased and as it more strongly expounded the German Drang nach Osten policy. According to such tactical approach, everything that was Serbian was proclaimed greater Serbian in order to nip in the bud and thwart Serbian interests which conflicted with the AustroHungarian ones. Following in the wake of Austro-Hungarian policy, in which they participated and often played the leading role, in all historical periods – from the 1848 revolution to this day the Croats have been denouncing Serbian often labelling it as greater Serbian. By reviling Serbhood and greater Serbhood, in which they saw the main rival to Croatdom and greater Croatdom, Croatian politicians did not only dream about a Greater Croatia, but also worked on building it, with determination and consistency, faithful to the principle that such end justifies all means, including even the genocidal annihilation of the Serbs. The Croatian aspirations to territorial enlargement have a rather long history. Although small in numbers and in a small territory, the Croats have fostered great imperial ambitions. This may be well illustrated with the various names such as: "Alpine or mountainous Croats" (Slovenes), "Orthodox Croats" (Serbs), "indisputable Croats" or the "flower of the Croatian nation" (Muslims), "Turkish Croatia", "Red Croatia", "White Croatia" or "Carpathian Croatia", which were the territories of Bosnia, Montenegro, Dalmatia and Slovenia. These names have been carefully cherished and for centuries instilled in the consciousness of a Croat with the aim to develop the awareness of Croatia's greatness and the numerical strength of the Croats. With the present two studies, I wish to demonstrate and prove when, how, on what foundations and with what objectives the Croats have endeavoured, from the 1848/49 revolution until the present time, to get hold of some parts or the entire territories of Vojvodina and Bosnia and Herzegovina. As precious data on this topic are scattered in different places, it is hard to gain insight into the entirety of this national, state-legal and geopolitical issue. With this in mind, I have elaborated in these papers, in a chronological sequence, on all important Croatian territorial claims on Vojvodina and Bosnia and Herzegovina. I have thus practically uncovered the decades-long greater Croatian politics and have provided concrete answers to the Croatian attacks at Serbia and the Serbs in regard to the so-called greater Serbian politics. I would also like to inform readers that this book is the second, supplemented and expanded edition of the book first published in 2012 in small print run (500 copies) and sold out a long time ago. Belgrade, 20 July 2016 Vasilije Đ. Krestić ; Посебна издања / Српска академија наука и уметности ; књ. 685. Председништво ; књ. 6
