Suchergebnisse

In his examination of the basic coordinates of Croatian foreign policy, the author points to the need for good neighborly relations -- through the mechanism of the Conference on Security & Cooperation in Europe -- with the countries that were, until recently, parts of the former Yugoslavia as well as with those that became independent long ago. He stresses the need to develop relationships with the great powers, especially with the US, & to develop bilateral relationships with nonaligned countries. One of the aims is to develop good relations with Europe through economic & political links as well as cooperation in matters concerning security. The subregional frameworks of international cooperation in which Croatia participates appear to be insufficient for solving political & security questions. Special consideration ought to be devoted to NATO as a mechanism that could protect the security of Croatia. As a new state, Croatia must demonstrate that, in both its internal development & its international activities, it is ready to fulfill the obligations imposed by its membership in the UN. Adapted from the source document.

Cilj rada je pružiti uvid u specifične izazove vezane uz međunarodno posvojenje te ukazati na situacije kršenja prava djeteta u kontekstu međudržavnog posvojenja. Iako se međunarodnom posvojenju pribjegava tek u okolnostima kada djetetu nije moguće pružiti skrb u državi porijekla, nerijetko u tom procesu dolazi do zloupotrebe instituta međunarodnog posvojenja. Posebice u vremenima kriza kao što su ekonomske i političke krize, ratovi i prirodne katastrofe, kada su zakonske kontrole oslabljene. Nadalje, stvarnost međunarodno posvojene djece karakterizira proživljavanje mnogih gubitaka, emocionalnih i kulturalnih, te je velik izazov s kojim se susreću međunarodni posvojenici formiranje identiteta kao kombinacije kulturalnog nasljeđa države iz koje potječu i države u koju se dijete posvaja. Kako će taj proces teći uvelike ovisi o posvojiteljima i njihovom prihvaćanju različitosti, te spremnosti i vještinama komuniciranja o djetetovoj povijesti i porijeklu, ali i o podršci sustava socijalne skrbi koji ima važnu ulogu u zaštiti prava djeteta. ; The aim of this paper is to provide insight in the specific challenges of international adoption, and to point to situations of violation of the rights of the child in the context of international adoption. Although international adoption is used only in circumstances where a child cannot be cared for in a country of origin, in that process abuses of this institute often occur. Especially in times of crisis such as economic and political crises, wars and natural disasters when legal controls are weak. Furthermore, the great challenge facing all international adoptees is the formation of identity as a combination of the cultural heritage of the country of origin and the country they actually live in. How will this process going on depend not only on adoptive parents and their acceptance of diversity, their willingness to communicate about child history and origin and communication skill they have, but also on the support of the social welfare system, which have an important role in protecting the rights of the child.

In the first part of the paper the author deals with some general aspects of the very complex process of trade negotiations. He explains that trade negotiations, bilateral or multilateral, are the basis for establishment of the international trade regime. In order to understand multilateral trade negotiations one should be familiar with its basis, which is composed of rules & procedures. Also, it is necessary to take into consideration the fact that these rules & procedures have not emerged at once but have been introduced in the process of adjustment to the needs of negotiators. In the second part of the paper the author considers the procedures in multilateral trade negotiations within the GATT/WTO international trade system. References. Adapted from the source document.

U radu se naglašava potreba za novom regulacijom upravljanja zapisima u Republici Hrvatskoj. Opisuje se i analizira primjer Slovenije, koja je nakon osamostaljenja tri puta osuvremenjivala propise u tom području. Uspoređuju se hrvatski propisi i međunarodna norma, prihvaćena od Hrvatskog zavoda za norme kao nacionalnog normizacijskog tijela Republike Hrvatske. Naglašava se potreba primjene specifikacije MoReg – Model requirements for the management of electronic records, koja se primjenjuje u Europskoj uniji. Naznačuju se konkretne mjere koje treba ostvariti u okviru napora za modernizacijom propisa o upravljanju zapisima u Hrvatskoj. ; The necessity of new legal regulation of the records management in Croatia is stressed in the paper. The Slovenian example is described and analysed, having in mind that Slovenia modernised the respective legislation three times in the period after gaining independence. Current Croatian legislation and international standard on records management are compared. The Croatian standardisation institute and its role as national competent body are mentioned. There is a need for accepting MoReg – Model requirements for the management of electronic records, applied in the European Union. The author suggests the concrete measures that should be realised within efforts to modernise the respective Croatian legislation.

Hrvatski sabor donio je 25. lipnja 1991. Ustavnu odluku o suverenosti i samostalnosti i Deklaraciju o proglašenju suverene i samostalne Republike Hrvatske, čime je objavio i formalizirao volju hrvatskoga naroda i građana Republike Hrvatske izrađenu na referendumu održanom pet tjedana prije. Usvajanjem navedenih dokumenata, a u nemogućnosti postizanja novog političkog dogovora kojim bi se razriješila jugoslavenska državna i politička kriza, Hrvatska je ušla u završnu fazu procesa osamostaljenja. No, unutarjugoslavenske i međunarodne prilike i odnosi nisu predstavljali povoljan okvir hrvatskoga osamostaljenja, nego je u tom procesu Hrvatska nailazila na brojne prepreke, opstrukcije, nerazumijevanja, pa i otpore. Dio međunarodnih aktera, pritisnut odlučnošću hrvatskog političkog vodstva kao i brutalnošću srbijanske oružane agresije, postupno je gradio afirmativan stav prema odluci o izlasku Hrvatske iz SFRJ kao jedinom racionalnom odgovoru na jugoslavensku krizu i rastući velikosrpski nacionalizam i ekspanzionizam. Tri desetljeća nakon sudbonosnih odluka Hrvatskoga sabora prigoda je da podsjetimo na ključne državno-političke i međunarodnopravne akte koji su doveli do priznanja te međunarodne i diplomatske afirmacije Republike Hrvatske, kao i da ukratko ukažemo na one unutarnje i međunarodne dionike koji su se tom procesu odupirali, ali i na one koji su ga podržavali. ; On June 25, 1991, the Croatian Parliament passed the Constitutional Decision on Sovereignty and Independence and passed the Declaration on the Establishment of the Sovereign and Independent Republic of Croatia. In doing so, the Parliament declared and formalized the will of the people and citizens of the Republic of Croatia, which was expressed at a referendum held five weeks earlier. By adopting these documents, and without the possibility of reaching a new political agreement that would dissolve the Yugoslav state and solve the political crisis, Croatia entered the final phase of its independence-gaining process. However, inner Yugoslav and additional international circumstances and relations did not provide a favourable framework for the Croatian independence. In this process, Croatia had to overcome a number of obstacles, an overall lack of understanding, even resistance. Having understood the pressure of decisive Croatian political leadership and the brutality of the Serbian armed aggression, a number of actors on the international stage gradually built their acceptance of the Croatian decision to leave the SFRY. They saw it as the only rational answer to the Yugoslav crisis and the growing Greater Serbian nationalism and expansionism. Three decades after these historic decisions of the Croatian Parliament, it is now a good time to remember the key national political and international legal acts that have led to the international and diplomatic affirmation, as well as the recognition of the Republic of Croatia. This is an opportunity to highlight the local and international stakeholders who resisted this process, as well as those who supported it.

The Ministry of Science of the Republic of Croatia decided on a new Rule Book of Definition of Scientific Areas. According to the book, Politology is a scientific field in the area of social science. It is divided into 3 branches: (1) Politology, (2) Theory and History of Politics, & (3) Political Philosophy. By using documents, the author of this article shows how political science is differently structured by IPSA & APSA. The author describes 120 years of dominantly American development of political science & of professions of political scientists, which brought out a recent new world standard with around 100 subdisciplines & areas of expertise that are structured in 8 fundamental disciplines: (1) Political Institutions, (2) Political Behavior, (3) Comparative Politics, (4) International Relations, (5) Political Theory, (6) Public Policy & Public Administration/Management, (7) Political Economy, & (8) Political Methodology. The author points out that a voluntaristic intervention in the definition of scientific areas could mean an attack on the development of science, research organization, renewal of teaching staff at the university, & academic education of political scientists, as well as internationally comparable competence of Croatian experts & Croatian democratic political thought & political culture in general. 133 References. Adapted from the source document.

After the breakup of the USSR, and the several rounds of Post-Cold War enlargements of the Western integrations, once large space of newly independent and geopolitically uncontrolled European post-communist states, located between the EU, NATO and Russia, contracts geopolitically and 'wanders' strategically. The three states, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, located on Russia's western borders share about three thousand kilometers of borders with the EU and NATO, and about two thousand and five hundred kilometers with Russia, which implicates that they are prone to the geopolitical influences from their surroundings. This Interspace of the three states lies inside the strategic triangle comprised of: 1) Russia - geopolitically and militarily powerful state as well as a giant considering its energy reserves, which makes her relatively strong 'hard' power as well as a significant 'soft' power; 2) the EU - economic giant on the global level that is not unified enough; has domestic problems and is partially dependent on Russia when it comes to energy, a civilian power without 'hard' power that in its foreign relations relies on policies based on financial assistance, assurance, and attractiveness; 3) NATO, led by the USA - the most powerful military-political-security 'hard' power that exists today; it does not have the kind of influence on Europe and the Post-Soviet space that it had in the 90-ies. However, as a consequence of subordination of the Interspace that lasted for a couple of centuries, the common characteristics intrinsic to this space occur: ambiguous identities; deficits in the democratic practices; complicated, prolonged and incomplete transition; economic decline, demographic problems - all of which favor a strategic 'adoption' of the Interspace by the Kremlin, a former imperial master. At the same time, a relative marginalization of the Interspace is evident regarding the processes of Euro-Atlantic integration. After the unsuccessful attempts of 'pulling out' Kiev, Kishinev, and the South Caucasian Tbilisi from this Russian sphere of influence, the states positioned in the Interspace, together with Russia, comprise a regional security complex, a stabilized geopolitical 'Russosphere' that is a key part of the Kremlin's attempts for Eurasian reintegration under Russia's leadership. Adapted from the source document.

Rad pručava politike razvojne pomoći kao instrumente moći za postizanje vanjskopolitičkih ciljeva koji koriste u prvom redu državama-inicijatoricama. Rad se fokusira na dvije velike europske zemlje: Francusku Republiku i Saveznu Republiku Njemačke, koje su ujedno gospodarski i politički najmoćnije zemlje članice Europske unije. Promjenom paradigme, iz one u kojoj najveću korist od politika razvojne pomoći imaju slabije razvijene zemlje u paradigmu kako dugoročno najveću korist imaju upravo zemlje koje su inicijatorice istih, rad pokazuje da starije, veće te politički i ekonomski moćnije države članice Europske unije koriste politike razvojne pomoći prema slabije razvijenim članicama, prema zemljama kandidatkinjama te ostalim zemljama, kako bi promovirale vlastiti interes i ostvarile ciljeve svoje vanjske politike. Konačno, pokazujući vezu između politika razvojne pomoći i širenja utjecaja i moći Francuske i Njemačke, rad stvora pretpostavke za novo objašnjenje odnosa moći u međunarodnom okruženju. ; The dissertation examines how the development aid policy, both in the context of national budgets and European Structural and Investment Funds, is being used as an instrument for achieving foreign policy objectives, and it is in this sense primarily beneficial for countriesdonators. Dissertation is focussed on two main European Union member states: the Republic of France and Federal Republic of Germany. By changing the paradigm from the one in which the least developed countries have the most benefit from development aid policy to the paradigm that, on the long-term, greatest benefits precisely have the countries that are the initiators of the same development aid, dissertation argues that older, bigger, politically and economically more powerful European Union member states use development policies assisting less developed members, candidate and other countries to promote their own interests and achieve goals of their foreign policy. In attempt to demonstrate the influence of France and Germany through development ...

The criticism levelled at the American foreign policy revolves around three lines of objections. The first is that the US lacks a global vision of its role in the international arena. The second line of criticism refers to the limitations of the domestic context, ie, the rise of isolationist tendencies & aspirations in the American society. The third group includes perhaps the most serious developments, since they find their rationale in the institutional solutions of the American foreign policy, particularly in the claims about the restricted foreign policy capacities of the American executive. Adapted from the source document.