Suchergebnisse

United States participation in international politics during the period between the two world wars, come not only from the general and often declarative interest in peace, but was also a consequence of extremely rapid expansion of their foreign trade and overseas capital investments. It was a period of intense financial diplomacy, when efforts to maintain the gold standard, to determine the amount of reparations and the manner of payment of war debts, brought confusion not only in relations between victors and vanquished, but also in relations between the United States and its former European allies. Abandonment of the gold standard and the creation of the tripartite agreement between the United States, Britain and France, in the 1936, was a milestone in the development of international monetary cooperation and the role of United States in international economic relations. .

Autor se bavi odnosima Sjedinjenih Država i Venezuele zaključno sa aktuelnom‎ predsedničkom krizom ne bi li odgovorio na pitanje kako i zašto je Venezuela‎ postala problem za spoljnu politiku SAD koji zahteva pojačanu pažnju‎ i radikalne mere. Analiza ovih odnosa u toku 20. veka pokazuje da su oni zasnovani‎ na naftnoj međuzavisnosti dveju država. Kada je krajem veka višedecenijsko‎ loše upravljanje naftnim bogatstvom u Venezueli izazvalo društvenu‎ i ekonomsku krizu koja je dovela na vlast Huga Cháveza, spremnog da koristi‎ prihode od nafte protiv interesa regionalne hegemonije SAD, ove su Venezuelu‎ označile kao problem. Američki establišment je prema tom problemu nastupio‎ oportunistički – naftna međuzavisnost je sprečavala da sukob eskalira‎ sve dok aktuelna ekonomsko-politička kriza u Venezueli nakon Chávezove‎ smrti nije dala Washingtonu priliku za konačni obračun sa režimom, po cenu‎ privremenog prekida u trgovini naftom. Godinu i po dana od izbijanja predsednička‎ kriza u Venezueli još nije razrešena, jer se čavistički režim održao, a‎ SAD odustale od vojne intervencije, pa autor nastoji da ukaže na perspektive‎ problema i mogućnosti njegovog prevazilaženja nakon što tekuća pandemija‎ korona virusa bude obuzdana.‎ ; The author deals with the United States and Venezuela relations up to the‎ current presidential crisis, in order to answer how and why Venezuela became‎ a problem for U.S. foreign policy which requires increased attention‎ and radical measures. The analysis of these relations during the 20th century‎ shows that they were based on oil interdependence of the two states.‎ When a decades-long mismanagement of oil riches in Venezuela at the end‎ of the century caused a social and economic crisis that brought to power‎ Hugo Chávez, who was ready to use oil revenues against U.S. regional hegemonic‎ interests, it marked Venezuela as a problem. American establishment‎ treated the problem with opportunism – oil interdependence prevented‎ the conflict from escalating until the current economic and political crisis in‎ Venezuela after the death of Chávez gave Washington an opportunity for the‎ final clash with the regime at the price of a temporary break in the oil trade.‎ A year and a half after the presidential crisis in Venezuela erupted, it has not‎ been resolved yet, for the chavista regime remained in place, while the U.S. gave up on military intervention. The author points to the perspectives of the‎ problem and the possibilities of its overcoming once the current coronavirus‎ pandemic gets contained.‎

The relations with Russia rank among the most important and most complex issues in the US and UK foreign policy. The years after the Second World War have been marked by an exhausting arms race between the Western and Eastern bloc that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the break-up of the Soviet Union and the victory of the United States and its Western allies. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relations between the US and the United Kingdom on the one hand, and Russia, on the other, during the mandate of President Trump and after Brexit and point to possible directions that these relations may take in the aftermath of Biden's victory in the 2020 US Presidential elections. The author proceeds from a hypothesis that the efforts of President Trump, who, contrary to his predecessors, felt that the relations with Russia should be based on interests rather than ideology, have failed. He has not been successful primarily due to the huge resistance mounted by the state structures, mainstream media and anti-Russian coalition forged by the Republican and Democratic parties. The relations between the UK and Russia remain cold after Brexit as well due to the severe problems between the two countries. The first part will deal with the strained relations between the United States and Russia following the West's victory in the Cold War, the efforts of President Trump to improve these relations and his failure to do so. The second part of the paper will address the relationship between the United Kingdom and Russia, which is in many respects even more complicated than that between Russia and the US. After Brexit, the relations between the two countries continue to be plagued by the activities of the Russian agents in Great Britain, the crisis in Ukraine and different views on the war in Syria. In the third part, the concluding part of the paper, the author tried to answer the question of how the relations between the US and Russia will develop after Joseph Biden won the 2020 US Presidential elections. According to him, the new President will continue to pursue the traditional policy towards Russia agreed upon by both US parties. It can be expected that Biden will, despite the policy of sanctions pursued by his predecessors, Obama and Trump, engage more in supporting the opposition and civilian sector in Russia. Given the cold and strained relations between these two states, it may be assumed that Great Britain will readily follow a new, tougher course of action pursued by President Biden towards Russia and Putin. It is especially important for UK politics that Biden returns to the ideas of liberalism because, as we have seen on previous pages, in London, in addition to the actions of Russian agents on the UK territory, Putin is most resented precisely for his activities to overthrow the ruling liberal order. Despite the good ties between Prime Minister Johnson and the former US President who supported Brexit, Biden's victory will bring relief to the UK because of his commitment, as opposed to Trump, to bring back America to the world political stage, where London is likely to expect to find space for its new global role after leaving the EU. On the other hand, Moscow will probably continue with its past foreign policy strategy in anticipation of the moves to be taken by the new US President without high expectations regarding the future relations between the two countries. Russia has even fewer expectations when it comes to relations with the UK, given the gravity of the problems that burden the relations between the two countries.

Doktorska disertacija Jugoslovenska politika prema zemljama narodne demokratije u susedstvu 1953 – 1958. godine zasnovana je na jugoslovenskim arhivskim izvorima iz Arhiva Srbije i Crne Gore, Diplomatskog arhiva Ministarstva spoljnih poslova Republike Srbije i Vojnog arhiva kao i na relevantnoj domaćoj i stranoj literaturi. Disertacija se bavi jugoslovenskom politikom prema Albaniji, Bugarskoj, Rumuniji i Mađarskoj u periodu normalizacije odnosa Jugoslavije sa ovim zemljama posle Staljinove smrti tj. posle petogodišnjeg perioda tokom koga su njihovi odnosi bili u gotovo potpunom prekidu. Ona predstavlja pokušaj da se sagleda odnos Jugoslavije prema neposrednom susedstvu u uslovima hladnog rata i sadejstva jugoslovenskih interesa sa jedne i spoljnih faktora poput uloge Sovjetskog Saveza u procesu normalizacije odnosa Jugoslavije sa pomenutim zemljama ili uloge vodećih zapadnih zemalja i njihovih interesa u Jugoslaviji i susednim zemljama "narodne demokratije" sa druge strane. U nekoliko faza kroz koje su od marta 1953. do aprila 1958. godine prošli odnosi Jugoslavije sa Albanijom, Bugarskom, Rumunijom i Mađarskom (od Staljinove smrti do potpisivanja Beogradske deklaracije, od potpisivanja Beogradske deklaracije do XX kongresa KPSS-a, od XX kongresa KPSS-a do izbijanja događaja u Mađarskoj 1956. godine i od događaja u Mađarskoj do kritike novog Programa SKJ) jugoslovenska politika se menjala u skladu sa okolnostima zadržavajući kao konstante izražen interes za normalizaciju odnosa i insistiranje na tome da sve susedne zemlje "narodne demokratije" javno osude svoju raniju politiku prema Jugoslaviji i rehabilituju sve koji su na montiranim sudskim procesima osuđeni zbog špijunske delatnost u korist Jugoslavije. Osnovni cilj rada na ovoj dioktorskoj disertaciji je bio da pruži nova znanja o ovoj temi, nove poglede na jugoslovensku spoljnu politiku i ponudi novi ugao gledanja na odnose Jugoslavije sa SSSR-om i Varšavskim paktom u celini. U vezi sa tim definisan je i drugi cilj ovog rada koji se odnosi na rekonstrukciju jugoslovenske politike prema ovim zemljama i na pokušaj da se uoče specifičnosti, metode i ciljevi te politike koji su se razlikovali u odnosu na jugoslovensku politiku prema ostalim istočnoevropskim zemljama. Treći cilj na temu jugoslovenske politike prema susednim zemljama "narodne demokratije" od 1953. do 1958. godine bio je i sistematizacija postojećih znanja o ovoj temi i njihova evaluacija s obzirom na veći stepen dostupnosti izvora nego što je to bio slučaj pre više decenija kada su nastali najznačajniji radovi koji su se delimično bavili pojedinim segmentima ove teme. Četvrti cilj istraživanja bio je utvrđivanje hronološki jasno određenih faza kroz koje su prolazili odnosi Jugoslavije sa Mađarskom, Rumunijom, Bugarskom i Albanijom u posmatranom periodu i identifikacija faktora koji su na to uticali. U trenutku Staljinove smrti, susedne zemlje "narodne demokratije" bile su daleko od centra pažnje jugoslovenske spoljne politike jer je , između ostalog, i njihov značaj za nju u uslovima prekida međudržavnih odnosa bio mali. Međutim, promene koje su ubrzo posle Staljinove smrti usledile u Sovjetskom Savezu omogućile su početak normalizacije odnosa Jugoslavije i "prve zemlje socijalizma" što je za sobom povuklo i mogućnost da Jugoslavija normalizuje svoje odnose i sa susednim zemljama "narodne demokratije". Kada su u pitanju bile te zemlje, primarni jugoslovenski interes nije se nalazio u sferi politike i ekonomije kao u slučaju Sovjetskog Saveza već u sferi praktičnih međudržavnih pitanja koja su teško opterećivala Jugoslaviju. Na prvom mestu to je bio interes da se što pre otkloni vojna pretnja na granicama i stanje na zajedničkoj "liniji razgraničenja" koje je u godinama posle 1948. iziskivalo velika materijalna i kadrovska ulaganja. Osim toga, Jugoslavija je jasan interes imala i po pitanju poboljšanja položaja pripadnika jugoslovenskih manjina u susednim zemljama "narodne demokratije" kao i po pitanju normalizacije saobraćaja. Razlog što Jugoslavija nije pokazivala izražen interes za političku i ekonomsku saradnju sa ovim zemljama ležao je u činjenici da je ona u međuvremenu, u vreme godina sukoba, uspela da pronađe alternativu kako u sferi spoljne politike tako i u sferi ekonomije i na taj način obesmisli blokadu kojoj je bila izložena sa Istoka. Međutim, cena iznalaženja te alternative bila je visoka i pretila je da ugrozi monopol vlasti Saveza komunista Jugoslavije što je za Tita i njegovo najbliže okruženje bilo neprihvatljivo. Iz tog razloga, mogućnost da se nađe zajednički jezik sa Moskvom predstavljao je za Tita priliku da uspostavi ravnotežu kada je u pitanju bio jugoslovenski položaj prema suprotstavljenim blokovima u zaoštrenoj hladnoratovskoj atmosferi. Odnos Jugoslavije prema SSSR-u, i obrnuto, može se smatrati jednim od najznačajnijih faktora koji su uticali na oblikovanje jugoslovenske politike prema susednim zemljama "narodne demokratije" sa jedne i na kreiranje politike koje su sve istočnoevropske zemlje vodile prema Jugoslaviji sa druge strane. Drugi značajan faktor koji je uticao na jugoslovensku politiku prema zemljama "narodne demokratije" u susedstvu od 1953. do 1958. godine bio je u tesnoj vezi sa jugoslovensko-sovjetskim odnosima a ticao se prevashodno ideologije i s tim u vezi destaljinizacije. Kreirajući u godinama sukoba sa Informbiroom sopstveni model "samoupravnog" socijalizma, Jugoslavija tokom procesa normalizacije odnosa nije pristajala na "jedinstvo lagera" i povratak u njega što je bio glavni kamen spoticanja u njenim odnosima kakao sa SSSR-om tako i sa drugim istočnoevropskim zemljama pa i susednim kao što su bile Albanija, Bugarska, Mađarska i Rumunija. S tim u vezi je i destaljinizacija, odnosno njen napredak i dubina u susednim "zemljama" narodne demokratije kao i njihova spremnost da se distanciraju od staljinističke ideologije, predstavljala jedan od glavnih faktora koji su uticali na oblikovanje jugoslovenske politike prema tim zemljama. Najzad, važan činilac koji je uticao na jugoslovensku spoljnu politiku uopšte pa i na njenu politiku prema delu ili celini Istočnog bloka bili su i njeni odnosi sa Zapadom, koji su iz pragmatičnih razloga tokom godina sukoba sa Informbiroom bili poboljšani do te mere da su Jugoslaviju, iako nevoljno, doveli na rub uključenja u zapadni vojni savez. Zapad je bio taj kome se nije dopadalo jugoslovensko približavanje SSSR-u i istočnoevropskim zemljama i u periodu normalizacije njihovih odnosa svaki korak koji je vodio približavanju dveju do tada suprotstavljenih strana izazivao je na Zapadu sumnje u iskrenost Jugoslavije i zebnju kada je u pitanju bila budućnost odnosa Zapada i Jugoslavije. Kao rezultat sadejstva nekoliko najvažnijih spoljnih faktora i jugoslovenskih interesa u neposrednom susedstvu iz okvira socijalističkog "lagera" nastajala je jugoslovenska politika prema Istoku uopšte pa i prema Albaniji, Bugarskoj, Rumuniji i Mađarskoj ponaosob, onakva kakva je bila. U periodu od 1953. do 1958. godine ta politika je bila aktivna i pozitivna ali ne i bez ograda. Tih godina, Jugoslavija je bez sumnje pokazivala interes da normalizuje svoje odnose sa susedima sa kojima je osim granice delila i ideologiju ali najčešće nije želela da ona bude ta koja će dati inicijativu za konkretne korake u tom procesu. Smatrajući da su međusobni odnosi narušeni ne njenom već krivicom suseda, ona je strogo poštovala načelo (koje je inače zastupala i kada je u pitanju bila njena politika prema SSSR-u) da prvi korak treba da učini onaj koji je odgovoran za prekid normalnih dobrosusedskih odnosa. Imajući u vidu sve interese, želje i aspiracije koje je Jugoslavija imala kada je u pitanju bio prostor neposredno uz njene granice kao i faktore koji su neminovno uticali na njenu politiku, može se reći da je Jugoslavija prema zemljama "narodne demokratije" u susedstvu u periodu normalizacije međusobnih odnosa od 1953. do 1958. godine vodila politiku mogućeg. Ta politika, međutim, iako osmišljena na isti način, nije uvek bila ista prema svakoj pojedinačnoj zemlji u susedstvu iz prostog razloga što u njima nije nailazila na istovetne uslove i mogućnosti. Tamo gde su mogućnosti bile veće, Jugoslavija je postizala više. Međutim, kako je vreme odmicalo i kako je Jugoslavija bivala sve uspešnija u pronalaženju svog sopstvenog "trećeg puta", čini se da joj je sve manje i manje bilo stalo do sadržajnije saradnje sa većinom suseda od kojih je (budući da su sve bile deo Istočnog bloka), u skladu sa svojom novom spoljnopolitičkom strategijom koja je ekvidistancu prema blokovima predviđala kao imperativ, trebalo da napravi određeni otklon. ; The Ph.D. thesis Yugoslav Policy Towards the Neighboring Countries of People's Democracy 1953-1958 is based on Yugoslav archival sources from the Archives of Yugoslavia, the Diplomatic Archives of the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of Serbia and the Military Archives, as well as on the relevant domestic and foreign literature. The thesis deals with Yugoslav policy towards Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary during the period of normalization of relations between these countries and Yugoslavia after Stalin's death, i.e. after a five years' period of almost complete interruption in bilateral relations. It is an attempt at a study of the interplay of Yugoslavia's relations with immediate neighborhood during the Cold War and Yugoslav interests on the one hand, and interests of foreign factors, such as the Soviet Union and the leading Western nations in Yugoslavia and in the neighboring countries within the framework of the normalization of Yugoslavia's relations with the above mentioned countries. During the several phases the Yugoslav relations with Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary went through between March 1953 and April 1958 (from Stalin's death until the signing of the Belgrade Declaration, from then to the 20th congress of the CP of the USSSR, from then until the beginning of the events in Hungary in 1956 and from then until the critique of the new Program of the CP of Yugoslavia), the Yugoslav policy changed in accordance with the situation, preserving the interest in normalizing relations and insisting that all neighboring countries of "people's democracy" should condemn their former policy towards Yugoslavia and rehabilitate all those who had been sentenced as Yugoslav spies at show trials. The main goal of this Ph.D. thesis was to provide new knowledge of the topic, new views on Yugoslav foreign policy and to propose a new vantage point on the Yugoslav relations with the Soviet Union, and on relations with the Warsaw Pact as a whole. Connected with this was another goal of the thesis that concrens the reconstruction of Yugoslav policy toward these countries and the attempt to pinpoint the characteristics, methods and goals of that policy that were different from those of Yugoslav policy toward other east European countries. The third goal of the topic of Yugoslav policy toward the neighboring countries of "people's democracy" between 1953 and 1958 was also to systematize the existing knowledge on the subject in view of better accessability of sources as compared with the situation of several decades ago when the most important works touching upon some aspects of this topic were written. The fourth goal of the research was to determin chronologically clearly defined phases that the Yugoslav relations with Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania had gone through during the researched period and to identify the factors that influenced the process. At the time of Stalin's death the countries of "people's democracy" were far from the focus of the Yugoslav foreign policy, because, among other things, their importance was small due to the severed inter-state relations. However, the changes that set in the Soviet Union soon after Stalin's death made the beginning of normalization of relations with the "first country of socialism" possible. This entailed the possibility that Yugoslavia also normalizes its relations with neighboring countries of "people's democracy". When these countries were in question, Yugoslavia's primary interest didn't lie in political or economic spheres as in the case of the Soviet Union, but rather in the sphere of practical inter-state matters weighting heavily on Yugoslavia. Supreme was the interest to do away as soon as possible with the military threat on the borders and to change the situation on the "line of demarcation" that had required much material and human resources in the years after 1948. Furthermore, Yugoslavia had a clear interest in improving the situation of members of Yugoslav minorities in the neighboring countries of "people's democracy", as well as in normalization of trafic. The reason why Yugoslavia showed no great interest in political or economic cooperation with these countries lay in the fact that she had in the meantime, during the years of conflict, found alternative solutions in the spheres of foreign policy and economy, reducing thus to insignifficance the blocade imposed on her from the East. However, the price of that alternative solution was high and it threatened to endanger the power monopoly of the Union of the Communists of Yugoslavia, which was unacceptable for Tito and his innermost circle of collaborators. For that reason, the possibility of finding common grounds with Moscow was for Tito an oportunity to balance Yugoslavia's position between the two competing blocs in a worsened Cold War atmosphere. Yugoslavia's relation to the USSSR and vice versa, can be seen as one of the most important factors influencing Yugoslav policy toward the neighboring countries of "people's democracy" on the one hand, and on the other, one that was decisively shaping their policy towards Yugoslavia. Another important factor influencing Yugoslav policy toward the countries of "people's democracy" in the vicinity between 1953 and 1958 was closely connected with the Yugoslav-Soviet relations and it concerned primarily ideology and, in that context, destalinization. Having created her own model of "self-managing" socialism during the years of conflict with the Cominform, during the process of normalization Yugoslavia didn't accept the unity of the Eastern Bloc and the matter of her return to it was one of the main stumbling blocks both in her relations with the USSR and with the neighbors such as Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. In that context, destalinisation, i.e. its progress and depth in the neighboring countries of "people's democracy" and their willingnes to distance themselves from the Stalinist ideology was one of the major factors influencing Yugoslavia's policy toward those countries. Finally, the important factor influencing Yugoslav foreign policy in general, including part of the Eastern Block or it as a whole, were Yugoslavia's relations with the West that had been so improved during the years of conflict with the Cominform, that they led Yugoslavia, although unwillingly, to the brink of joining the western military alliance. The West was unhappy with Yugoslav rapprochement with the USSR and eastern European countries and every step that brought closer the two once confonted parties during the process of normalization of their relations, caused the West to doubt Yugoslavia's sincerety and cause fears for the future relations between the West and Yugoslavia. As a result of interplay of several major foreign political factors and Yugoslav interests in the imediate socialist block neighborhood, the Yugoslav policy toward the East in general and toward Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary individually, emerged in the given form. Between 1953 and 1958 that policy was active and positive, but not without restrains. During those years Yugoslavia clearly showed interest in normalizing her relations with the neighboring countries with whom she shared not only borders, but ideology too, but in most cases she was not willing to be the one to initiate concrete steps in that process. Deeming that it had not been her fault but that of her neighbors that the bilateral relations had been spoiled, she observed strictly the principle (that she also championed in her relations with the USSR) that the side that had been responsible for the interruption of normal good neighborly relations should also make the first move. Having in mind all the interests, wishes and aspirations that Yugoslavia had concerning the space imediatly bordering on her territory as well as the factors necessarily infuencing her policy, it can be said that Yugoslavia led the policy of what was possible toward the neighboring countries of "people's democracy" during tthe period of normalization of bilateral relations 1953-1958. However, that policy wasn't always the same toward all these neighboring countries, for simple reason that it didn't meet with the same conditions and possibilities in them. Where possibilities were greater, Yugoslavia acheived more. However, as the time went by and as Yugoslavia became increasingly more successful in finding her own "third way", it seems she was increasingly less interested in substantial cooperation with most of the neighbors from whom (since they were all members of the Eastern Block) certain distance should be kept – in keeping with the new foreign political strategy that foresaw equidistance towards both blocs as a must.

Ova teza treba da istraži vezu između motiva, ciljeva i principa kanadske spoljno-političke agende, u odnosu na njen učinak na području očuvanja i izgradnje mira na Zapadnom Balkanu. Vremenski opseg obuhvata period od 1991. do 1999.godine. U vezi sa pojašnjenjem ovog pitanja, posebno se elaborira idejna osnova te spoljno-političke agende, zatim njeno formiranje kroz viziju međunarodne pozicije Kanade u međunarodnoj politici i na kraju kontekstualizacija te vizije u spoljno-političku misiju Kanade u regiji Zapadnog Balkana. Teza na teorijskom nivou uključuje istraživanje savremenih trendova u oblasti bezbjednosti, uticaja ideja na spoljnu politiku, proces kreiranja i realizacije spoljno-politikih strategija kao i istraživanje učinka spoljno-političkih akcija u kontekstu očuvanja i izgradnje mira. Naučni cilj ovog istraživanja je evaluacija učinka onog dijela kanadske agende ljudske bezbjednosti koji se odnosi na učešće u međunarodnim mirovnim misijama na Zapadnom Balkanu tokom devedesetih godina prošlog vijeka. Teza se zasniva na činjenici da kanadski pristup i doprinos regionalnoj bezbjednosti, posmatran iz ugla teorijskog pravca ljudske bezbjednosti, u regiji Zapadnog Balkana nije dovoljno istražen na naučnoj osnovi. To se posebno odnosi na učinak kanadskih snaga u okviru međunarodnih mirovnih misija u Hrvatskoj, BiH i na Kosovu, u odnosu na kanadsku agendu ljudske bezbjednosti. Naučni doprinos ovog rada bio bi u naučnoj sintezi međunarodno afirmisane agende ljudske bezbjednosti i njenoj kontekstualnoj primjeni kroz djelovanje kanadske mirovne misije u Regiji. Društveni doprinos ovog rada ogleda se u činjenici da se na temeljan način skreće pažnja stručnoj javnosti na kanadski doprinos izgradnji mira na Zapadnom Balkanu, na osnovama liberalnog internacionalizma. ; This thesis aims to explore the links among the motives, purposes and principles of the Canadian foreign policy agenda, with respect to its impact in the field of preserving and building peace in the Western Balkans. The timeframe covers the period from 1991 to1999. With regards to the clarification of this issue, particularly elaborated is the conceptual basis for this foreign policy agenda, then its shaping through the vision of the international position of Canada in the global politics and finally the contextualization of this vision into the Canadian foreign policy mission in the Western Balkans. On a theoretical level, the thesis includes the research into contemporary trends in the field of security, the impact of ideas on foreign policy, the development and implementation of foreign policy strategy, and it also explores the impact of foreign policy actions in the context of preserving and building peace. The scientific objective of this research is appraisal of the effect of that part of Canadian human security agenda relating to participation in international peacekeeping missions in the Western Balkans during the nineteen nineties. The thesis is based on the fact that the Canadian approach and contribution to regional security, observed from the perspective of the theoretical line of human security in the Western Balkans region has not been sufficiently explored from the scientific point of view. This is especially true of the effect of the Canadian troops in the international peacekeeping missions in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Kosovo, in relation to the Canadian human security agenda. Scientific contribution of this work would be in the scientific synthesis of the internationally-established human security agenda and its application through contextual actions of Canadian peacekeeping mission in the region. The social contribution of this work is reflected in the fact that the attention is drawn to the expert public in a fundamental way to the Canadian contribution towards peacebuilding in the Western Balkans, on the bases of liberal internationalism.

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

Autori ovog rada nude pregled i analizu uspona i pada međunarodnog liberalnog‎ poretka koji je nastao nakon okončanja Hladnog rata i uspona moći Sjedinjenih‎ Američkih Država. Spoljnopolitička agenda jedine posthladnoratovske‎ supersile vođena je idejom stvaranja globalnog poretka utemeljenog na ideologiji‎ (globalnog) liberalizma koja u sebi inkorporira teorije liberalnog mira,‎ demokratskog mira i neoliberalnog institucionalizma. Uspostavljanje tzv. globalnog‎ liberalnog poretka dosada je bilo praćeno brojnim političkim, socijalnim,‎ ekonomskim i bezbednosnim krizama, a trenutnu eru međunarodnih odnosa‎ odlikuju uspon relativne moći "neliberalnih" globalnih aktera, pre svega‎ Kine i Rusije, kao glavnih izazivača svetske dominacije Sjedinjenih Američkih‎ Država, te geopolitički revizionizam i ideološka konfrontacija liberalnih i‎ antiliberalnih snaga širom sveta. Autori ovog rada koriste specifičan analitički‎ metod tzv. dijalektike političke mehanike, koji se oslanja na učenja Friedricha‎ Hegela o dijalektici istorije i Carla Schmitta o fenomenu političkog, kako bi‎ objasnili trenutnu dinamiku međunarodnih odnosa, pokazujući da političko‎ polje "permanentno pulsira" što, u svemu što je društveno i političko, nužno‎ kreira akciju i reakciju, čijom dinamikom se mogu tumačiti i globalna zbivanja‎ kojima upravo prisustvujemo.‎ ; The authors of this paper offer an overview and analysis of the rise and fall of‎ the liberal international order that emerged after the end of the Cold War and‎ along with the rising power of the United States. The foreign policy agenda‎ of the post-Cold War sole superpower was guided by the idea of creating a‎ global order based on the ideology of liberalism, which incorporates theories‎ of liberal peace, democratic peace and neoliberal institutionalism. The establishment‎ of a liberal order has been accompanied by numerous political, social,‎ economic and security crises. The current era is characterized by the rise‎ of the relative power of global actors, primarily China and Russia, as the main‎ challengers to the world domination of the United States, geopolitical revisionism‎ and ideological struggle around the world. The authors of this paper‎ use the dialectic of political mechanics as a method that relies on the teachings‎ of Friedrich Hegel on the dialectic of history and Carl Schmitt on the‎ phenomenon of the political. The authors advocate the view that the political‎ field "permanently pulsates", which, in everything that is social and political,‎ necessarily creates action and reaction.‎

The paper analyses the problems that have been undermining the US recruitment policy for the last two decades - which is aimed at providing soldiers for imperial disciplining wars waged on the planetary periphery - as a case study to test the validity of theoretical assumptions about the transition to the age of post-heroic warfare. The departing hypothesis is based on stance that the United States, being the only remained superpower, experience a gradual and less visible process of losing popular support for military conscription, which the author employs here as an ideal of national vitality and a pillar of modern citizenship, as well as a feature of masculinity and the realm for self-realisation. The analysis takes place primarily in the field of anthropology and sociology and employs theoretical positions of social constructivism to complement narrow theoretical and methodological approaches of political science which are typically applied in the study of international relations. The analysis focuses on the "cracks" and deformations in the construction of ideals of warfare and heroism, which emerge as a result of the interaction of man - both as an individual and a member of the political community - the public, and the US foreign policy decisions designed to meet the needs and requirements of successful disciplinary imperial warfare. The author concludes that theoretical assumptions about entering the age of post-heroic warfare are valid due to the recruitment crisis in the US military, the unpopularity of the military profession, the commodification of warfare and death, the transformation of war into an industrial process, and misleading media portrayals of dead and wounded soldiers.

In this article Dr Pribicevic analyzes reasons for difficult and slow transition in Serbia. Twelve years after the breaking down of authoritarian regime the Serbian population is completely disappointed. New authorities was promising higher standard, lower unemployment, quicker enter in to the EU, tough fight with corruption and organized crime. When it didn't happen even after the ten years big expectations were changed with disappointment and dissatisfaction directed against the parties which ruled the country after the 2000. On the elections hold in May 2012 Democratic party and its leader Boris Tadic lost elections and new government was created by Serbian Progressive Party, Socialist party of Serbia and United Regions of Serbia. Three main political reasons caused difficult and slow transition in Serbia. First, complete preoccupation with Kosovo problem and constant conditioning of Serbian European road with so called normalization of relations between Belgrade and Pristina slower down reforms and dealing with all other problems in society, Second, constant conflicts between so- called democratic parties which ran Serbia after 2000 and Third, slow transformation of the parties which ruled the Serbia during the 90' produced situation in which ruling parties after 2000 didn't have normal incentive and corrective coming from opposition. Only after the Serbian Progressive Party, created after the split of extreme nationalistic Serbian Radical Party, adopted main postulates of democracy and main elements of Tadic's foreign policy, first real change occurred in Serbia, twelve years after the breaking down of previous authoritarian regime. Quicker approach to EU and solvation of Kosovo issue remains the main challenge for the new government. Better life of Serbian citizens is mainly related to the solvation of these issues.

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.

After the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force, the process of concluding treaties between the EU and third countries or international organizations has sustained significant changes. The most important procedural novelty is the establishment of the ordinary procedure that covers almost all agreements the EU concludes with third parties. Under the Lisbon Treaty, this procedure involves a number of stages: negotiations, signing the agreement, and decision to conclude the agreement. For agreements whose subject matter exclusively or predominantly falls into the domain of common foreign and security policy, there are several derogations from the uniform rules of the ordinary procedure. The same provision of the founding treaty regulates the procedures for amending and suspending the agreement in force, as well as the judicial control procedure of those agreements that are yet to be concluded. The ordinary procedure does not cover two subject-specific proceedings pertaining to relatively narrow areas of EU action. More specifically, they refer to the conclusion of agreements in the area of common trade policy and agreements on the exchange rate of the Euro against the currencies of non-member states. The exclusion of trade agreements is probably the result of the differences that still exist in the division of competencies between the Member States and the EU regarding trade in the area of some services. On the other hand, the enactment of a special procedure for agreements on the Euro exchange rate in relation to the national currency rates of third countries stems from the need to ensure the Union's unique position in this field. On the institutional level, the most important actors in the process of concluding EU agreements are the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. The Council has retained the central role in all types of treaty procedures, and it decides on essential issues related to the course and outcome of the process. The Commission has retained the major role in initiating and negotiating the agreements, but it is no longer the exclusive initiator and negotiator in the agreement process. Namely, depending on the subject of the treaty, new entrants in that role are the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and the European Central Bank. The European Parliament has strengthened its position in the procedure for concluding EU agreements and can, therefore, be considered the largest 'net' winner of the Lisbon Treaty reform. This is partly due to its new role in the course of negotiations, which implies the right to be immediately and fully informed about all stages of the proceedings, but to a much greater extent it refers to the powers that this body has in the final stage preceding the conclusion of the agreement. Finally, the EU Court of Justice has an important role in this process; its task is to control the compliance of the EU agreements with the founding treaties prior to their conclusion.

Disertacija se bavi analizom spoljnopolitičkog delovanja Evropske unije prema Islamskoj Republici Iran, kako bi odgovorila na pitanje na koji način dominacija aktivnosti ključnih država članica (u prvom redu Velike Britanije1, Francuske i Nemačke) i njihovih nacionalnih političkih, bezbednosnih i ekonomskih interesa u odnosu sa Teheranom, utiču na razvoj Zajedničke spoljne i bezbednosne politike. Odsustvo jasno razvijenog strateškog razumevanja sopstvenih ciljeva, prioriteta i efektivne uloge Zajedničke spoljne i bezbednosne politike Evropske unije prikazano je kroz bilateralne odnose pomenutih ključnih država članica sa Islamskom Republikom Iran, čiji se značaj za evropske zemlje ogleda u njegovom geografskom položaju, regionalnoj ulozi, veličini i broju stanovnika, bogatstvu naftom i gasom. Analizirajući odnose Evropske unije sa Iranom, a posebno ključne momente u bilateralnim odnosima Velike Britanije, Francuske i Nemačke sa iranskom državom – koji determinišu domete njihove sadržajne saradnje – autor zaključuje da se proklamovane vrednosti i normativni ciljevi Unije prelamaju kroz prizmu nacionalnih interesa navedenih vodećih članica, time ograničavajući jedinstven strateški pristup Zajedničke spoljne i bezbednosne politike u odnosu na Iran. Unija se u svojoj politici prema Teheranu kretala po sinusoidnoj liniji, koristeći jačanje političkih i ekonomskih veza, ali i uvodeći oštre sankcije, kaznene mere i pretnje. Politika uslovljavanja, koja je formalno bila zasnovana na dvostrukom koloseku ("štapa i šargarepe") zapravo je u glavnim odrednicama pratila politiku transatlantskog saveznika, svodeći se u svojoj suštini na politiku zastrašivanja, obuzdavanja i konfrontacije teokratskom režimu u Teheranu. Kroz opis i objašnjenje uloge ključnih država članica Evropske unije u regionu Bliskog istoka pre formiranja Islamske Republike Iran, preko Islamske revolucije, Iransko-iračkog rata, evropske politike konstruktivnog i uslovljavanog angažovanja Teherana, sve do politike dvostrukih standarda u pregovorima oko ...

Polazeći od uverenja da u savremenom svetu postoji izuzetno visok nivo uzajamnezavisnosti država i regiona, odnosno nedeljivost bezbednosti na globalnom nivou,Republika Srbija se u svom delovanju na spoljnopolitičkom planu zalaže za afirmacijukoncepta kooperativne bezbednosti. Smatrajući da se razvijanjem procesa saradnje nabilateralnom i multilateralnom planu može znatno doprineti nacionalnojbezbednosti, zalaže se za jačanje uloge Ujedinjenih nacija kao svetske organizacije,dobijanje statusa članice Evropske unije i aktivno učešće u programu NATO"Partnerstvo za mir", uz stav o neutralnosti zemlje u odnosu na postojeće vojne saveze.Tokom prethodne decenije (naročito poslednjih nekoliko godina) evidentna jeekspanzija u pogledu upotrebe Vojske Srbije u multinacionalnim operacijama. Uzizuzetno povećanje broja angažovanih pripadnika Ministarstva odbrane i Vojske Srbije,proširen je i okvir delovanja – pored misija Ujedinjenih nacija naša zemlja učestvuje iu multinacionalnim operacijama Evropske unije.Kao jedan od osnivača Pokreta nesvrstanih zemalja, u uslovima blokovske podelesveta, Jugoslavija je među članicama Ujedinjenih nacija bila veoma zapažena zbog svogučešća u mirovnim misijama, čime je davala konkretan doprinos očuvanju mira u svetu.U izmenjenim međunarodnim okolnostima nakon "hladnog rata", priroda sukoba u svetuse bitno promenila (sa međudržavnog, težište sukoba je pomereno na nivo unutardržava), a samim tim i način njihovog rešavanja. Nastavljajući tradiciju učešća umirovnim operacijama Ujedinjenih nacija, naša zemlja daje znatan doprinos savremenimmultidimenzionalnim operacijama. ; Starting from the belief that there is a very high level of interdependence betweencountries and regions in the modern world, that is indivisibility of security at a global level, theRepublic of Serbia, acting on its foreign policy plan, advocates affirmation of cooperativesecurity concept. Considering the fact that development of cooperation at a bilateral andmultilateral level can significantly contribute to national security, it advocates strengthening ofthe role of the UN as the world organization, getting the status of the EU member and activeparticipation in the NATO programme "Partnership for Peace", taking into account the opinionon neutrality of the country in relation to the existing military alliances.During the previous decade (particularly the last couple of years) the expansion in termsof the Serbian Armed Forces engagement in multinational operations has been obvious. Inaddition to a significant increase in the number of the engaged Ministry of Defence and SerbianArmed Forces personnel, the engagement framework has been expanded – besides the UNmissions our country participates in the EU multinational operations, as well.As one of the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement, in the condition of the worlddivision into blocs, Yugoslavia was rather noticeable among the UN members due to itsparticipation in peacekeeping missions, thus giving a concrete contribution to peacekeeping inthe world. In the changed international circumstances after the Cold War, the nature of conflictsin the world has largely changed (the focus of conflicts has been transferred from intercountry toa level of intracountry conflicts), and the way of their resolution, as well. Following the traditionof participation in the UN peacekeeping operations, our country gives a significant contributionto contemporary multidimensional operations.

Starting from the belief that there is a very high level of interdependence between countries and regions in the modern world, that is indivisibility of security at a global level, the Republic of Serbia, acting on its foreign policy plan, advocates affirmation of cooperative security concept. Considering the fact that development of cooperation at a bilateral and multilateral level can significantly contribute to national security, it advocates strengthening of the role of the UN as the world organization, getting the status of the EU member and active participation in the NATO programme "Partnership for Peace", taking into account the opinion on neutrality of the country in relation to the existing military alliances. During the previous decade (particularly the last couple of years) the expansion in terms of the Serbian Armed Forces engagement in multinational operations has been obvious. In addition to a significant increase in the number of the engaged Ministry of Defence and Serbian Armed Forces personnel, the engagement framework has been expanded – besides the UN missions our country participates in the EU multinational operations, as well. As one of the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement, in the condition of the world division into blocs, Yugoslavia was rather noticeable among the UN members due to its participation in peacekeeping missions, thus giving a concrete contribution to peacekeeping in the world. In the changed international circumstances after the Cold War, the nature of conflicts in the world has largely changed (the focus of conflicts has been transferred from intercountry to a level of intracountry conflicts), and the way of their resolution, as well. Following the tradition of participation in the UN peacekeeping operations, our country gives a significant contribution to contemporary multidimensional operations. ; Полазећи од уверења да у савременом свету постоји изузетно висок ниво узајамне зависности држава и региона, односно недељивост безбедности на глобалном нивоу, Република Србија се у свом деловању на спољнополитичком плану залаже за афирмацију концепта кооперативне безбедности. Сматрајући да се развијањем процеса сарадње на билатералном и мултилатералном плану може знатно допринети националној безбедности, залаже се за јачање улоге Уједињених нација као светске организације, добијање статуса чланице Европске уније и активно учешће у програму НАТО "Партнерство за мир", уз став о неутралности земље у односу на постојеће војне савезе. Током претходне деценије (нарочито последњих неколико година) евидентна је експанзија у погледу употребе Војске Србије у мултинационалним операцијама. Уз изузетно повећање броја ангажованих припадника Министарства одбране и Војске Србије, проширен је и оквир деловања – поред мисија Уједињених нација наша земља учествује и у мултинационалним операцијама Европске уније. Као један од оснивача Покрета несврстаних земаља, у условима блоковске поделе света, Југославија је међу чланицама Уједињених нација била веома запажена због свог учешћа у мировним мисијама, чиме је давала конкретан допринос очувању мира у свету. У измењеним међународним околностима након "хладног рата", природа сукоба у свету се битно променила (са међудржавног, тежиште сукоба је померено на ниво унутар држава), а самим тим и начин њиховог решавања. Настављајући традицију учешћа у мировним операцијама Уједињених нација, наша земља даје знатан допринос савременим мултидимензионалним операцијама.