Suchergebnisse

The Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. Due to the veto power of the permanent members, lack of transparency and the recommendation of only one candidate, the appointment of the Secretary-General is basically a decision of the Security Council. UN member states, civil society organizations and schoolars point out the need for a more active role of the General Assembly during the appointment of the Secretary-General. Formation of the ad hoc working group for the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly raised this problem to a higher level. Current procedure of appointment of the Secretary-General was reasonable at the time of the adoption of the UN Charter. The circumstances of the 21st century require different solutions. The paper aims to show the necessity and possibilities of strengthening the role of the General Assembly in the process of appointment of the Secretary-General and obstacles existing in this regard. The long-term activities of the ad hoc working group for the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly gave positive results in terms of more active role of the General Assembly during the appointment of the Secretary General in 2016. The paper aims to show that the results achieved by the ad hoc working group are not long-term efficient. The most effective solution for strengthening the role of the General Assembly in the appointment of the Secretary-General is the revision of the UN Charter.

The development of the regional cooperation in South-Eastern Europe was at its lowest in comparison with other European regions. The changes occurring in the attitudes of the international community (through increased sensitivity and familiarity with the situation in the field and the new democratic advances of Croatia) are now creating favourable conditions for the development of the regional cooperation. It can be further fortified through international efforts, as well as through the international community's presence, since with its economic, political and even police/military resources it has enough instruments to support these developments. Within the emerging sintagm, "through cooperation to security", South-Eastern Europe is expected to commence its transformation of the relationships by developing different forms of useful cooperation which should lead to increased security and more peaceful coexistence. In such context, by means of regional cooperation, it is possible to attempt torging links with Europe and incorporating this region into the Euro- Atlantic integrations. (SOI : PM: S. 78)

Wars and suffering in the 20th century, mostly the consequences of ethnic and religious antagonisms, have been typical for Europe's southeast. That is why the ethnic aspects of security are central to the understanding of the totality of this region's security, particularly in the 21st century. The security of southeast Europe can be analyzed using realistic, idealistic and neo-realistic approaches to contemporary security as its starting point. The security of this region is affected by the internal circumstances of the region's states and by the economic situation and inter-ethnic relations in particular. Similarly, significant influence is exerted by the relations among the states and nations living there as well as by the ethnic-based conflicts which are the outcomes of these relations. A series of problems caused by the east-European transformations includes the unresolved ethnic and minority issues. That is why no southeastern European state today has worked out the issue of the relations with its neighbors. This part of Europe is to remain a volatile region, fraught with economic difficulties and crises, nationalisms and xenophobia. In such circumstances, with the open sores of simmering ethnic feuds and the specter of various nationalisms, is it realistic to expect rational politics which is supposed to lead the countries of southeastern Europe towards the united Europe? This is the question the answer to which is sought not only by this region's states but also by the leading European states and the USA. (SOI : PM: S. 78)

Following the disintegration of the socialist system in Europe and the end of the bloc-based relations, American politics has changed the course of its operation. In present-day circumstances, Southeastern Europe is becoming increasingly prominent in American foreign-policy projections, particularly during Clinton's administration. Clinton has defined a clear-cut policy towards Europe's southeast due to its vicinity to certain neuralgic points of American engagement (Near East, the Caspian region, the Gulf, eastern Mediterranean). In this way American politics has proved its leading global role. At the time of scarcity of foreign-policy events, Clinton's team has thus been served on a platter a major foreign-policy arena, in which its engagement - which has all the symptoms of a long-lasting one - has not proved too costly. (SOI : PM: S. 20)

The author looks into the concept of the "smal1 nation" and whether it is high time for its scientific or linguistic revision. If "small nations" are a qualitative category, why define them quantitatively as "small"? Small nations gained independence in two waves: between the German-French war (1870-1871) and the end of World War One, and after the close of the "cold war" in 1990. However, not all small nations gained independence (e.g. Basques, Catalonians, Bretons, etc.). They pose a major challenge for Western Europe. The example of Croatia and its relationship with Serbs serves to illustrate the vacillations in the European ideology and attitudes towards small nations. The pressures exerted on the Croatian state regarding the political attitude of the Croatian people towards small nations did not stem from the logic of globalist economism or neoliberal political doctrine but were the.consequence of the war which the mother country Serbia of the Serbs in Croatia waged with the aim of annexing the territories on which they were a majority population. (SOI : PM: S. 98)

From the very beginning the steps towards unification of European countries have been founded on the personal incentives of politicians, but not on broad democratic agreement of the people. That method has never been abandoned: even the huge administrative apparatus in Brussels that makes important decisions without any democratic control could be seen as natural consequence of such praxis. It is just because of such political behaviour where important political documents and decisions are made out of the eyes of the public, which the great political incentives, such as referendum on the European Constitution, have failed. If we ask ourselves where it has gone wrong the possible answer is that EU has been made according the needs of the rich and mighty countries. The states that are located on the periphery of EU have no political influence on the main decisions, and cannot decide about their own economic development. They are simply forced to adapt ourselves to the interests of the most advanced. But the protests all over EU show that the general economic concept of the EU is wrong and that it will generate crises in the long run.