Suchergebnisse

In this paper the author points out to the importance of main organizations for establishing of international peace and security. They are the following: League of Nations, United Nations, Organizations of European Security and Co-operation, Conference of European Security and Co-operation, European Council, West European Union and NATO. Until the end of the Cold war, the universal organizations have played primordial role, but after the mentioned period the regional ones took the lead. The reason lies in the shift in balance of power - from bipolar to unipolar. The League of Nations and CESC can be observed from the historic perspective. NATO and UN played a crucial role during the internationalization of Kosovo issue and the act of intervention itself. NATO demonstrated its power and proved in the absence of real balance of power, la force l'emporte sur le droit. On the other hand, UN had passed several resolutions that condemned violence in Kosovo and Metohia (1160, 1199 and 1203 - all passed in 1998). During 1999 Security Council had passed a famous Resolution 1244, by which it was decided a civic and military mission should be established in Kosovo and Metohia - UNMIK and KFOR KFOR dealt with security issues in order to ensure the respect of it to all nationalities in Kosovo and Metohia. UNMIK set a very ambitious task lying ahead trying to establish standards before the future status. Realizing that it would be impossible to reach the standards, UNMIK started with the policy of status determination without standards establishing. The outcome of such policy is Ahtissari's Plan for supervised Independence of Kosovo, and finally the Declaration of Self-proclaimed Independence of Kosovo. We are also witnessing the transfer of horizontal and vertical effective state authorizations to the mentioned international organizations, bearing in mind problems it encounters. NATO deals with security issues, but European Union being unable to deal with such tasks (ESDP policy is to be as attempt), is more concentrated on economic issues.

This article presents results of the research in contemporary trends of international economic inequality. The author argues that international economic inequality is a bidirectional and complex concept. The bidirectionality and complexity of the concept is reflected in the fact that there are countries that concurrently converge to or diverge from the most developed countries in terms of their economic development. The key finding presented here is the rise of economic inequality between countries, especially between the poorest and the richest countries. The exceptions are some countries that have made significant progress in the period from 2000 to 2014 in reducing the economic inequality in comparison to the richest countries. The most important factors that have contributed to their progress are distinctive economic institutions and development policies of those countries, as well as the effects of the financial crisis since 2007-2008, which caused a decade-long stagnation in the most developed parts of the world. ; Rad je posvećen istraživanju savremenih trendova međunarodne ekonomske nejednakosti. Namera autora u ovom radu jeste da ukaže da je međunarodna ekonomska nejednakost dvosmeran i složen koncept. Dvosmernost i složenost tog koncepta se ogleda u činjenici da istovremeno postoje zemlje koje se u pogledu razvoja udaljavaju ili približavaju najrazvijenijim državama. Ključni zaključak rada jeste da ekonomska nejednakost između država raste, posebno između najsiromašnijih i najbogatijih država. Izuzetak su pojedine zemlje koje su u periodu od 2000. do 2014. godine učinile značajan iskorak u smanjenju ekonomske nejednakosti u usporedbi sa najbogatijim državama. Najvažnije faktore koji su doprineli tom napretku čine osobene ekonomske institucije i razvojne politike tih država, kao i finansijske krize i višedecenijska stagnacija u najrazvijenijim delovima sveta.

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.

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.