Suchergebnisse

Članak je usredotočen na djelovanje međunarodnih organizacija u postkonfliktnim i nestabilnim državama s posebnim prikazom njihove uloge u BiH. Od sredine 1990-ih međunarodne organizacije – kao što su UN, NATO, EU i OESS – angažirane su u BiH u procesu izgradnje države i transformiranja podijeljenoga društva u gospodarski i politički održivu državu. Iako su, uz podršku svih istaknutijih europskih država i SAD-a, međunarodne organizacije postale važan činitelj u slaboj i nefunkcionalnoj državi, njihovo uplitanje nije proizvelo očekivane rezultate. ; The paper is focused on activities of international organizations in postconflict and unstable countries with a special overview of their role in BiH. Since 1990 international organizations – such as UN, NATO, EU and OESS – have been engaged in BiH in the process of building the country and transforming a divided society into economically and politically sustainable country. Although international organizations became an important factor in the weak and non-functional country with the support of all eminent European countries and the USA, their interference has not produced expected results.

In this article, the author analyzes the International Relations (IR) liberal theory and its "interdependence" paradigm. The first part presents the liberal "interdependence" paradigm by defining the state and power as the key elements of every political science analysis, including the IR theory. The second part overviews the academic critique of the IR liberalism, as a methodologically outdated and historically disputed theory. Finally, the third part focuses on the contemporary "interdependence" paradigm as crucial for understanding the current international processes in the global society. The goal of this article is to present the reevaluation of the contemporary IR liberal theory in the "real world politics", and indicate the possible directions of its ongoing theoretic development. Adapted from the source document.

Završetkom Hladnog rata otvorio se prostor za razvoj odnosa u međunarodnoj zajednici koji pogoduju stvaranju globalnog partnerstva. Iako članak 5. ostaje brand Saveza, nužno je moderniziranje odnosa na relaciji SAD – EU, kao i s ostalim važnim čimbenicima međunarodnih odnosa poput UN-a, OESS-a, Rusije, ali i Kine. Kako su se mijenjali međunarodni odnosi, tako je i Sjevernoatlantski savez tijekom desetljeća svog postojanja prošao različite faze razvoja – od Hladnog rata do pokušaja stvaranja globalnog partnerstva. Djelujući globalno, nameće se potreba za jasnijim definiranjem legitimnosti operacija izvan prostora država članica sukladno međunarodnom pravu. U tom smislu članci 4. i 7. Ugovora dobivaju posebno značenje. Zapravo, imajući u vidu jedinu preostalu misiju tzv. tradicionalnog Saveza u Europi, Lisabonski samit predstavlja velik korak u pravcu završetka NATO-ove vlastite posthladnoratovske tranzicije, ali i doprinos daljnjem procesu izgradnje mira i povjerenja u Jugoistočnoj Europi. ; The end of the Cold War opened the space for developing new relationships in the international community that are conducive to creating global partnerships. Although Article 5 remains the brand of NATO, it is necessary to modernize the relationship between the U.S. and the EU as well as with other important actors in international relations such as the UN, OSCE, Russia and China. With changed international relations through past sixty years, the North Atlantic Alliance has changed itself simultaneously over decades. The Alliance passed through different stages of its own development – from the Cold War era to attempting to create a global partnership. Acting globally, there is a need for defining the legitimate operations outside the territory of Member States under International law. In this sense, Articles 4 and 7 have a special meaning. In fact, bearing in mind the mission of "old" and traditional NATO, the Lisbon Summit represents a major step toward completion of NATO's post-Cold War transition, but also contributes to the process of building long-lasting peace and confidence in Southeast Europe.

This paper discusses the dilemmas regarding the nature of the European Union in contemporary political science and in the field of European Studies as a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary field. The first part focuses on the evolution of the European Union from the original European Coal and Steel Community, via the European Economic Community, to its growth into a political union. The Maastricht Treaty, which lay the foundations of the European Union as a political union of its member states, instigated a debate on the actual nature of this supranational union as political construct. Consequently, the author analyses the various characteristics of the European Union, which is manifest in various forms, and asserts that it has some "state-like features" and some "organisation-like features", which are characteristic of international organizations. In the approach to the European Union as a supra-state community, some essential traits of both federation and confederation are simultaneously manifest, corresponding to two tendencies in the development of the European Union as a super-state. Moreover, there is the conception of the European Union as an empire. Finally, this paper specifies the tasks of present-day political science and the need to find a new heuristic instrument, which, according to the author, can be found in the conception of the political system that was introduced in political science (comparative politics) by Gabriel Almond and David Easton. Such an approach, which is nowadays further developed by Jean-Pierre Quermonne, Wolfgang Wessels and Simon Hix, is additionally strengthened by the fact that various models of democratic practice are being incorporated in the European Union in opposition to the basic, legitimacy-related democratic deficit, models which confirm the possible conclusion regarding a European Union as a complex community with many faces. Adapted from the source document.

The main proposition of this paper is that the Croatian legal framework for higher education fails to meet the criteria of the internal market of the EU. In the first part, the author draws a distinction between education as public good and education as service, and explains how EU law affects the regulatory autonomy of the Member States in the area of higher education. In the second part, the author analyses hitherto identified barriers to the exercise of market freedoms created by national legal frameworks of higher education. The third part discusses the Croatian legal framework and tests it against EU standards. The author concludes that deficiencies of Croatian higher education law are partly caused by the ignorance of policy makers and partly by the structural weakness of the negotiating process, where chapters are negotiated independently from one another and focused on formal fulfilment of benchmarks. Adapted from the source document.