Suchergebnisse

Kant's concept of "perpetual peace" is the cornerstone of the rational human right that, in the form of international law, bears upon all states. However, the prerequisite for enduring international legal security & peace is that the internal affairs of states are based on constitutional & republican principles. Although Kant is clearly aware of the antinomies & paradoxes of a world league of states, he nevertheless postulates the ideal of a world league of republican states, since it corresponds to the general striving of nature & moral consciousness; such a league would guarantee a relatively peaceful coexistence among the states, based on international legal precepts. Hegel has often (& wrongfully) been accused of being an apologist of war; in fact, he only realized (having in mind the realities of sovereign national states) the inevitability of multilateral conflicts -- including military ones. His disproval of Kant's ideal of a league of states is based on his disbelief in the feasibility of supranational law, which should be superior to the absolute sovereignty of the state & keep an eye on & contain its partial interests. Adapted from the source document.

Historical precedents & a host of international documents -- from Daniel Webster's speech on the Caroline Affair of 1837 to the 1949 Geneva Convention & recent UN Security Council resolutions -- are perused to take a legal stand on the 1999 NATO intervention against Serbia to stop the Kosovo genocide. A distinction is made between humanitarian intervention, humanitarian relief action, & the right of a sovereign state to intervene abroad to protect the life of its citizens. It is opined that there is no international law granting states the right to take a military action on behalf of citizens of another state. However, a set of rules of action in exceptional circumstances sanctioning a military humanitarian intervention is established, outlining a scenario where such an intervention would be legal. It is pointed out that the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo met the criteria & satisfied the conditions necessary for a lawful humanitarian intervention, & the NATO military action should be viewed as such. Adapted from the source document.

Recent historical developments in the relationship between Croats & Serbs are discussed, referring to an article by V. Vujacic (Theory & Society, No. 6, 1996). The idea of an Illyrian & later a Yugoslav commonwealth of all South Slavs, originating in Croatia in the 19th century, had its legitimating psychological foundation in a "illusion of centrality," developed at the time by a part of the Croatian political & intellectual elite, a view of the preeminent position of Croatia & the Croats among all the Slav ethnic groups in the region &, therefore, of a natural central role of Croatia in the future commonwealth. In a similar way, the armed struggle of the Serbs for independence from the Ottoman empire in the 19th century & for the expansion of the Serbian State in the 19th & 20th century has generated a Serbian belief in the dominant role of Serbia & the Serbs in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, & Slovenes established in 1918, later Kingdom of Yugoslavia. These incompatible illusions are believed to be the roots of a number of political positions & decisions taken by both Croats & Serbs in the 20th century. The views of Max Weber on nationality & nationalism are discussed in relation to the problem of cooperation & conflict between Croats & Serbs in the 20th century. 6 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author explores the genesis & ranges of interstate cooperation within the scope of the Adriatic Charter of Partnership, signed in Tirana on May 2, 2003 by Republic of Albania, Republic of Croatia & FYR of Macedonia, & the United States of America. First three member states of the Adriatic Charter Group have been united in their common objective to become an integral part of the NATO. USA gives strong impetus to member states of the Group to implement all the criteria for the membership in NATO promoting the "Open Door" policy. The author analyses Charter of Partnership & evaluates results of the meetings of the Partnership Commission & other mechanisms for interstate co-operation. References. Adapted from the source document.

The paper provides a detailed overview of the existing relationship between the just war theory & international law. It stresses the fact that the two concepts were historically incompatible. The just War theory falls within ethics & appeals to superior principles that were not in accordance with the positivist law theory & the concept of sovereignty upon which public international law was founded. That incompatibility may at first seem as a paradox since the two concepts should be derived from a common base: the idea of justice. Further development of international law has clearly proved that law cannot be separated from the idea of justice & that is, to some extent, closely linked to some elements of natural law. The author concludes that in the domain of the use of force contemporary international law provides a legal frame, which is in accordance with the precepts of the just war theory. References. Adapted from the source document.

The author's starting assumption is that globalization institutionalizes new forms of governance, but that this does not diminish the significance of the national state. On the contrary, globalization forces the advanced industrial societies to find a new balance between calls for economic efficacy & expectations regarding social security. On the other hand, national states have avoided the impact of globalization primarily owing to the (1) institutional acclimatizing reserve of modern democracies, (2) development & application of new political governing instruments, & (3) intelligent usage of international cooperational pressures in favor of national political innovations. However, all this does not mean that the national state has gone through globalization unscathed. A new architecture of political governance has emerged, called by the author the transnational regimes of politics. They include, besides national states, international organizations such as the WTO, regional integrations (EU, NAFTA), as well as a variety of national & transnational interest groups & movements. The author concludes that the efficacy of the new forms of governance must not be overrated. Also, the basic problem today is the expansion of the areas lacking functional markets, successful national states, or global forms of governance. 45 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author looks into the problem of the sovereignty of the nation-state in the era of globalization. States have lost a number of their attributes & are no longer particularly efficient. Although states are still the primary actors in international relations, they have lost some of their sovereignty, functions & powers. International institutions now usurp the right to appraise & restrict what states do on their own territory. Despite this, in the near future the state is to remain the dominant political form in international relations. It still maintains an army, conducts diplomacy, negotiates agreements, wages wars, supervises international organizations & influences production & trade. The author points out that states are capable of adjusting to the imperatives of international political economy & claims that the state in the 2lst century will probably perform indispensable political social-economic functions since no other organization has emerged as its genuine rival able to replace it. 1 Table, 18 References. Adapted from the source document.

Mediterranean cooperation is addressed in the context of the creation of the Euromediterranean zone. The European Union has been developing various modes of cooperation with non-member Mediterranean countries by signing association agreements or cooperation agreements. The new European states, created after the disintegration of former socialist federations, demonstrate an interest in Mediterranean cooperation, though they tend to have different attitudes toward it. Their interest is based solely on the fact that Mediterranean cooperation has not been standardized & that it has a poorly developed institutional framework. This enables these countries to join in from time to time, when it suits their purposes. Regarding the role of the new states, the author distinguishes between two types of cooperation: (1) autonomous regional cooperation, which is not beneficial for the new states (eg, the Balkan states); & (2) occasional, specialized, dispersed cooperation, which might attract the countries of Central & Eastern Europe. Adapted from the source document.

The turmoils in international relations following the fall of the Berlin wall represented a serious challenge for the overall concept of European political unity. In its first international assignment outside the context of the Cold war, traditional national interests & animosities surfaced, & they demonstrated rather precisely all the complexity of the project promulgated by the Maastricht Agreement. At the time there was no common European approach to the solution of the crisis on the territory of the former Yugoslavia & no consent regarding the key issues, such as the recognition of the former Yugoslav republics as sovereign entities i.e. defining the criteria for their recognition. The paper focuses on this very specificity of the new approach to this problem, since it has increasingly been a subject of discretionary political decisions rather than the issue of international law in the traditional sense of meeting certain criteria for state recognition. & finally, concerning the degree of encroaching upon national sovereignty, there is a marked difference between the nature of the process of shaping a common foreign & security policy & shaping policies in other areas (e.g. transport, science & education, & so on). Also, the importance of developing an awareness of this difference as the main precondition for the realization of the project of the EU political integration is pointed out. References. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the genesis & the scenarios of the Kosovo crisis resolution, as well as the possible political reverberations of the NATO military intervention. The premise is that the Kosovo crisis is only a continuation of the break-up of the former Yugoslavia; Kosovo has for centuries been a separate entity largely populated by Albanians; the policy of Serbian nationalism has permanently discriminated against the Albanian population; & prior to the recent air strikes against Yugoslavia, Serbia had systematically led an ethnic-cleansing campaign on Kosovo. Although the author recognizes that support for the NATO military action can hardly be found in the tenets of the UN Charter, he argues that it can nevertheless be justified by international law. He points out that NATO's military campaign enjoyed the broad support of the people of NATO member countries, but that it has made a rift in the European Left. The new Left was in the forefront of the action, while the old, dogmatic, & sectarian Left found itself in the ranks of its most vocal opponents. The author claims that Milosevic, with his overall politics, & particularly his policy on Kosovo, had propelled the West into an action from which it could not extricate itself. He concludes that the consequences of Belgrade's defeat will be (1) the collapse of Milosevic's regime (the beginning of his end); (2) the final incapacitation of Milosevic's politics to create new conflicts; (3) the protectorate over Kosovo & its autonomy, with a factual independence from Serbia; (4) the independence of Montenegro; (5) Reinforcing the Dayton policy in Bosnia & Herzegovina (eliminating centrifugal tendencies); (6) the organized participation of the West in the transitional processes in this region (the pact on the stability of southeast Europe); & (7) bolstering the democratic & weakening the undemocratic tendencies in the region. Adapted from the source document.

Different parts of state territory on land, sea, & in the airspace are explained first. The concept of territorial sovereignty is envisaged through principles of its all-inclusiveness & its exclusivity, subject to many exceptions & restrictions imposed either by rules of general international law or by specific treaty obligations that can be assumed by a state. The concept of state servitudes was not assimilated in the practice of international courts & tribunals. Besides, it can be the cause of some misconceptions & confusion in public international law. Within the explanation of territorial boundaries are discussed the so-called natural boundaries -- such as rivers, lakes, & mountain boundaries -- as well as the artificial boundaries. An explanation of the principle of uti possidetis, of procedures of fixing boundaries, & of special legal scope of boundary treaties in international law is offered in conclusion. Adapted from the source document.