Suchergebnisse

THE ATTITUDE OF THE UNITED STATES TOWARDS THE BORDER DISPUTE BETWEEN ITALY AND YUGOSLAVIA AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 50s OF THE 20TH CENTURYFollowing the II World War, Italy and Yugoslavia occupied a special place in the foreign policy of the United States. The border dispute between Italy and Yugoslavia which dated back to the turn of the 40s and the beginning of the 50s of the 20th c., was yet another example of the international crisis in Europe at the time of the cold war. The article presents the activities of the American politicians undertaken towards Italy and Yugoslavia which aimed at incorporating these countries into the structures of Western European democracy. In the case of Italy, the above initiative of the American diplomacy proved to be successful and it led to the entry of the Italian republic into NATO, as well as the European economic and political structures. In the case of the other party participating in the dispute over Triest, i.e. Yugoslavia, the American presidents Truman and Eisenhower tried to take advantage of the crisis in the Yugoslav-Soviet relations, so as to win over marshal Tito and make him cooperate. Having decided to make concessions towards Yugoslavia with regard to the territorial claims made by marshal Tito, the Americans wished to achieve the superior goal: namely that of weakening the Socialist bloc by detaching Yugoslavia from it and making it join the West. The author evaluates the American policy towards Italy and Yugoslavia whose background was a territorial dispute over borderline territories. The main actors on the American political scene were forced to make some very difficult and delicate choices with regard to both parties participating in the above conflict.

This article presents the main ideas of constitutional reform, governments in Italy over the last thirty years. "Blocked Italian democracy" was looking for ways of overcoming the legal framework. Conceived the idea of the great constitutional reform in the late seventies. There are three main ways of that reform: 1) the establishment of the Constituent Assembly, 2) creating a bicameral committee on constitutional reform, 3) by art.138 of the Constitution for its revision. The first solution only enjoyed the support of the right of the political scene. But failed to establish three committees for the bicameral constitutional reform: in the years 1983–1985 A. Bozziego Commission, in 1992–1994 the Commission C. De Mita and N. Iotti, in 1997, the Commission M. D'Alema. Presented by reform projects have failed due to lack of agreement between the main political forces. Thus, the third way of constitutional reform became Article 138 of the Constitution. However, in cases where an amendment has been approved only by an absolute majority of both houses of parliament, it can be put to the vote in a referendum on ratification. Twice held such a constitutional referendum, once on the center-left proposals 7 October 2001 year, the second time against the center-right approach June 25–26, 2006. The last referendum did not obtain public support. So it seems that the idea of the great constitutional reform has failed to deep divisions between the main political parties.

The Second World War brought significant political changes to European monarchies. Immediately after the war, six kingdoms ceased to exist and became republics. This concerned Eastern European countries in the Soviet sphere of influence, as well as Italy, where Victor Emmanuel III had to pay for years of cooperation with the fascist regime. Before the outbreak of the war, at least three European monarchies had considerable power, holding the most important prerogatives in their hands: this was the case in Romania, Bulgaria and Albania. Such a political model failed to survive the war, as after 1945 the kings and princes of the Old Continent only "reigned, but did not rule" (only Louis II, Prince of Monaco kept a stronger position until the end of the 1950s). It used to happen during the war that in countries with an established parliamentary system the monarch played a greater role than during the years of peace (the most prominent example being Wilhelmina, the Queen of the Netherlands). The article also presents other issues important to the royal authority – the functioning of monarchs in exile, the threat to their lives, the exercise of sovereignty (usually only in a ceremonial capacity) over the armed forces, and abdications forced by the circumstances. ; Druga wojna światowa przyniosła europejskim monarchiom poważne zmiany ustrojowe. Bezpośrednio po wojnie sześć królestw przestało istnieć, stały się republikami. Dotyczyło to państw Europy Wschodniej, które znalazły się w radzieckiej strefie wpływów, a także Włoch, gdzie Wiktorowi Emanuelowi III przyszło zapłacić za lata współpracy z faszystami. Przed wybuchem wojny przynajmniej w trzech europejskich monarchiach władca posiadał istotną władzę, skupiając w swych rękach najważniejsze uprawnienia – tak było w Rumunii, Bułgarii i Albanii. Taki model ustrojowy nie przetrwał wojny, po 1945 r. królowie i książęta Starego Kontynentu jedynie "panowali, ale nie rządzili" (silniejszą pozycję do końca lat 50. zachował tylko panujący w Monako Ludwik II). W okresie wojny zdarzało się, że w państwach o ugruntowanym już systemie parlamentarnym władca odgrywał rolę większą niż w latach pokoju (najlepszym przykładem może być holenderska Wilhelmina). W artykule przedstawiono też inne zagadnienia ważne dla władzy królewskiej: funkcjonowanie monarchów na uchodźstwie, zagrożenie ich życia, wykonywanie – zazwyczaj jedynie reprezentacyjne – zwierzchnictwa nad siłami zbrojnymi, a także wymuszone okolicznościami abdykacje.