Suchergebnisse

A 20. század második felének bipoláris hatalma struktúráját (Amerikai Egyesült Államok versus Szovjetunió) követően a 21.században a két hagyományos nagyhatalom mellett egy újabb globális geopolitikai és geoökonómiai nagyhatalom is megjelent Kína gazdasági és katonai előtörésével. Az Amerikai Egyesült Államok vezető szerepe ugyanakkor (egyelőre) megkérdőjelezhetetlen, de Kína gazdaságilag tíz éven belül beérheti, Oroszország ásványkincs vagyona (földgáz, kőolaj) pedig függőségét jelent számos gazdasági hatalom számára. A három globális geopolitikai hatalom egymás közötti, bilaterális gazdasági és kereskedelmi kapcsolatai az elmúlt évtizedben nagyon heterogén módon alakultak: az amerikai-orosz relációban lineárisan csökkenő, az amerikai-kínai relációban jelentősen növekvő, majd a kereskedelmi háborúnak köszönhetően (talán átmenetileg) megtorpanó és csökkenő, az orosz-kínai relációban pedig folyamatosan növekvő trend figyelhető meg az elmúlt évtizedben. Az Oroszország által életre hívott gazdasági és kereskedelmi kezdeményezés a Szovjetunió felbomlását követő integrációs törekvések folytatása, az Eurázsiai Gazdasági Unió az elmúlt öt évben sikereket tud felmutatni, azonban már rövid távon is jelentős kihívásokkal néz szembe és kérdéses a további fejlődése. Előre tekintve új globális kockázati tényezők jelentek meg, melyek közül a legaktuálisabb és legnagyobb hatású a koronavírus járvány világszintű megjelenése és elterjedése. A globális szereplők egészségügyi és gazdasági járvány adott válasz lépései mind sebességet, mind mélységet tekintve heterogén képet mutatnak. Kérdés, hogy a jelenleg még mélyülő globális gazdasági válság a nemzetállamok szerepét fogja-e felerősíteni vagy új szövetségek jönnek létre a világban. Izgalmas, fordulatokkal teli évek következnek a globális geopolitikai színtéren, ahol a status quo megváltozása várható, új hatalmi központok jöhetnek létre, régi szövetségi rendszerek szűnhetnek meg illetve újak alakulhatnak ki, melyek a jelenlegi tripoláris világrendet alapjaiban változtathatják meg. Following the structure of bipolar power in the second half of the 20th century (United States versus the Soviet Union), in the 21st century, in addition to the two traditional superpowers, another global geopolitical and geoeconomic superpower emerged with the economic and military outbreak of China. At the same time, the leadership of the United States of America (for the time being) is unquestionable, but China can reach the nominal GDP of the US within ten years and still many economic powers depend on Russia's mineral wealth (natural gas, oil). Bilateral economic and trade relations between the three global geopolitical powers have evolved in a very heterogeneous manner over the last decade: linearly declining in the US-Russian relationship, significantly increasing in the US-China relationship, and then (possibly temporarily) due to the trade war stagnant and declining, and the Russian-Chinese relationship has been steadily increasing over the last decade. The economic and trade initiative launched by Russia is a continuation of the integration efforts following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the Eurasian Economic Union has been successful over the last five years, but it faces significant challenges in the short term and its further development is questionable. Looking ahead, new global risk factors have emerged, the most relevant and influential of which is the global emergence and spread of the coronavirus epidemic. The response of global actors to the health and economic epidemic shows a heterogeneous picture in terms of both speed and depth. The question is whether the global economic crisis, which is currently deepening, will strengthen the role of nation-states or create new alliances in the world. Exciting, turbulent years will follow on the global geopolitical scene, where the status quo is expected to change, new centers of power may emerge, old federal systems may disband, and new ones may be formed that can fundamentally change the current tripolar world order.

In recent decades, the United States has increasingly used the means of economic warfare in its geopolitical struggles. Among these instruments – in addition to the financial markets – it most often launches geoeconomic attacks in the oil market against its geopolitical adversaries. The United States can cause significant economic damage both for oil exporter (eg. Iran, Venezuela) and oil importer (eg. Cuba, North Korea) countries by restricting their access to oil markets.This paper analyzes the economic warfare in the oil market between the United States and Iran, Russia, and North Korea. Through these examples this paper demonstrates how the United States organizes and executes geoeconomic attacks in the oil market and how it handles country-specific problems. The United States has the means to organize broad international coalition alongside the oil market sanctions – even in the lack of UN Security Council resolutions.United Nations has decided on a number of economic sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear program. These sanctions reduced the supply in the world oil market and resulted in about 10-20% price increase, while Iran – despite of the sanctions – found the way to sell significant amount of oil, mainly to China and India.Russia is a member of the UN Security Council, so no UN sanctions can be imposed on it, nevertheless the United States and its allies launched a geoeconomics assault against Russia after the annexation of the Crimea. Russia was prepared for these economic sanctions and could effectively reduce the negative effects on its oil export, which could even increase after the western sanctions. North Korea is under UN sanctions since 2006 because of its nuclear program. The sanctions refer to oil and oil products as well, but has no significant effect on world oil market and oil price, because North Korea is a relatively small country with low oil consumption.North Korea is suffering a huge economic burden due to severe restrictions and its only way to circumvent the embargo – according to American accusations – is to smuggle some oil from China and Russia. ; In recent decades, the United States has increasingly used the means of economic warfare in its geopolitical struggles. Among these instruments – in addition to the financial markets – it most often launches geoeconomic attacks in the oil market against its geopolitical adversaries. The United States can cause significant economic damage both for oil exporter (eg. Iran, Venezuela) and oil importer (eg. Cuba, North Korea) countries by restricting their access to oil markets.This paper analyzes the economic warfare in the oil market between the United States and Iran, Russia, and North Korea. Through these examples this paper demonstrates how the United States organizes and executes geoeconomic attacks in the oil market and how it handles country-specific problems. The United States has the means to organize broad international coalition alongside the oil market sanctions – even in the lack of UN Security Council resolutions.United Nations has decided on a number of economic sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear program. These sanctions reduced the supply in the world oil market and resulted in about 10-20% price increase, while Iran – despite of the sanctions – found the way to sell significant amount of oil, mainly to China and India.Russia is a member of the UN Security Council, so no UN sanctions can be imposed on it, nevertheless the United States and its allies launched a geoeconomics assault against Russia after the annexation of the Crimea. Russia was prepared for these economic sanctions and could effectively reduce the negative effects on its oil export, which could even increase after the western sanctions. North Korea is under UN sanctions since 2006 because of its nuclear program. The sanctions refer to oil and oil products as well, but has no significant effect on world oil market and oil price, because North Korea is a relatively small country with low oil consumption.North Korea is suffering a huge economic burden due to severe restrictions and its only way to circumvent the embargo – according to American accusations – is to smuggle some oil from China and Russia.

Administrative procedures, as well as public bodies that carry out these procedures, ought to perform functions related to the application of administrative law in a constantly changing social, economic, and political environment. This presents them with new challenges and expectations time and time again. According to the findings of the this study, the relation of transparency and administrative procedures – which could be described as a type of historically rooted but, at the same time, contemporary expectation towards public administration – fits in the above concept. The study attempts to interpret and define the concept of transparency on the basis of the terminology used by international organisations in the field of the examination of administrative procedures, and thus to highlight the issues, divergences and their causes.

Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Nations in alliance

Apart from the relation between the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen and the other realms of the Habsburg Empire, the primary issue of the 1860s Hungary and Transylvania to handle was the nationality equality — accordingly, the recognitions of a nation and the language policy. As soon as the national question came into view, both the Hungarian and non-Hungarian political élites formulated their outlines on how to adjust regulations, intended to be epoch-making, regarding the national and language affairs, while the emperor temporarily coordinated the case with royal decrees until the definitive Nationality Act of 1868. The Act and its preceding drafts administered many domains regarding all branches of power, with the special role of the declaration of nations, namely the recognition of such as a legal entity, a juridicial person, which would (have) allow(ed) further entitled rights, deriving from a declaration in the era. The Hungarian and non-Hungarian acts and drafts examined in the study show decisive discrepancies regarding the number of nation(alitie)s recognized as legal entities, how the minorities were defined, and what concept of a nation each draft laid down. In my study, I examine the dissimilarities of the 5 draft plans (and the Act) made by the Hungarian élite, 8 draft plans (and acts of the 1863—1864 national assembly of Transylvania) related to the nationality political élite, draft plans and royal decrees associated to the emperor and the Royal Hungarian Lieutenancy, and a joint independence opposition — nationality draft plan.