Suchergebnisse

Thucydides is considered to be the founder of political realism. Even in those times he determined the basic premises of realism - security and survival. He made an impact on subsequent development of realism embodied in the works of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Morgenthau, Car, Niebuhr, Aaron, Waltz etc. They will call the system of international relations as anarchical one since there is no supreme arbitrator which will force states to adequate behaviour. His views of realism were given in the volume 'The Peloponnesian War' where he had determined the anarchy of the relationships among states. Such system did not rely on justice and morale, but force and power were the predominant facts. He also introduces the category of just wars by claiming that Sparta led a just war against the increased power of Athens, and observed morale principles. Nevertheless, Thucydides faces contradictory, since Sparta itself as the largest land force of that time had to use force in order to beat Athens. He went ahead since he considered force and power as a necessary condition to achieve other objectives, which was later on adopted by Raymond Aaron. Following the example of the war between Athens and Sparta, he successfully analysed bipolar system of balance of power in which the conflict between the leading members of the two opposite blocks was possible in the end, while beforehand there should have been conflicts among weaker members of both blocks. Thucydides explained the manifestation of force and power using example of the Melian dialogue between the envoys of Athens and Melos. It was about the pure politics of force of Athens regardless of the fact that Melos had its independence.

United States participation in international politics during the period between the two world wars, come not only from the general and often declarative interest in peace, but was also a consequence of extremely rapid expansion of their foreign trade and overseas capital investments. It was a period of intense financial diplomacy, when efforts to maintain the gold standard, to determine the amount of reparations and the manner of payment of war debts, brought confusion not only in relations between victors and vanquished, but also in relations between the United States and its former European allies. Abandonment of the gold standard and the creation of the tripartite agreement between the United States, Britain and France, in the 1936, was a milestone in the development of international monetary cooperation and the role of United States in international economic relations. .

International police and other cooperation is a necessity of the modern world and imperative for the survival of human civilization. The goal of cooperation is that states and the international community unite in opposing crime as the greatest peacetime evil in the world. This is particularly in relation to organized crime, terrorism, and corruption and other most serious forms of crime in contemporary society. Cooperation takes place at the bilateral, regional and multilateral levels. Bilateral cooperation mainly has a trans-border character of neighboring countries, while the regional cooperation between states within certain areas such as the SEE region (Western Balkan) or Europe (e.g. Europol). Multilateral cooperation is mainly on a broader level, e.g. in the field of combating terrorism or through universal organizations (e.g. Interpol). International police cooperation in Europe has a long tradition. One part takes place today in this area through the OSCE, with the caveat that this is a global organization that deals with security issues. The Council of Europe is the next organization through which co-operation began in the past and is partly carried out to this day, given that it brings all European countries together (except Belarus). Cooperation is more intensive still throughout the European Union, its forerunners, the current forms of the organization and present mechanisms (EAW- European surrender and arrest warrant).53 The cooperation in the EU, that takes place through Europol as a specialized agency of the Union is especially current, but with minimal operational competencies. In the SEE region, a significant cooperation between countries of the former Yugoslavia and countries in its neighborhood has been achieved. This cooperation is not only based on bilateral and multilateral acts, but primarily regional documents of which the most important are the International Convention on Police Cooperation in SEE and SELEC Convention. According to these and other acts, all the countries in the region have taken part in regional cooperation, since the fight against crime is the common interest of all. This applies in particular to organized crime, terrorism, corruption and other most serious forms of crime. Extremely important shapes, forms and mechanisms of international police cooperation are: exchange of information, joint investigation teams, joint operational actions, liaison officers, contact points, regional centers for police and customs cooperation, joint police stations and others. To recap, international police cooperation in the world today is an expression of anti-criminal solidarity between states and its prospects are clear, because the danger of crime is global and requires a harmonized response at the international level.

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.