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.
Европска унија представља по много чему специфичну међународну организацију. Њено основно и препознатљиво обележје је наднационалност у креирању и спровођењу јавних политика. Настала удруживањем ресурса угља и челика брзо је прерасла у зону слободне трговине и сарадњу држава чланица у питањима као што је атомска енергије. Европска интеграција од свог почетка до данас зна искључиво за проширење чланства и повећање броја области сарадње на добровољној основи. Да ли ће међународне околности у којима се ЕУ налази данас и односи са другим међународним организацијама одбрамбеног карактера допринети већој интеграцији држава чланица ЕУ у домену одбране основна је тема овог рада. Трагање за различитим сценаријима развоја заједничке безбедносне политике ЕУ зависи пре свега од међународне институционалне и безбедносне архитектуре у Европи и свету, историјско политичких трендова у развоју европске интеграције, правног оквира ЕУ и међународног стратегијског окружења. Савремене међународне организације, посебно оне са преовлађујућим обележјима наднационалности (у конкретном случају ЕУ) имају тенденцију да у области одбране и безбедности комбинују наднационална обележја са међувладиним у покушају да што ефективније искористе структуру организације за остваривање њених циљева и интереса, али без већег преноса надлежности са држава чланица на саму организацију. ; The European Union represents in many ways a specific international organization. Its basic and recognizable feature is that of supranational policy and decision making. It was created by pooling the resources of coal and steel which had quickly developed into a free trade zone and ever closer Union in many policy areas. European integration from its inception to the present days was all about expanding membership and increasing the number of areas of cooperation. Namely widening and deepening of the EU was on the agenda. Will the current international circumstances and relations with other international defense organizations contribute to deepening integration in the field of defense is to be researched in this work. Search for different scenarios in the development of EU Common Security and Defense policy depends primarily on the international institutional and security architecture in Europe and the world, the historical political trends in the development of European integration, the EU legal framework and international strategic environment. Contemporary international organizations, especially those with the prevailing supranational characteristics (in this case the EU) tend to combine intergovernmental and supranational approach in the area of defense and security in an effort to more effectively utilize the structure of the organization for the realization of its goals and interests, but without significant transfer of powers from Member States on the organization itself. The main goals and interests of the EU integration in the field of defense and security are to (1) ensure durable and everlasting peace among member states, (2) to address common security challenges, risks and threats autonomously or in cooperation with other States and/or international organizations, (3) pool and share resources leading to more effective achievement of military economic interests, mainly through the development and transfer of military technology and equipment. In addition to the mentioned goals and interests, (4) particular interests of the Member States would be to improve their own political, economic and military performance. EU Integration in the field of defense, may rest in the future on (1) the current state of integration (status quo), (2) progress in areas that are not conflicting with the individual interests of key actors in the European arena (3) the deepening of integration leading to progressive framing of common defense policy with an ultimate goal to establish common defense. (4) The fourth model is possible and has been seen in the other EU policy areas.
Pitanje prava drzava na samoodbranu je jedno od fundamentalnih pitanja medjunarodnog javnog prava. Ovo nacelo koji postoji koliko i samo medjunarodno pravo, formulisano je na univerzalan nacin sredinom proslog vijeka, i postoje mnogi pisani radovi o njegovoj izradi i tumacenju. Pozivanje na samoodbranu kroz cijelu istoriju je koristeno kao opravdanje za zloupotrebu sile od strane drzava van svojih teritorija. ; Question of right of states to self-defense is one of the fundamental questions of public international law. This principle, which exists just as long as public international law does, was formulated in universal manner by the mid 20th century and there are many written works on its formulation and interpretation. Invoking self-defense during the course of history was used as a pretext for the use of force by the states outside of its territories. Right of states to self-defense originates from customary international law. During antic and medieval times, principle of self-defense was linked to the theory of just war which was differently interpreted in different times. In the period between two world wars, still there was no absolute prohibition of the use of force in international relations so the principle of self-defense was linked to the right of self-help through use of different forcible measures: retorsions, reprisals, naval blockade, intervention and demonstration of naval power. Contrary to the period of League of Nations, mechanism of implementation of international law was centralized by the foundation of the United Nations because a single body – Security Council – was entrusted with the authority to determine when the use of force is allowed in international law. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter defines that the states have a right to individual or collective self-defense in case of armed attack on the UN member state. This right is considered legitimate until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
U radu su predstavljeni rezultati kvalitativne analize i komparacije relevantnih sadržaja ključnih obrazovno-političkih dokumenata međunarodnih i evropskih organizacija (UNESCO, OECD, Savet Evrope i Evropska Unija) iz dva perioda razvoja koncepta celoživotnog učenja koji se odnose na nastavnike. Rezultati kvalitativnog istraživanja su prikazani kroz sledeće kategorije: uloga i funkcije nastavnika, selekcija budućih nastavnika, inicijalno i kontinuirano obrazovanje nastavnika, odnos nastavnik–učenik, timski rad, pomoć nastavnicima, status i uslovi rada nastavnika, istraživački rad i mobilnost nastavnika, kao i međunarodna saradnja. Analiza i komparacija sadržaja međunarodnih i evropskih dokumenata prve faze (sredina šezdesetih i kraj sedamdesetih godina 20. veka) pokazala je da dokumenti Saveta Evrope i UNESCO-a opširno i na vrlo sličan način govore o tome šta i kako treba promeniti i/ili ponovo uspostaviti kad su u pitanju nastavnici, njihova uloga, obrazovanje i položaj kako bi celoživotno učenje postalo stvarnost. Za razliku od toga, u dokumentu OECD-a nije data veća pažnja ulozi nastavnika u realizovanju celoživotnog učenja. U drugoj fazi (sredina devedesetih godina 20. veka) razvoja koncepta celoživotnog učenja dokumenti UNESCO-a i OECD-a opširno i detaljno razmatraju pitanje nastavnika, dok se u dokumentu Evropske Unije samo konstatuje da će nastavnici imati središnju ulogu u društvu koje uči. Na kraju rada je istaknuto da je analiza i upoređivanje međunarodnih i evropskih dokumenata pokazala da su nastavnici jedan od najvažnijih elemenata politike celoživotnog učenja i da je, stoga, nužno planirati i organizovati celoživotno obrazovanje i učenje nastavnika kako bi oni mogli da podstiču i osposobljavaju učenike za celoživotno učenje. ; This paper presents results of the qualitative analysis and comparison of the content of key educational policy documents of the International and European organizations (UNESCO, OECD, Council of Europe and European Union) from two developmental stages of the lifelong learning concept with regard to the teachers. Results of the qualitative research have been presented within the following categories: role and function of teachers, selection of teacher candidates, initial and continuing training of teachers, teacher-student relation, team work, assisting teachers, status and working conditions, research and mobility of teachers and international cooperation. The analysis and comparison of the content of the International and European documents from the first phase (in the middle of 1960s and beginning of 1970s) have shown that documents of the Council of Europe and the UNESCO, to a great extent and in a similar fashion, state what should be changed and/or newly established when it comes to teachers, their role, their education as well as their status, so that lifelong learning could become reality. Compared to that, the OECD document did not pay greater attention to the role of teachers in the implementation of lifelong learning. In the second phase of development of the lifelong learning concept (in the middle of 1990s) the UNESCO and OECD documents discuss the teachers to a great extent and in detail, whereas the EU document states only that teachers will play a central role in the learning society. The paper concludes that the analysis and comparison have shown that teachers are one of the most crucial elements of the lifelong learning policy. Therefore, it is necessary to plan and organize lifelong learning and educational opportunities for teachers so that they could encourage and train their students for lifelong learning. ; Zbornik rezimea / 24. Međunarodna naučna konferencija "Pedagoška istraživanja i školska praksa ; Book of abstracts / 24th International Scientific Conference "Educational Research and School Practice"
Autori ovog rada nude pregled i analizu uspona i pada međunarodnog liberalnog poretka koji je nastao nakon okončanja Hladnog rata i uspona moći Sjedinjenih Američkih Država. Spoljnopolitička agenda jedine posthladnoratovske supersile vođena je idejom stvaranja globalnog poretka utemeljenog na ideologiji (globalnog) liberalizma koja u sebi inkorporira teorije liberalnog mira, demokratskog mira i neoliberalnog institucionalizma. Uspostavljanje tzv. globalnog liberalnog poretka dosada je bilo praćeno brojnim političkim, socijalnim, ekonomskim i bezbednosnim krizama, a trenutnu eru međunarodnih odnosa odlikuju uspon relativne moći "neliberalnih" globalnih aktera, pre svega Kine i Rusije, kao glavnih izazivača svetske dominacije Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, te geopolitički revizionizam i ideološka konfrontacija liberalnih i antiliberalnih snaga širom sveta. Autori ovog rada koriste specifičan analitički metod tzv. dijalektike političke mehanike, koji se oslanja na učenja Friedricha Hegela o dijalektici istorije i Carla Schmitta o fenomenu političkog, kako bi objasnili trenutnu dinamiku međunarodnih odnosa, pokazujući da političko polje "permanentno pulsira" što, u svemu što je društveno i političko, nužno kreira akciju i reakciju, čijom dinamikom se mogu tumačiti i globalna zbivanja kojima upravo prisustvujemo. ; The authors of this paper offer an overview and analysis of the rise and fall of the liberal international order that emerged after the end of the Cold War and along with the rising power of the United States. The foreign policy agenda of the post-Cold War sole superpower was guided by the idea of creating a global order based on the ideology of liberalism, which incorporates theories of liberal peace, democratic peace and neoliberal institutionalism. The establishment of a liberal order has been accompanied by numerous political, social, economic and security crises. The current era is characterized by the rise of the relative power of global actors, primarily China and Russia, as the main challengers to the world domination of the United States, geopolitical revisionism and ideological struggle around the world. The authors of this paper use the dialectic of political mechanics as a method that relies on the teachings of Friedrich Hegel on the dialectic of history and Carl Schmitt on the phenomenon of the political. The authors advocate the view that the political field "permanently pulsates", which, in everything that is social and political, necessarily creates action and reaction.
Post-cold war concept of security is based on realistic postulates and emphasises a concept of state, forces,power and national interests. Military and political concept of security was dominant while the relations between the superpowers was based on the so called bipolar balance of power. Identity of states was realised by membership in military, political and economic organisations. The strategy of returning to the era of nuclear weapons reaches its full flowering. The crucial point of security after the end of Cold war consists of searching for giving answers to the threats coming from the outside and abilities of states to maintain their independent integrity against changed relations among the powers, which potentially may become enemies. Under such circumstances powers should not be ignored in any interpretation of any aspect of security, for realistic theories of international relations are still of great influence in the field of security. They will be modified in different conditions and will act in the sense of enlarged concept of security - instead of dominant concepts of political and military security typical for the Cold War era, economic, social and environmental factors will appear. Basic weakness of the realistic theories of security is in the lack of recognising the importance of cooperation between main factors in international community. This failure will be replaced neo realistic and liberal and institutional theories of security which emphasises the concept of cooperation in the first place. Concepts of power, forces and integral processes will be observed within the context of changes in the international relations.
Projects on the establishment of world peace in the late Middle Ages were initially marked by religious views on the world. Christian church was the subject of war and peace and it did not make differences among peoples. It had universal aspirations. This dogmatic comprehension will be abandoned by the appearance of national states where the state becomes subject of war and peace. A division among nations appears and the possibility of their mutual recognition. In that way relations among states are being regulated from the point of view of international relations. His basic principle becomes the one of sovereign equality, this could happen after the termination of religious wars which got its peak by Westphalia peace. Starting from Dubois, Podjebrady, Penn, Duke of Silly, via Hobbes, Grotius end Puffendorf, it will be possible to determine how changes in society political systems and way of production influenced the developments of ideas on perpetual peace. The achievements of these thinkers were revolutionary and were still valid. It is worth mentioning the principles of sovereign equality of states, the presence of realism in international relations and the existence of judicial institutions such as the International Court of Justice.
NATO's political and - above all - military participation in secession-motivated conflicts in former Yugoslavia (1990-1995), will be remembered as a clear example of demonstration of power, intentions and (in)capability of the Victor in a decades-long global "cold war" between the "freedom-loving" West and "totalitarian East". Regardless of the expectations of liberal theoreticians and the majority of public opinion, it was soon revealed that the victory was no "triumph of freedom" and even less "the end of history". On the contrary, as historically typical, it was only an unstable resultant of relations between major actors in the modern global theater, who strive to legitimize their need for domination with varying success and vocabulary. Hence the lessons to be learned from the final act of destruction of Yugoslavia (several months of NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999) have the expected tone of banality: absolute might strives for absolute power (which remains unattainable in principle); "the mighty oppress" is true always and in any place (but with a time limit); and, finally, what everyone knows but does not (or is unable or refuses) to say aloud: the only true alternative to military threat and/or aggression of a single political actor is an equally valid (military) threat/aggression by another one. We are tempted to conclude that, despite the ideological ardor of NGO activists, the political correctness of theoreticians and the rhetorical figures of speech of politicians, the "banalities" remain valid as the only certainties, i.e., regularities in the unpredictable currents of relations between states.
The first section of this paper discusses a public diplomacy concept within the international relations paradigm shift that takes place in a radically changed global environment. Public diplomacy is analyzed primarily through cultural aspects in relation to other concepts such as propaganda and 'nation branding'. The second part is dedicated to identification of the key problems that the Republic of Serbia is facing regarding conceptualization and implementation of public and cultural diplomacy. It analyzes the institutional framework and effects of international Serbian policies up to now. It points to the need for long-term synchronous involvement of different actors in the field of public and cultural diplomacy of the Republic of Serbia, in order to promote not only its political positioning and reputation in the world, but for the sake of strengthening its economic and other development resources. Recognition of public and cultural diplomacy as an effective long-term means of building the reputation and position of the Republic of Serbia in international relations is extremely important. It means to articulate the need to design a new cultural concept, which would be built into a system of values that traces the path of Serbian development. The basic question, therefore, in terms of conceptualization of public and cultural diplomacy, remains the question of the narrative. This is the new and the old question of all questions: 'Who are we, where are we going and where do we want to go?'.
For over a century, rumours have been spread from Croatia about Serbia's intention to create a Greater Serbia and its aspirations to greater Serbian hegemony. This has been a constant refrain in all anti-Serbian speeches delivered both before the Yugoslav and international public. On the one hand, the Serbs and Serbia were presented as aggressors with great territorial appetites, whereas on the other, the aim was to conceal one's own aggression and territorial pretensions to the ethnic, state and historical territories that belonged to others. Though such tactics is a well-known and long-lasting feature of Croatian politics, it has not been given an appropriate place and explanation in Serbian and foreign historiography. Croatia inherited such political approach from Austria-Hungary which demonised and satanised the Serbian intentions aimed at liberation and unification all the more so as its appetites towards the territories in the Balkans increased and as it more strongly expounded the German Drang nach Osten policy. According to such tactical approach, everything that was Serbian was proclaimed greater Serbian in order to nip in the bud and thwart Serbian interests which conflicted with the AustroHungarian ones. Following in the wake of Austro-Hungarian policy, in which they participated and often played the leading role, in all historical periods – from the 1848 revolution to this day the Croats have been denouncing Serbian often labelling it as greater Serbian. By reviling Serbhood and greater Serbhood, in which they saw the main rival to Croatdom and greater Croatdom, Croatian politicians did not only dream about a Greater Croatia, but also worked on building it, with determination and consistency, faithful to the principle that such end justifies all means, including even the genocidal annihilation of the Serbs. The Croatian aspirations to territorial enlargement have a rather long history. Although small in numbers and in a small territory, the Croats have fostered great imperial ambitions. This may be well illustrated with the various names such as: "Alpine or mountainous Croats" (Slovenes), "Orthodox Croats" (Serbs), "indisputable Croats" or the "flower of the Croatian nation" (Muslims), "Turkish Croatia", "Red Croatia", "White Croatia" or "Carpathian Croatia", which were the territories of Bosnia, Montenegro, Dalmatia and Slovenia. These names have been carefully cherished and for centuries instilled in the consciousness of a Croat with the aim to develop the awareness of Croatia's greatness and the numerical strength of the Croats. With the present two studies, I wish to demonstrate and prove when, how, on what foundations and with what objectives the Croats have endeavoured, from the 1848/49 revolution until the present time, to get hold of some parts or the entire territories of Vojvodina and Bosnia and Herzegovina. As precious data on this topic are scattered in different places, it is hard to gain insight into the entirety of this national, state-legal and geopolitical issue. With this in mind, I have elaborated in these papers, in a chronological sequence, on all important Croatian territorial claims on Vojvodina and Bosnia and Herzegovina. I have thus practically uncovered the decades-long greater Croatian politics and have provided concrete answers to the Croatian attacks at Serbia and the Serbs in regard to the so-called greater Serbian politics. I would also like to inform readers that this book is the second, supplemented and expanded edition of the book first published in 2012 in small print run (500 copies) and sold out a long time ago. Belgrade, 20 July 2016 Vasilije Đ. Krestić ; Посебна издања / Српска академија наука и уметности ; књ. 685. Председништво ; књ. 6
In his main oeuvre from the field of political philosophy ('Basic Traits of the Philosophy of Right'), Hegel wished to reconcile civil society with state. Civil society is for Hegel the way of abstract notion of property concretization. Subjective form of property is evolutioning into objective relationships among title holders. It is in the state where the will is set free from its particular interests and is becoming free in the widest sense of the word. Since civil society is established as per marketing principles, it is subject to inequalities. Since inequalities bear destructive effect on the life in community, civic particularism may be overcome only in institutional way. That institution is the state as the 'seriousness of the spirit', and the essence of civil society. Civil society is a liberal one, and the state is based on liberal principles. For Hegel, contrary to Hobbes and Locke, liberal society is not a social contract among individuals who possessed some natural rights (property), but reciproque and equal agreement among citizens and states which wish to recognize themselves mutually. It is not an own interest, but searching for rational recognition. The same as citizens, states also wish to reconcile themselves mutually, what in the situation in Kosovo and Metohia alike gets the original form.
The paper points to the relations between multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) with global characteristics and contemporary security problems. Starting from the existing architecture of MEAs, the importance of several key global security challenges (climate change, water resource management, biodiversity protection, waste management and hazardous chemicals) has been ephasised. Status of the members of the UN Security Council, Republic of Serbia (RS) and RS' neighboroughing countries (EU members) in MEAs is overviewed. The basis of the analysis is 15 MEAs open for universal membership, whose depository is the UN Secretary General. It is noted that there is no uniform membership of the states UN Security Council' members in the MEAs. Some of the UN Security Council's members are not contracting party in several MEAs. At the same time, EU member states (those who are permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as RS neighboring EU countries) are members of majority of the MEAs. RS, in terms of the number of MEAs where is a contracting party, lags behind the neighboring states EU members.
