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. .

In this paper the author points out to the importance of main organizations for establishing of international peace and security. They are the following: League of Nations, United Nations, Organizations of European Security and Co-operation, Conference of European Security and Co-operation, European Council, West European Union and NATO. Until the end of the Cold war, the universal organizations have played primordial role, but after the mentioned period the regional ones took the lead. The reason lies in the shift in balance of power - from bipolar to unipolar. The League of Nations and CESC can be observed from the historic perspective. NATO and UN played a crucial role during the internationalization of Kosovo issue and the act of intervention itself. NATO demonstrated its power and proved in the absence of real balance of power, la force l'emporte sur le droit. On the other hand, UN had passed several resolutions that condemned violence in Kosovo and Metohia (1160, 1199 and 1203 - all passed in 1998). During 1999 Security Council had passed a famous Resolution 1244, by which it was decided a civic and military mission should be established in Kosovo and Metohia - UNMIK and KFOR KFOR dealt with security issues in order to ensure the respect of it to all nationalities in Kosovo and Metohia. UNMIK set a very ambitious task lying ahead trying to establish standards before the future status. Realizing that it would be impossible to reach the standards, UNMIK started with the policy of status determination without standards establishing. The outcome of such policy is Ahtissari's Plan for supervised Independence of Kosovo, and finally the Declaration of Self-proclaimed Independence of Kosovo. We are also witnessing the transfer of horizontal and vertical effective state authorizations to the mentioned international organizations, bearing in mind problems it encounters. NATO deals with security issues, but European Union being unable to deal with such tasks (ESDP policy is to be as attempt), is more concentrated on economic issues.

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.