Suchergebnisse

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. .

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.

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.

After the cold war, when the Eastern block collapsed, considerable changes were made in the world security architecture. Althought it seemed like a beginning of more certain and secure era, cold war ending didn't fulfill expectations neither the main actors in the cold war conflict, nor the expectations of the rest of the world. Besides, collapse of one block, didn't stop growth dynamic of new power centers. Tendencies for power are not new and unfamiliar to human. When bypolar system collapsed, other subjects started fighting for the positions. PRC role with her enormous people potential, growing economy and strengthened military is evident. Soviet Union, accordingly Russian Federation, believed that there was no more need for strenghtening the other block, especially when the opposite doesn't exist. But, former partners included the opposite side, and that made more tensions between Russia and United States. Rest of the world didn't get better chance to create own future. On the contrary, especially for the peripheral and semiperipheral countries, new threats appeared that destabilized individual and collective security. Efforts to make human community rational, were always idealism and those efforts were considered utopian, but under the given circumstances, for the international stability, the most accseptable model is model of global triangle - China, Russia, USA. Reason why this three countries is ther specific potention: USA is powerful technological, military and political center, RF is worlds warehouse' and China is the worlds manufacture. In the globalism domination over nationalism era that model could be the optimal 'braking and balance' system in the international relations- political ideal that all liberal schools wanted to acchievestarting Lock, Montesquieu, Rousseau till today.

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.

Autor se bavi odnosima Sjedinjenih Država i Venezuele zaključno sa aktuelnom‎ predsedničkom krizom ne bi li odgovorio na pitanje kako i zašto je Venezuela‎ postala problem za spoljnu politiku SAD koji zahteva pojačanu pažnju‎ i radikalne mere. Analiza ovih odnosa u toku 20. veka pokazuje da su oni zasnovani‎ na naftnoj međuzavisnosti dveju država. Kada je krajem veka višedecenijsko‎ loše upravljanje naftnim bogatstvom u Venezueli izazvalo društvenu‎ i ekonomsku krizu koja je dovela na vlast Huga Cháveza, spremnog da koristi‎ prihode od nafte protiv interesa regionalne hegemonije SAD, ove su Venezuelu‎ označile kao problem. Američki establišment je prema tom problemu nastupio‎ oportunistički – naftna međuzavisnost je sprečavala da sukob eskalira‎ sve dok aktuelna ekonomsko-politička kriza u Venezueli nakon Chávezove‎ smrti nije dala Washingtonu priliku za konačni obračun sa režimom, po cenu‎ privremenog prekida u trgovini naftom. Godinu i po dana od izbijanja predsednička‎ kriza u Venezueli još nije razrešena, jer se čavistički režim održao, a‎ SAD odustale od vojne intervencije, pa autor nastoji da ukaže na perspektive‎ problema i mogućnosti njegovog prevazilaženja nakon što tekuća pandemija‎ korona virusa bude obuzdana.‎ ; The author deals with the United States and Venezuela relations up to the‎ current presidential crisis, in order to answer how and why Venezuela became‎ a problem for U.S. foreign policy which requires increased attention‎ and radical measures. The analysis of these relations during the 20th century‎ shows that they were based on oil interdependence of the two states.‎ When a decades-long mismanagement of oil riches in Venezuela at the end‎ of the century caused a social and economic crisis that brought to power‎ Hugo Chávez, who was ready to use oil revenues against U.S. regional hegemonic‎ interests, it marked Venezuela as a problem. American establishment‎ treated the problem with opportunism – oil interdependence prevented‎ the conflict from escalating until the current economic and political crisis in‎ Venezuela after the death of Chávez gave Washington an opportunity for the‎ final clash with the regime at the price of a temporary break in the oil trade.‎ A year and a half after the presidential crisis in Venezuela erupted, it has not‎ been resolved yet, for the chavista regime remained in place, while the U.S. gave up on military intervention. The author points to the perspectives of the‎ problem and the possibilities of its overcoming once the current coronavirus‎ pandemic gets contained.‎