Suchergebnisse

This paper explores how Britain's and Colombia's privileged relations with the United States (U.S.) influenced their journey through the European Community (EC) and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). The Anglo–American Special Relationship (AASR) was compatible with British participation in the European Single Market, but not with adherence to creating the EC's common currency, nor with leadership in building a European defence structure autonomous from NATO. Thus, since the start of the Iraq war, Britain played a rather obstructive role in what later was called European Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The US–Colombia Partnership (USCP), based on a longstanding military association reinforced under Plan Colombia, naturally discouraged any meaningful Colombian participation in UNASUR's South American Security Council (CDS), a regional cooperative security project, promoted by Brazil. Cherished projects of the liberal CAP – such as triangular cooperation (to export Colombian security expertise to Central America with U.S. co-financing and oversight) and NATO partnership – also distracted Colombia's interest from UNASUR, diminishing the latter's relevance collaterally. A role for UNASUR – alongside the Organization of American States (OAS) – in South American security management was compatible with the liberal CAP, but not with the neoconservative CAP. Even a lopsided complementation – such as the one between NATO and the CSDP – proved unviable between the OAS and UNASUR.

Food security for the world's growing population is one of the biggest challenges of the future due to resource constraints and global climate change. Fish and other aquatic foods can play a prominent role in the food supply, especially as the ecological footprint of aquaculture is smaller than that of other food production systems. Although the production of marine aquaculture shows an increasing trend, freshwater aquaculture remains dominant in world aquaculture production, especially in developing countries. The resilience of developing countries to the future challenges in food production is very low, so many international projects are trying to improve the situation. Laos is one of the least developed countries of the world, where aquaculture plays an important role in fish supply and employment. In Laos, several international projects are addressed to develop the agricultural economy and food supply, but Hungary is one of the largest donors in this field, given the traditional agricultural relations and strategic cooperation between the two countries. Although the abundance of aquatic resources provides a good opportunity for the development of fisheries and aquaculture in Laos, the growth of the fishery sector is hampered by several factors. These include the lack of good quality stocking material and fish feed, the underdeveloped infrastructure and institutional system, funding problems and weak human resources. The main purpose of the tied aid loans provided by the Hungarian government to Laos is to improve food safety and food security. The development of the fish value chain plays an important role in these programs, which can be considered as a good example even on international level. Hungarian projects also help Hungarian institutions and small and medium-sized enterprises to strengthen their presence in Southeast Asia, that is a region of the world where economy is developing in a dynamic way. ; A világ növekvő népességének élelmiszerellátása a jövő egyik nagy kihívása tekintettel az erőforrások szűkösségére és a globális klímaváltozásra. A hal és más vízi élelmiszerek kiemelkedő szerepet játszhatnak az élelmiszerellátásban különös tekintettel arra, hogy az akvakultúra ökológiai lábnyoma lényegesen kisebb, mint más élelmiszertermelő rendszereké. Bár a tengeri akvakultúra termelése növekvő tendenciát mutat, a világ akvakultúra termelésében meghatározó marad az édesvízi élőlények termelése, különösen a fejlődő országokban. A világ szegényebb országai élelmiszertermelésének a jövőbeni kihívásokkal szembeni ellenállóképessége igen gyenge, ezért számos nemzetközi projekt próbál a helyzeten javítani. A világ legfejletlenebb országai közé tartozik Laosz, ahol az akvakultúrának fontos szerepe van a halellátásban és a foglalkoztatásban. Laoszban több nemzetközi projekt segíti az agrárgazdaság és az élelmiszerellátás fejlesztését, azonban Magyarország az egyik legnagyobb donor e területen, tekintettel a két ország közötti hagyományos agrár kapcsolatokra és a stratégiai együttműködésre. Laoszban a gazdag vízi erőforrások jó lehetőséget biztosítanak a halászat és az akvakultúra fejlesztésére, azonban a lehetőségek kihasználását számos tényező nehezíti. Olyanok, mint például a minőségi ivadék- és takarmányellátás hiánya, a fejletlen infrastruktúra és intézményrendszer, a finanszírozási problémák, illetve a képzett munkaerő hiánya. A magyar kormány által Laosz számára biztosított kötött segélyhitelek kiemelt célja az élelmiszerbiztonság és az élelmiszerellátás biztonságának javítása. E programokban a hal értéklánc fejlesztésének fontos szerepe van, amely nemzetközileg is példaértékű. A magyar projektek segítik azt is, hogy magyar intézmények, illetve kis- és közepes vállalkozások erősíthetik jelenlétüket Délkelet Ázsiában, amelyik a világ egy gazdaságilag dinamikusan fejlődő régiója.

Central Europe means different political, economic, cultural, geopolitical and a "regional security community" contents in relation to my topic. Nowadays, this region, the "Central Europe" region primarily means the V-4 cooperation and the very important role and initiatives of the region in the EU. The V-4 cooperation, which was established in 1991, can be conceived as an attempt at creating a special form, as a mechanism and sub-stance to the political dimension of this region. The four members of the special mechanism are trying to get closer to one another by relying on solidarity with each other. The V-4 cooperation is based on the common history of the participating countries and close similarities between their recent transformation processes. Such resemblances explain the V4 structure's success, including parallel navigation in the problems of European Union and NATO accession. In the absence of permanent institutions [except the International Visegrad Fund (IVF)], the dimension and ambitions of the V-4 cooperation depends on the political objective of the governments and direct security environment, which impacts on these countries.

During the Cold War, the Philippines was an indispensable US ally, and this was still basically the case at the turn of the 21st century. However, the inauguration of President Rodrigo Duterte in June 2016 heralded great changes for the international position of the Philippines: a shift towards China and Russia occurred, followed by the emergence of a more balanced foreign policy. The partnership with the US has changed, too: during the Obama administration, the relationship between the two countries became cooler, although the foundations of the alliance were never contested. In the wake of Donald Trump's assumption of office in January 2017, the alliance seems to have become as strong as before, and economic as well as security-military cooperation has continued. The author's aim is to analyze the Philippines' position in the US-led world order from 1945 to the present, as well as the foundations of the United States–Philippines special relationship. After that the main components of Duterte's "independent" foreign policy and the fundamental changes in the Philippines' foreign relations are presented. The analysis focuses on the causes of the conflict at the end of Barack Obama's presidency, followed by the improving partnership during the Trump era and the main geopolitical challenges the alliance has had to face. According to its conclusion the US–Philippines security cooperation will remain strong under Presidents Duterte and Trump due to strategic considerations, which indicate the military alliance is in the interests of both nations.

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.

Mass migration, as it appears in the 21st century, is one of the greatest challenges of our globalized world. The unanswered questions of European Union (EU) immigration policy that emerged over the past few decades have become more pressing than ever. One of these urgent questions is: how can we provide for a developing European economy in an era of demographic decline in a way that it is based on the opportunities opened up by legally regulated forms of migration. A second question is: how can the EU ensure the safety of the newly arriving people in need and, at the same time, keep away illegal migrants and eliminate criminal activities related to migration. The European Union is destined to spread the principles of peace and unconditional respect for human rights not only within its own borders, but also on a global scale, when engaging in international affairs. In addition to observing human rights, however, the EU must also take into account all security considerations that are pertinent in guaranteeing the free movement of its citizens within the Member States.