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. .

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.

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.‎

Disertacija sarži uvod, četiri poglavlja i zaključak. U prvom poglavlju pod naslovom "Nastanak i delovanje Organizacije ujedinjenih nacija" izložen je početak pojave ideje Međunarodne organizacije kao i istorijski razvoj ovog koncepta do svetske porodice u današnje vreme, koju čine 193 države. Takođe, dotaknuta je serija izjava kao i međunarodne konferencije koje su dovele do formiranja Organizacije ujedinjenih nacija, formulisanja njenih ciljeva i principa, kao i načina i uslova učlanjenja u tu organizaciju. Detaljnije su proučavane uloge Generalne skupštine i Saveta bezbednosti zbog njihove važnosti. U drugom poglavlju, pod naslovom "Razlozi koji ukazuju na potrebe reforme Organizacije ujedinjenih nacija", objašnjeni su sledeći razlozi neophodnosti reforme ove organizacije: 1. skretanje Ujedinjenih nacija s puta; 2. kontradiktornosti sistema Ujedinjenih nacija; 3. nedostaci Povelje Ujedinjenih nacija; 4. nedostaci u mehanizmu donošenja odluka; 5. svetske promene; 6. mistifikacija u misijama Ujedinjenih nacija; 7. moćna središta; 8. raskorak između misije i raspoloživih sredstava; 9. korupcija. U trećem poglavlju, pod naslovom "Organizacija ujedinjenih nacija između povelje i dominantne sile" objašnjen je odnos Sjedinjenih Američkih Država sa Organizacijom ujedinjenih nacija kroz sledeću grupu tačaka i tema: 1. siže američkih promena od izolacije do internacionalizma; 2. politika SAD u Ujedinjenim nacijama tokom hladnog rata; 3. stav SAD o ulozi UN u oblasti čuvanja mira, ekonomske saradnje i ljudskih prava; 4. stav SAD prema UN u periodu pre raspada Sovjetskog Saveza; 5. SAD i UN posle hladnog rata; 6. američki stav prema UN posle završetka hladnog rata 7. administracija Džordža Buša i Ujedinjene nacije (opšti stav prema međunarodnoj organizaciji, političko viđenje SAD pre i posle događaja 11. septembra 2001. godine); 8. američki interesi i reforma Ujedinjenih nacija (reforme UN i realizacija američkih interesa, američko viđenje reformi); 9. predsednik Barak Obama i njegova metodologija za promene i odnos sa UN. U četvrtom poglavlju, pod naslovom "Reforme Organizacije ujedinjenih nacija" definisan je problem ove studije kroz grupu tačaka i pitanja i istraživane su međunarodne promene koje je svet doživeo kao glavni faktor za izvršenje procesa reforme koje su potrebne Ujedinjenim nacijama. ; The dissertation consists of an introduction, four chapters and the conclusion. The first chapter:"The Emergence and the Function of the United Nations", deals with the emergence of the idea of international system , and how this idea developed historically till it reached nowadays to international family consisting of 193 states of various continents and cultures . These states are joined in an institutional frame founded on optional and contractual pillars, which is the United Nations. In addition, it deals with the chain of declarations and conferences that led to the foundation of this organization. Moreover, it focuses on the purposes, principles and membership of the United Nations, as well as the General Assembly and Security Council due to their important role in the United Nations system. The second chapter: "The Reasons for the Reform of the United Nations", deals with the necessity reasons for reform; due to the United Nations is in urgent need of it. The intended reform is to do whatever necessary to raise its efficiency and performance. Therefore, it is possible to determine the objective reasons of this reform in the following titles, and they are: 1. The deviation of United Nations from its course that it was founded for; 2. The inherent contradictions of United Nations system since its foundation, 3. The deficiencies and imbalances in the United Nations Charter; 4.The imbalance in decision –making structures and mechanisms; 5. International Changes; 6.The vagueness of tasks entrusted to the United Nations; 7. Extreme Centralism; 8. The big gap between the intended tasks to be achieved and the available resources; 9. Corruption. The third chapter: "The United Nations between the Charter and the Dominant Power", focuses on the relation between the USA with the United Nations. This is a necessary item for the research due to the current international conditions and challenges facing humanity such as local and regional conflicts, health, natural catastrophes, etc. which fall under the scope of the United Nations. The dominant role the US plays in the international arena singles out its special impact on the performance of this organization. This role has gone through many changes in recent history depending on the geopolitics of the world namely after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the advent of the short-lived unipolarity up to the beginning of emergence of multipolarity. Every stage marked nuances in the US policy towards the United Nations. In fact, the US approach to international affairs developed in big leaps from isolationism to its involvement in WWII and the establishment of the United Nations.

Hladni rat je predstavljao rat ideologija bez presedana u istoriji. Nijedan drugi rat, ni pre ni posle ovog višedecenijskog hladnog sukoba između Sjedinjenih Američkih Država i Saveza Sovjetskih Socijalističkih Republika, nije bio rat koji se vodio u tolikoj meri u sferi meke moći kao Hladni rat. Odsustvo neposrednog oružanog sukoba između Sjedinjenih Američkih Država i Sovjetskog Saveza učinilo je da se Hladni rat odvija kao takmičenje u sferi ekonomije, tehnologije i nauke, kao trka u nuklearnom i konvencionalnom naoružanju i kao svemirsko nadmetanje. Pored takmičenja u sferi tvrde moći, Sjedinjene Američke Države i Sovjetski Savez vodili su intenzivnu bitku u oblasti meke moći. Ovo je bio sukob između američke liberalno-demokratske ideologije i sovjetske marksističke ideologije. Svaka od ove dve zemlje težila je tome da ubedi građane one druge zemlje da je njen društveni i ekonomski sistem idealan i da je bolji i pravedniji od sistema njenog glavnog suparnika. Uzrok propasti Sovjetskog Saveza i komunizma u istočnoj Evropi nikada sa sgurnošću neće moći da bude određen. Okolnosti koje su dovele do raspada Sovjetskog Saveza, pada Berlinskog zida 1989. godine i urušavanja komunizma u Evropi ne mogu se svesti na skup vojnih, političkih, ekonomskih i društvenih činilaca koji su, nezavisno jedni od drugih, doveli do tektonskih promena u međunarodnim odnosima. Svi ovi činioci zajedno, isprepletani u kompleksnu mrežu poluga, učinili su da se Sovjetski Savez uruši i da Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama prepusti ulogu pobednika u Hladnom ratu. Pritom, Amerika nije bila samo vojni i ekonomski pobednik. Amerika je iz Hladnog rata izašla kao moralni i ideološki pobednik. Hladni rat predstavlja temu izuzetno velikog broja radova, ali mali broj tih radova se bavi analizom američko-sovjetskog sukoba u sferi meke moći. Stoga je cilj ovog istraživanja i rada rasvetljavanje, objašnjene i tumačenje poluga meke moći koje su Sjedinjene Američke Države institucionalizovale, pokrenule i upotrebile u ideološkoj borbi protiv Sovjetskog Saveza u vreme Hladnog rata. Međutim, Sjedinjene Američke Države nisu od svog nastanka u drugoj polovini 18. veka do Hladnog rata osmišljeno primenjivale svoju meku moć. Do Hladnog rata upotreba poluga meke moći bila praksa kojom su se Sjedinjene Američke Države bavile isključivo u vreme učešća u oružanim sukobima. Tek sa Hladnim ratom u Americi se javlja potreba za namenskom i osmišljenom upotrebom poluga meke moći. Odmah nakon Drugog svetskog rata Sovjetski Savez je počeo da vrši uticaj na druge zemlje šireći marksističku ideologiju i komunističke ideje. Osim širenja marksističke ideologije Sovjetski Savez je vodio i dobro osmišljenu kampanju protiv Sjedinjenih Američkih Država i američkog načina života. Američka administracija je kao odgovor na sovjetsku spoljnu politiku u periodu od 1946. do 1950. godine stvorila politiku obuzdavanja Sovjetskog Saveza i sovjetskog uticaja u svetu svim sredstvima. Ovo je podrazumevalo kako upotrebu poluga tvrde moći tako i primenu poluga meke moći. U to vreme u američkom društvu postojao je konsenzus o upotrebi političkih, vojnih i ekonomskih oruđa u borbi protiv Sovjetskog Saveza, ali je upotreba poluga meke moći bila predmet duge javne rasprave. Jedna od izuzetno važnih poluga meke moći su državni programi informisanja, odnosno ono što se u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama smatra propagandom, a propaganda se od nastanka Sjedinjenih Američkih Država do danas smatra nečasnom delatnošću autokratskih režima. Sjedinjene Američke Države su u periodu neposredno nakon Drugog svetskog rata sprovele zakonske, institucionalne i strukturalne promene koje su omogućile trajno ustanovljavanje poluga meke moći zarad širenja američkih vrednosti, ideja i kulture i zarad ideološke borbe protiv Sovjetskog Saveza i sovjetske marksističke ideologije. Zakoni doneti u to vreme su na snazi i danas i pružaju okvir za mnogobrojne programe i aktivnosti na polju primene poluga meke moći po celom svetu. ; The Cold War was a war without precedent in the history. No war before this prolonged cold conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union was waged that much in the realm of soft power as the Cold War. In the absence of an immediate armed conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, the Cold War was conducted as a competition in the areas of economy, technology and science, nuclear and conventional weapons, as well as the space race. Besides the competition in the realm of hard power, the United States and the Soviet Union pursued an intensive battle in the realm of soft power. This was a conflict between the American ideology of a liberal democracy and the Soviet Marxist ideology. Each of the two attempted to persuade the citizens of the other country that its social and economic practice was an ideal one, better and more just than the other one. The source of the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism in Eastern Europe will never be fully determined. The circumstances that brought about the break-up of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the fall down of communism in Europe cannot be summarized as an aggregation of military, political, economic and social factors that independently from each other led to the colossal changes in the world order. All of these factors, entangled together in a complex net, caused the implosion of the Soviet Union which left the United States as the winner in the Cold War. Yet, the United States was not only a military and economic victor, it resurfaced as a moral and ideological champion, as well. The Cold Was has been a theme of numerous papers but only a handful of these papers tackled the American-Soviet conflict in the realm of soft power. Thus, the objective of this research and dissertation is to shed the light, explain and construe the instruments of soft power that the United States institutionalized, put into motion and deployed in the ideological battle against Soviet Union in the Cold War. However, since its birth in the 18th century until the Cold War, the United States had not wielded its soft power strategically. Up to the Cold War, the soft power instruments were used exclusively during the times when the United States was involved in an armed conflict. Only in the Cold War, the need for intentional and thoughtful use of soft power instruments emerged. Soon after the end of the Second World War, the Soviet Union got set off to exert its influence by diffusing its Marxist ideology and communist values. In addition to spreading its ideology, the Soviet Union led a well-planned campaign against the United States and the American way of life. From 1946 to 1950, in response to the Soviet policy towards the United States, the American administration coined the policy of containment of the Soviet Union and the Soviet influence in the world. The policy of containment included both the use of the instruments of hard power and of soft power. At that time, there was a consensus in the American society on the use of political, military and economic means in fighting the Soviet Union, while the use of soft power instruments was a subject of a prolonged public discourse. Government information programs, perceived as propaganda in the United States, have always been a very important soft power instrument, and propaganda has been considered by Americans to be a dishonest activity of autocratic governments. In the period right after the Second World War, the United States implemented legislative, institutional and structural changes that allowed for permanent establishment of the soft power instruments. These foreign policy instruments made it possible for the United States government to diffuse American values, ideas and culture and to wage an ideological war against the Soviet Union and its Marxist principles. The acts adopted at that time are in place nowadays, and provide a legal framework for numerous programs and activities in the realm of soft power.

Tokom trideset godina nakon raspada socijalističke Jugoslavije, Srbija i Hrvatska su kao postjugoslovenske male države ipak drugačije osmišljavale svoje mesto u regionalnom i globalnom kontekstu. O tome svedoči i njihov različit odnos prema međunarodnim organizacijama poput Evropske unije (EU), NATO ili Ujedinjenih nacija. Ovaj članak u središte svog interesovanja uzima UN kao multilateralni forum ili arenu u kojoj se bitno predstavljaju i oblikuju spoljnopolitičke uloge i identiteti malih država. Oslanjajući se na konstruktivističku analizu spoljne politike i teoriju uloga, autor se fokusirao na glavne deonice u razvoju spoljnopolitičkih narativa Srbije i Hrvatske kao aktivnih malih država članica u Ujedinjenim nacijama. Iako obe države vide sebe kao aktivne, ta aktivnost bi trebalo da bude u funkciji dve različite, teorijski profilisane, strategije malih država. Obrazlaže se sledeći argument: dok Srbija zbog složenosti kosovskog pitanja vodi uglavnom defanzivno autonomnu strategiju u skladu sa proklamovanom vojnom neutralnošću, dotle je Hrvatska kao mala članica EU i NATO priklonjena traganju za integracionističkim uticajem u konstelaciji sa evroatlantskim partnerima. Analizom zvaničnih diskursa dveju zemalja u Generalnoj skupštini UN, između 2000. i 2020. godine, pokazano je na koji način, i u kojoj meri se njihovi diskursi o regionalnoj, evropskoj i svetskoj politici približavaju ili udaljavaju, i razmatra se šta to znači za njihova mesta u svetu. ; In 30 years after the breakup of the socialist Yugoslavia, Serbia and Croatia as small states differently envisaged their place in regional and global context. Such difference is demonstrated by their different relationships toward international organizations such as the European Union, NATO or the United Nations. This article, as its central interest takes the United Nations as a multilateral forum or an arena where small states importantly represent and shape their foreign policy identities and roles. Relying on the constructivist foreign policy analysis and ...

Visoko obrazovanje u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama je po većini kvantita¬tivnih i kvalitativnih pokazatelja najbolje na svetu. Univerziteti u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, zajedno sa onima u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu, privlače najbolje studente ne samo iz Evrope već širom sveta uključujući najmnogoljudnije zemlje i rastuće ekonomije poput Kine, Indije, Brazila ili Indonezije. Istovremeno, priznati profesori i istraživači mahom rade u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, imajući u vidu sjajne uslove za rad i istraživanja. Međutim, snaga američkih univerziteta je istovremeno i njihova slabost u kontekstu COVID-19 epidemije. Većina univerziteta su privatni univerziteti koji u potpunosti zavise od tržišta, donacija, a ponajviše studentskih školarina. Epidemija je zaoštrila problem marketizacije obrazovanja u SAD imajući u vidu da većina studenata preispituje nastavak školovanja u novonastalim uslovima, ekonomske neizvesnosti koju epidemija donosi, kao i nesigurnog tržišta rada. Analizirajući studiju slučaja Nortvestern univerziteta, tekst se bavi ekonomskim i društvenim posledicama koje epidemija ima na visoko obrazovanje u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, kao i mogućim načinima njegovog prevladavanja.‎ ; Higher education in the United States is the best in the world according to most quantitative and qualitative indicators. Universities in the United States, along with those in the United Kingdom, attract the best students not only from Europe but around the world, including the most populous countries and growing economies such as China, India, Brazil or Indonesia. At the same time, renowned professors and researchers mostly work in the United States, given the excellent working and research conditions. However, the strength of American universities is, at the same time, their weakness in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic. Most universities are private universities that depend entirely on the market, donations, and mostly student tuition. The epidemic has exacerbated the problem of marketing education in the United States, bearing in mind that most students are reconsidering the continuation of schooling due to economic uncertainty that the epidemic brings and uncertain labour market. Focusing on the case study of Northwestern University, the text is analyzing the economic and social consequences of the epidemic on higher education in the United States, as well as possible ways to overcome it.

Higher education in the United States is the best in the world according to most quantitative and qualitative indicators. Universities in the United States, along with those in the United Kingdom, attract the best students not only from Europe but around the world including the most populous countries and growing economies such as China, India, Brazil or Indonesia. At the same time, renowned professors and researchers mostly work in the United States, given the excellent working and research conditions. However, the strength of American universities is, at the same time, their weakness in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic. Most universities are private universities that depend entirely on the market, donations, and mostly student tuition. The epidemic has exacerbated the problem of marketing education in the United States, bearing in mind that most students are reconsidering the continuation of schooling due to economic uncertainty that the epidemic brings and uncertain labour market. Focusing on the case study of Northwestern University, the text is analyzing the economic and social consequences of the epidemic on higher education in the United States, as well as possible ways to overcome it. ; Visoko obrazovanje u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama je po većini kvantitativnih i kvalitativnih pokazatelja najbolje na svetu. Univerziteti u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, zajedno sa onima u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu, privlače najbolje studente ne samo iz Evrope već širom sveta uključujući najmnogoljudnije zemlje i rastuće ekonomije poput Kine, Indije, Brazila ili Indonezije. Istovremeno, priznati profesori i istraživači mahom rade u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, imajući u vidu sjajne uslove za rad i istraživanja. Međutim, snaga američkih univerziteta je istovremeno i njihova slabost u kontekstu COVID-19 epidemije. Većina univerziteta su privatni univerziteti koji u potpunosti zavise od tržišta, donacija, a ponajviše studentskih školarina. Epidemija je zaoštrila problem marketizacije obrazovanja u SAD imajući u vidu da većina studenata preispituje nastavak školovanja u novonastalim uslovima, ekonomske neizvesnosti koju epidemija donosi kao i nesigurnog tržišta rada. Analizirajući studiju slučaja Nortvestern univerziteta, tekst se bavi ekonomskim i društvenim posledicama koje epidemija ima na visoko obrazovanje u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, kao i mogućim načinima njegovog prevladavanja.