Suchergebnisse

The European Union is a rather new player in international relations. The European Union is neither a state nor international organization. With the accession to the European Union, the states transfer some attributes of sovereignty and, thus, the governing is done by the European Union mostly, taking part in its relations with third countries. At the same time, it contains some elements of the union (confederation, federation). Therefore, the European Union is more than an international organization. We find elements of the federation, confederation without being identified as such, being established on a system of organization. The European Union aims for integration of societies within a single economic, social, political, legal area. The European Union acts as a proper system based on an idea of creating strong Union bonds between the people of Europe, by establishing an internal market, an economical Union. The European Union, in its relations with the member states, keeps the ultimate goal that it has, being an international legal person, special competences, realizing common goals established with the member states. The legal basis of the European Union is represented by two treaties: the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The well-known Lisbon Treaty represents legally an amending treaty of the previous legal instruments - a compromise between the need for reform, on the one hand, and the need to live in a united Europe, on the other hand. The member states of the EU relate to two legal systems. As a result of their participation in an international organization with supranational character, Member States of the European Union assume a number of commitments with repercussions to their state sovereignty. The Member States coexist with the European Union. The European Union has become, along with its Member States, a matter of international law; even if it shows itself as a conglomerate of states - international organization; it is a union of states established by state attributes, an entity more complex and powerful, with a higher importance with its relations with the Member States, but also with an increased influence on international arena.

In the conservative imaginary, at least in the cases of Constantin N. Brăiloiu and Alexandru N. Lahovary, France was not deemed a functioning political model (i.e., a political or constitutional regime) that Romania should have followed. Compared with the English political model (or rather with the Anglo-Saxon one, since the reference sometimes included the United States of America) and with the Belgian regime, France was certainly a less favoured option. However, without exception and despite all discursive artifice, in the perspective of these two politicians, who were evidently Francophile, both by education and by cultural affinities, France undeniably remained a landmark of civilization or administrative and economic efficiency, and sometimes a beacon of legal inspiration. It must be said that the latter perception was in no way related to Constantin N. Brăiloiu and Alexandru N. Lahovary's conservative convictions. It was commonplace in the local cultural imaginary, which, regardless of one's political, social or cultural affiliation, repeated the encomiastic mantra dedicated to imperial France, to whom the Romanians were convinced that they owed the existence of their nation. In fact, one should not overlook another typical belief of this political imaginary, which is illustrated in our case by Alexandru N. Lahovary: the Romanian politicians were persuaded that the ideals included in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen were exclusively due to the France of 1789.

The author examines the creation and functioning of the Romanian propaganda office at the General Commission of Romania for the New York World's Fair (1939-1940). He analyses two previously unpublished documents from the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, relevant to the topic under scrutiny. The activity of the office was coordinated by the diplomat Andrei Popovici. His subordinates were the press attach. from the Romanian Legation in the USA, Horia Babeş, Paul Sterian, economic councillor, and Petre Neagoe, writer. The monthly budget was 750 $ (the rate of those years) for the daily expenses and salaries. The propaganda office started its activity in January 1939. It used to publish a bulletin, to help issuing stamps, to prepare propaganda posters, to publish and translate brochures. It also used to send presentations of Romania to journals, such as Cleveland News , Chicago Tribune, Detroit Free Press, New York World Telegram etc., and articles on Romania to newspapers (Annalist, Journal of Commerce etc.), or to occasional publications (Going to the Fair, a Preview, International Guide etc.). The images the propaganda office used to handle were reproducing usual elements of the domestic and foreign official discourse of Charles II: Romania was a totally new country, based on a new social contract ("the royal revolution"), that was looking persistently towards "tomorrow's world" (the slogan of the American fair); this future was build with Romanian resources and strengths, mobilized by "the king of young people and of the peasants".