Suchergebnisse

The ultimate goal of game theory is to provide a theoretical model for strategic situations' analysis, i.e. for situations where one actor's choice depends on the behavior of other players in the game. As a concept, game theory is also applicable to the legal context. Legal dialectics and processes are often conducted in some form of strategic interactions. Game theory is a way to see how legal rules affect particular actors' behavior. International Economic Law has its own dynamics which makes the process similar to the analysis through the game theoretical tools. Therefore, the rules of international law are considered as the rules of the game that are taking place among different actors. Game theoretical considerations clarify the substance of the interaction and cooperation of players involved (states, international organizations and other actors). Game theory provides a basis for normative analysis of the issue of implementation of the rules of international law and improves understanding of those rules. The topic of the paper is the application of the game theory in the context of the legal framework established by the World Trade Organization. The member states' dilemma between using the advantages and liberalization options provided by the WTO on the one hand, and joining the regional trade agreements, on the other one, is strategic by nature. Therefore, game theory can contribute to understanding and resolving, using the game of 'prisoner's dilemma' as a model. It is the game which clearly shows that a group of rational egoists can end up worse than a group of actors that acts prima facie contrary to their own interests. 'Prisoner's dilemma' demonstrates why society and law has the need for coordination as well as mechanisms for co-operation. WTO member states put emphasis on the process of liberalization conducted in the framework of regional trade agreements (RTAs); at the same time, their participation in WTO negotiations is not effective and efficient enough to make a breakthrough in the multilateral framework. A solution of the game for Member States is not to cooperate: i. e, liberalization is primarily achieved through regional agreements rather than within the WTO. The rational decision of the Member States (opting for a regional approach) has resulted in a suboptimal result, which is a basic characteristic of the game model based on a prisoner's dilemma: in this case, the optimal solution would be cooperation through a multilateral framework (World Trade Organization).

Shanghai Cooperation Organization was founded in 2001 under a Declaration signed by the leaders of five independent states from the territory of former Soviet Union and the President of the People's Republic of China. The Charter, adopted by the organization's member states as their basic document, emphasizes their commitment to strengthen their mutual trust and good-neighborliness and friendly cooperation; to keep and maintain the peace, stability and security of the region; as well as to fight together against all forms of terrorism, separatism and extremism. Although there are significant differences between the member states in almost all matters of social and governmental organization, over its ten-year existence the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has proved its vitality and has become respectable entity not only of the regional but also of international cooperation on the whole. In recent years all main actors of contemporary international relations have tried to establish and develop the cooperation with this important intergovernmental association. What the further development of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization will be like and where the organization will be positioned within the future world order is difficult to be definitely determined. Apart from the role of the two leading states of this organization - Russia and China, its eventual position will be greatly influenced by other major international factors as well, which, in the era of unstable energy and other forms of security, find the area of Central Asia ever more significant and attractive.

The process of globalization is a logical process of internationalization, caused by deregulation and liberalization, as well as the development of information and communication technologies. To perform an isolationist policy today is completely absurd. Therefore, the main goal of each national economy is to be engaged in international trade while retaining sovereignty and achieving sustainable development, and this is only possible if we realize that not all economic activities are qualitatively the same as the drivers of economic development, and that globalization and free trade can create an automatic economic harmony. Countries that specialize in the export of raw materials will sooner or later experience the opposite effect from economies of scale, namely declining yields. Sustainable development today is a kind of monopoly on the production of advanced goods and services, in which rich countries experience one explosion of productivity for another. In the first part of the paper, we analyze the effects that abstract theories of classical liberal economies have on the poor countries, as well as the neoliberal policies that the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization today apply to developing countries. In the second part of the paper, we analyze examples of countries whose economic prosperity is the result of a smart and pragmatic mix of market incentives and governance. In the third part of the paper we give recommendations for the new development and trade policy of Serbia. In the last part of the paper, we point to the importance of branding as a factor in the export competitiveness of the company. ; Proces globalizacije je logičan sled internacionalizacije, uzrokovane deregulacijom i liberalizacijom, kao i razvojem informacionih i komunikacionih tehnologija. Voditi izolacionističku politiku danas je potpuno besmisleno. Zato je osnovni cilј svake zemlјe – uklјučiti se u međunarodne trgovinske tokove i pri tome zadržati suverenitet i ostvariti održivi razvoj, a to je jedino moguće ako shvatimo da nisu sve privredne delatnosti kvalitativno iste kao nosioci privrednog razvoja i da globalizacija i slobodna trgovina mogu stvoriti automatsku ekonomsku harmoniju. Zemlјe koje se specijalizuju za izvoz sirovina doći će pre ili kasnije do suprotnog efekta od ekonomije obima, naime do opadajućih prinosa. Održivi razvoj danas predstavlјa neku vrstu monopola na proizvodnju naprednih dobara i usluga, u kome bogate države doživlјavaju jednu eksploziju produktivnosti za drugom. U prvom delu rada analiziramo efekte koje su apstraktne teorije klasične liberalne ekonomije imale na siromašne zemlјe, kao i neoliberalnu politiku koju danas Svetska banka, Međunarodni monetarni fond i Svetska trgovinska organizacija primenjuju u zemlјama u razvoju. U drugom delu rada analiziramo primere zemalјa čiji je ekonomski prosperitet rezultat pametne i pragmatične mešavine tržišnog podstreka i državnog upravlјanja. U trećem delu rada dajemo preporuke za novu razvojnu i trgovinsku politiku Srbije. U poslednjem delu rada ukazujemo na značaj brendiranja kao faktra u izvoznoj konkurentnosti preduzeća

Croatia, together with some thirty countries is waiting to be admitted into the World Trade Organization. The membership in WTO-u is the first step in the membership in CEFTA and one of the overture steps in joining the European Union. Apart from the undeniable benefits that the WTO membership brings, there are numerous pitfalls and sacrifices facing Croatia which at the beginning may have a detrimental effect on some sectors of economy. Among the sectors most vulnerable to global competition is the sector of agriculture and food production. Its position on the local market will be significantly weakened, since it is uncompetitive even at the present level of protective tariffs. The central issue in the negotiations for admitting a country or a group of countries into this organization are protective tariffs in this sector. There is no doubt that Croatia will in reasonable time have to reduce these protective measures to the level required by the WTO. What is that going to mean for Croatian agriculture? To what extent is Croatian agriculture (un)prepared to meet these demands? Which are the possible consequences, regarding the strategic importance of agriculture for any country, Croatia being no exception to the rule? (SOI : PM: S. 112)

Effectiveness of the administrative system as a whole depends on the quality of its organization. The Organizational structure reflects functional dynamic of the public administration. On the other hand, functional requirements of efficiency and effectiveness of the administrative system determine organizational forms. The scope, character and nature of administrative actions require optimal and coordinated external (macro-organization) and internal (micro-organization) organizational structure, which will allow optimal functioning of an administrative system. Therefore, the organizational structure is not immutable category, because tasks and roles, activities and goals, are changing in the same government system and sometimes even the whole system, so it is necessary to change the administrative organization. Administrative organization is systemic (external and internal) open dynamic structure of state government agencies and other bodies and organizations with public (administrative) powers prescribed in the course of lawful relationships of dynamic interaction, based on the hierarchy or coordination, depending on the nature and objectives of administrative tasks. Current organization of the state administration has not been made according to the principles of modern management. It is a result of the political spoils system, and reflects the need for political control of the administrative departments. It lacks functional analysis and expert approach.

The new security paradigm of the modern world, created in 1990s, led to a security organization of a number of countries of the former Soviet bloc. Also evolving, at varying pace, was the contractual relationship of collective security, which, due to the escalation of activities of extremist groups on the territory of Central Asia, the deterioration of Russia-NATO relations, as well as the emergence of the US military bases in the region, resulted in a decision to form the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in 2002. The basic declared purpose of the organization is a desire of the signatory countries to increase the effectiveness of their cooperation in the field of security. Established as a typical military alliance with characteristics of multifunctional organization for securing peace, CSTO aspires to the role of a regional leading organization in the field of security cooperation, with many open questions concerning its functioning and future development. Whether the new security organization raises the level of collective security of its associate member countries, and whether the said organization contributes to the security of the region and the world, only time ahead will tell.

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.