Suchergebnisse

In this paper, the author analyzes the key stages in the development of the Republic of Srpska, since its formation in 9 January 1992. In this context, it elaborates the process of genesis of the Republic of Srpska, its international verification by the Dayton Peace Agreement, post-conflict consolidation as a process of trial of the constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina that would redistribute responsibilities between the entity and state authorities. However, the paper points out that the Republic of Serbian unquestionable categories and that the current attempt by the U.S. and the EU for the amendment of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina did not imply denial of two-entity structure of the state. In the future, how would you rate the author will attempt leading actors in world politics to redesign the institutional framework at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as to strengthening its negotiating capacity to assume the obligations related to membership of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

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. .

In this article Dr Pribicevic analyses the impact of Kosovo crises on Serbian EU integrations and shaping of political scene of Serbia. Dr Pribicevic pointed out how crises started in spring 2011 when idea of split of Kosovo appeared again in Serbia and then continued with the clashes between KFOR and Serbs from north of Kosovo in order to get the control of administrative crossing Jarinje and Brnjak. During the summer 2011 German chancellor Merkel visited Serbia and asked government in Belgrade to normalize its relations with Kosovo and dissolve "parallel institutions" of Serbs in the north of Kosovo. Following this visit Serbian government continue its negotiations with Pristina and find out solutions for administrative crossings. On the other side, Belgrade and Pristina didn't find solution for the problem of presentation of Kosovo on the regional gatherings after what European council, under the German influence, decided to postpone the decision to give Serbia the status of candidate for the EU. Therefore, Serbia remains without EU candidaturein December 2011 in spite of the fact that government in Belgrade handedover general Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic to Hague Tribunal as well as conducted a number of successful reforms which got very high marks from EU commission. In this article Dr Pribicevic is trying to answer several questions. Why Washington and Berlin imposed such a strong pressure on Serbia in this moment? Is split of Kosovo possible solution? Could Serbian government continue with current politics of EU and Kosovo or it should take one of these politics as a priority? How Kosovo crises influenced Serbian political scene? At the end, Kosovo crises opened the crucial question: could Serbia enter EU without "recognition of territorial integrity of Kosovo"as described by German foreign minister Westervele. Having in mind forthcoming elections in spring time 2012 author thinks that ruling Democratic Party as well as leading opposition party Sebian Progresive Party will continue with current politics "both EU and Kosovo". Such politics will be in accordance with the public mood in Serbia which shows that support for EU integrations is declining with the growing pressure of US and Germany on Serbian Kosovo's politics. On the other side, Serbian politics "both EU and Kosovo" is not sustainable on the long run and Serbia has to face difficult decisions in future. Also, according to the author opinion Kosovo crises showed weakness of Serbian international position. It is without important allies among key Western powers which has dominant influence in this part of Europe. Serbia has support of Russia but key influence on Kosovo has US, GB, France and Germany. These powers connected Serbia's further progress towards EU with normalization its relations with Kosovo, knowing in advance that the time when Serbia is seeking for the EU candidature is the best time to ask Belgrade to make concessions in its Kosovo's politics. Western powers do not expect Serbia to recognize Kosovo but they expect Serbia to accept " territorial integrity of Kosovo", including its north part. Why Kosovo become so important for leading Western powers? Author thinks that several reasons influenced such tough behavior of Western power towards Serbia. First, after helping them to create an independent state, US perceived Albanians as the most reliable ally in this part of Europe. Second, Germany and other big powers in Europe wants to prevent creation of new frozen conflict in Europe similar to Cyprus one, Third, all big Western powers has reserves towards Serbian foreign policy and its orientation on EU but as well as on Russia, nonalignment world, China which quite often is described in the West as sitting on the two chairs, Last but not the least, Germany as well as France is not very eager of politics of enlargement of EU in the eve of forthcoming elections in these countries scheduled for 2012 and 2013. Therefore its hesitation in this moment towards further enlargement with US pro Albanian politics creates tough dillemas for Serbian politics in foreseeable future.

Истраживања миграција представљају приоритет, јер отварају актуелне проблеме и питања која чине неизоставни део свакодневицa, политика, стратегија, конфликата, кретања и мобилности људи у свету. Када је наука спремна на таква сучељавања, тада истраживања добијају довољно маневар ског простора за аналитичко расветљавање и сагледавање са свих страна. Непрегледни свет миграција подстиче науку на моблност и истраживачку приправност овде – сада ‒ свуда. Проучавања миграција поседују перманент ну актуелност и динамику, јер нису изолована од микро- и макрополитика и економија, те друштвених и културних процеса. ; Migration studies appear as a priority as they discuss the current problems and issues that inevitably are part of everyday life, policies, strategies, conflicts, movement and mobility of people around the globe. When such debates become scientific topics, then migration as an occurrence can be studied through multiple perspectives and overviews. The vast world of migration urges science and research towards mobility and research preparedness here - now - everywhere. Migration studies are always actual and dynamic, being a part of micro and macro politics and economics, social and cultural processes. ; Тема броја: Истраживање миграција (ур. Мирослава Лукић Крстановић и Петко Христов) / Topic of the Issue: Research of Migrations (eds. Miroslava Lukić Krstanović and Petko Hristov)

The media policy of a country is a part of its overall policy and depends on the totality of socio-historical circumstances, the level of cultural and economic development, as well as the possible social consensus on the necessity for acceptance and implementation of experiences and standards from the democratic world in this field. Unlike other areas for which local/state politics is defined, the media field has only recently become interesting from this point of view and, as it is often the case in transition countries, it is still not recognized as a clearly defined position of the ruling circles. This paper analyzes the process of major changes in the media system of Serbia after the democratic changes and government actions, which in the long run cannot be considered a precisely constituted media policy, but whose consequences have an impact on the state of the public sphere and of the media, and thus receive political significance. The most important indicator of the will of political circles is undoubtedly the regulatory level, which is why this paper deals particularly with the preparation, adoption, and practical implementation of media legislation enacted from 2000 onward. Considering the official Serbian aspirations to join the European Union, the issue of state media policy is also seen through the prism of European media policy.

The diplomacy of socialist Yugoslavia paid a lot of attention to the international reputation of the country in the sphere of culture, and thus literature. At the same time, Yugoslav writers in the Writer's Union of Yugoslavia, faithfully supported Yugoslav foreign policy, both individually and institutionally. The most impressive example of collaboration between literature and diplomacy was awarding Ivo Andrić a Nobel Prize. The Writers' Union of Yugoslavia nominated the writer in 1958, and Yugoslav diplomacy lobbied in favor of Andrić for several years. The efforts were successfully crowned in 1961. In socialist Yugoslavia, the existence of a special Macedonian nation and its culture and language was insisted on, so in that sense, the greatest challenge was denying the Macedonian identity that came from Bulgaria. The Yugoslav Writers' Union, consistently pursuing state policy, suspended official co-operation with the Bulgarian Writers' Union in the second half of the 1960s due to Bulgaria's refusal to recognize the Macedonian language. Yugoslav writers also adapted to the state policy of non-alignment. They did not reach the level of cooperation with those countries that existed in the field of politics, economics or science, but they maintained ties with writers from those parts of the world in various ways. Among other things, the twentieth anniversary of the Belgrade Conference of the Non-Aligned Nations in October 1981 was a meeting of writers of non-aligned countries in Belgrade.

The process of industrialization has gone through three stages that have been described as Industrial Revolution. We are currently at the threshold of the Fourth Industrial Revolution that will fundamentally change the way we live and work. We still do not know how this will unfold exactly, but one thing is clear: the answer to it must be integrated and comprehensive, including all stakeholders in global politics, from the public and private sectors to the academic community and civil society. The speed of current technological discoveries compared to previous industrial revolutions cannot be measured. The breadth and depth of these changes affect the transformation of the overall production and management systems. This paper aims to present the main characteristics of Industry 4.0 and describe how they affect the creation of new industrial policies in countries around the world. ; Proces industrijalizacije prošao je kroz tri faze koje su opisane kao industrijske revolucije. Trenutno se nalazimo na pragu četvrte industrijske revolucije koja će fundamentalno promeniti način na koji živimo i radimo. Još uvek ne znamo kako će se to tačno odvijati ali jedno je jasno: odgovor na nju mora biti integrisan i sveobuhvatan, uklјučujući sve zainteresovane strane u globalnoj politici, od javnog i privatnog sektora do akademske zajednice i civilnog društva. Brzina trenutnih tehnoloških otkrića u poređenju sa prethodnim industrijskim revolucijama ne može se meriti. Širina i dubina ovih promena utiču na transformaciju celokupnih sistema proizvodnje i upravlјanja. Ovaj rad ima za cilј da predstavi glavne karakteristike Industrije 4.0 i opiše na koji način one utiču na kreiranje novih industrijskih politika u zemlјama širom sveta.

The relations with Russia rank among the most important and most complex issues in the US and UK foreign policy. The years after the Second World War have been marked by an exhausting arms race between the Western and Eastern bloc that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the break-up of the Soviet Union and the victory of the United States and its Western allies. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relations between the US and the United Kingdom on the one hand, and Russia, on the other, during the mandate of President Trump and after Brexit and point to possible directions that these relations may take in the aftermath of Biden's victory in the 2020 US Presidential elections. The author proceeds from a hypothesis that the efforts of President Trump, who, contrary to his predecessors, felt that the relations with Russia should be based on interests rather than ideology, have failed. He has not been successful primarily due to the huge resistance mounted by the state structures, mainstream media and anti-Russian coalition forged by the Republican and Democratic parties. The relations between the UK and Russia remain cold after Brexit as well due to the severe problems between the two countries. The first part will deal with the strained relations between the United States and Russia following the West's victory in the Cold War, the efforts of President Trump to improve these relations and his failure to do so. The second part of the paper will address the relationship between the United Kingdom and Russia, which is in many respects even more complicated than that between Russia and the US. After Brexit, the relations between the two countries continue to be plagued by the activities of the Russian agents in Great Britain, the crisis in Ukraine and different views on the war in Syria. In the third part, the concluding part of the paper, the author tried to answer the question of how the relations between the US and Russia will develop after Joseph Biden won the 2020 US Presidential elections. According to him, the new President will continue to pursue the traditional policy towards Russia agreed upon by both US parties. It can be expected that Biden will, despite the policy of sanctions pursued by his predecessors, Obama and Trump, engage more in supporting the opposition and civilian sector in Russia. Given the cold and strained relations between these two states, it may be assumed that Great Britain will readily follow a new, tougher course of action pursued by President Biden towards Russia and Putin. It is especially important for UK politics that Biden returns to the ideas of liberalism because, as we have seen on previous pages, in London, in addition to the actions of Russian agents on the UK territory, Putin is most resented precisely for his activities to overthrow the ruling liberal order. Despite the good ties between Prime Minister Johnson and the former US President who supported Brexit, Biden's victory will bring relief to the UK because of his commitment, as opposed to Trump, to bring back America to the world political stage, where London is likely to expect to find space for its new global role after leaving the EU. On the other hand, Moscow will probably continue with its past foreign policy strategy in anticipation of the moves to be taken by the new US President without high expectations regarding the future relations between the two countries. Russia has even fewer expectations when it comes to relations with the UK, given the gravity of the problems that burden the relations between the two countries.