Search results

The paper analyzes strategic thinking in the United States foreign policy. Three major turning points in American foreign and security policy are given in the introduction: burning of the White House and Capitol by the Britons in 1814; bombing of the Pearl Harbor by Japan in 1941; and Al Qaida terrorists' attacks at New York and Washington on 9/11 2001. After every one of these events, the U.S. foreign policy replied not with withdrawing, but with action - internal changes, preventive measures, specifically with unilateralism, hegemony, and preventive action. The following part of the paper examines G. W. Bush's revolution in foreign policy - the Strategy of National Security from September 17th 2002. Special attention is given to the very vague line between preventive and preemptive war and all hazardous consequences to the United States foreign policy and to the entire international order. .

Although majority of researchers think that there is a high level of consensus among scientists regarding history of this scientific discipline and its developmental phases, paradoxically enough, there is one problem with that fact itself. It is increasingly becoming evident that on one side there is a gap between a myth created by repeating one and the same thesis for decades, and real history on the other side, with its open issues and contradictions. Despite the belief that some thesis regarding creation and development of 'the field of international relations' have become generally accepted, a number of the scientists re-writing history of this scientific discipline has been constantly increasing, equally in terms of the broad background of international relations and the stances of certain states. In this case not only the search for the truth is the propellant for the researching efforts, but very often it is easy to recognize within these attempts also motivation to confirm or disaffirm the stances in current ongoing debates, through various elucidations of the processes or the stances of some well-known theoreticians and active participants in international politics. It is also important to underline that frequent and uncritical connecting of the stances of various coryphaeus of political theory and philosophy has often inflicted harm to positive contributions of theoreticians of international relations. Certainly it is difficult to deny any connection or foundations of modern theory of international relations whatsoever in the stances of one Tukidides, Plato, Aristotle or medieval and early modern political theoreticians such as Thomas Hobbes, Macchiavelli, Boden. However, unquestionable value of their contemplative sphere would not be significantly acknowledged without taking into account the background of the activities of numerous historians, philosophers or theologists. Not to mention some light research of ancient history, even some distortion of certain stances for purpose of winning the points in current ongoing debates. ; Iako većina istraživača smatra da postoji visok stepen saglasnosti kad je reč o istoriji discipline i njenim razvojnim fazama, paradoksalno upravo u toj činjenici leži problem. Sve je vidljiviji, naime, jaz između onoga što je višedecenijskim ponavljanjem postalo gotovo mit s jedne, i stvarne istorije sa svim njenim otvorenim pitanjima i protivrečnostima, s druge strane. Uprkos verovanju kako su stvari povodom nastanka i razvoja 'oblasti međunarodnih odnosa' opštepoznate, broj onih koji iznova pišu istoriju discipline neprestano raste; podjednako sa nivoa ukupnih međunarodnih odnosa i iz uglova pojedinih država. Nije u svakom od ovih slučajeva samo traganje za istinom pokretač istraživačkih napora: neretko se u takvim pokušajima lako raspoznaje i interes da određenim tumačenjima procesa i stavova istaknutih teoretičara i praktičara međunarodne politike budu potvrđena ili opovrgnuta stanovišta u aktuelnim raspravama. Važno je ovde reći i to da je prečesto i nekritičko dovođenje u vezu stavova korifeja političke teorije i filozofije često išlo na štetu doprinosa koji su pružali upravo teoretičari samih međunarodnih odnosa. Teško je, razume se, poricati bilo kakvu vezu i utemeljenost savremene teorije međunarodnih odnosa u stavovima jednog Tukidida, Platona, Aristotela ili novovekovnih veličina u oblasti političke teorije kao što su Hobs, Makijaveli, Boden,. ipak, bez uzimanja u obzir okolnosti u kojima su delovali brojni istoričari, filozofi ili teolozi, nesumnjiva vrednost njihovih misaonih dometa neće danas imati veliku saznajnu težinu. Da i ne govorimo o olakom posezanju u daleku istoriju, čak i iskrivljavanju pojedinih stavova kako bi što bolje poslužili svrsi tekućih nadgornjavanja.

International order, almost unchanged during first three centuries of its existence, has been founded on the balance of power, diplomacy, alliances international law, and after a certain amount of time, on international organizations as its key factors and subjects. Within such order, sovereign and independent states in circumstances of non-existence of basic power that is, in the circumstances of anarchy but not chaos, do acknowledge and accept joint standards of behavior and activities. It is possible to talk about political, diplomatic, legal, economical and military side of a certain international order: since the notion 'international system' is most often used as a synonym for the notion 'order', it is necessary to point out that the 'order', in contrast to the 'system' implies also certain adopted rules of behavior and joint values. as its characteristic trait, alongside with international activities. Each order is system at the same time. On the other hand, there is a question whether, and to what extent, there are relations reflecting social and international order within a certain system. The international order among the states, in particular in last couple of decades, has been infiltrated deeply into the width of global society in statu nascendi, gaining an amorphous shape along the way - there are at least two orders existing and fighting for gaining advantage - one is an order with the states as main subjects, relying on the power balance; the polar power order (not excluding hegemonic and imperial structure of power) and various models of collective security on one side, and on the other side, there is a world order with individuals as its main subjects, that is founded on ideas, norms, values and institutions supporting them; the order of human security and human rights; the rich network of global management being based on new relation toward former dominance of political aspect over economical and environmental one. ; Gotovo neizmenjen u prva tri veka postojanja, međunarodni poredak se temeljio na ravnoteži snaga, diplomatiji, savezima, međunarodnom pravu i, nešto kasnije međunarodnim organizacijama kao svojim ključnim činiocima i subjektima. U jednom takvom poretku, suverene i nezavisne države u uslovima nepostojanja središnje vlasti - anarhije ali ne i haosa - ipak prihvataju i priznaju zajedničke standarde ponašanja i međudejstva. Može se govoriti o političkoj diplomatskoj, pravnoj, ekonomskoj i vojnoj strani određenog međunarodnog poretka - budući da se kao sinonim poretku najčešće upotrebljava pojam međunarodni sistem, neophodno je kazati da poredak za razliku od sistema podrazumeva kao svoju posebnost, pored postojanja međudejstva država, još i usvojena pravila ponašanja i zajedničke vrednosti. Svaki poredak je istovremeno i sistem; s druge strane, osnovano je pitanje da li, i koliko, u određenom sistemu ima odnosa koji odlikuju društveni i međunarodni poredak. Međunarodni poredak država, posebno u nekoliko poslednjih decenija, sve dublje uranja u širine globalnog društva in statu nascendi dobijajući pri tome amorfan oblik: uporedo postoje i bore se za pretežnost najmanje dva poretka poredak čiji su glavni subjekti države i koji je oslonjen na ravnotežu snaga polaran raspored moći (ne isključujući pri tome i hegemonsku i imperijalnu strukturu moći) i različite oblike kolektivne bezbednosti na jednoj strani kao i svetski poredak sa pojedincima kao glavnim subjektima utemeljen u idejama, normama, vrednostima i institucijama koje ih pridržavaju, poredak ljudske bezbednosti i ljudskih prava, guste mreže globalnog SPM broj 4/2008 godina XV, sveska 22. str. 11-30. 30 upravljanja koji počiva na novom odnosu do tada preovlađujućeg političkog nad ekonomskim i okolinskim, na drugoj strani.

The authors of this paper analyze the progress made in relations with the countries surrounding Serbia - in the regions of South East Europe and the Western Balkans, and upon the formation of the new government of Serbia (27th July 2012). In this regard, they point out the improvement of bilateral relations with the countries of the so-called old neighborhood (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, Albania and Greece), as well as the 'new' neighbors (Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia). Therefore, the authors emphasize that it is not only the continuity of the policy of improving relations in the region, but some concrete actions to advance a good-neighborly relations have been taken as well. According to the authors resolution of many accumulated problems with neighbors will result in acceleration of the process of European integration of Serbia and the rest of the Western Balkans. This will prove to be a significant benefit to citizens of all countries in this part of Europe. Serbia has thus positioned itself as a reliable regional partner for its immediate environment, as well as to the leading factors of world politics, the authors conclude. ; Autori u ovom radu analiziraju napredak u odnosima Srbije sa državama okruženja - Jugoistočne Evrope i Zapadnog Balkana, a nakon formiranja nove Vlade Srbije (27. jul 2012). U tom smislu oni su ukazali na unapređenje bilateralnih odnosa sa državama takozvanog starog susedstva (Mađarska, Rumunija, Bugarska i Albanija), kao i sa 'novim' susedima (Makedonija, Crna Gora, Bosna i Hercegovina i Hrvatska). Zato autori naglašavaju da se ne radi samo o kontinuitetu dosadašnje politike poboljšanja odnosa u regionu, već i da su preduzete određene konkretne aktivnosti kako bi se dobrosusedski odnosi unapredili. Regulisanje brojnih i nagomilanih problema sa susedima rezultiraće, navode autori, ubrzanjem procesa evropskih integracija Srbije, kao i ostatka Zapadnog Balkana. Od navedenog rešavanja bilateralnih pitanja značajnu korist će imati i građani svih država ovog dela Evrope. Srbija se tako, zaključuju autori, pozicionirala kao pouzdan regionalni partner za svoje neposredno okruženje, ali i vodeće faktore svetske politike.