Suchergebnisse

The author discusses the reasons for relativization of the national minorities protection policy of the Council of Europe and the European Union in light of the problems with national minorities protection in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The minorities protection policies in Bosnia and Herzegovina had implications for minority rights protection in Hungary and Croatia after Croatia's accession to the EU . The European Union, the Council of Europe and other European institutions defined their position towards minority rights in light of the European Court for Human Rights decision in the Sejdić and Finci case. The decision specified mandatory constitutional changes in terms of equal protection of national minority rights. According to the demanded constitutional revisions, the representatives of national minorities would have a right to compete for legal and executive positions in the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina. Before the ECHR decision, only representatives of the three constituent peoples – Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats could be nominated for positions in the legislature and in the executive institutions. The Council of Europe mediated by CoE Parliamentarian Assembly and Committee of Ministers threatened to suspend BiH membership to the CoE until the decision was implemented. At the same time, coordinated European Union institutions made the ratification of the Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) negotiated with Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2008 conditional upon the implementation of the Sejdić and Finci decision. The threat wasn't carried through and BiH became presiding country of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 2014. In the meantime, the newly elected European Parliament as well as recently appointed European Commission accepted the SAA although the Sejdić-Finci decision was not incorporated in the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. ; Evropska unija, Savjet Evrope i druge evropske institucije bitno su odredile svoj odnos prema Bosni i Hercegovini u odnosu na primjenu Odluke Evropskog suda za ljudska prava "u slučaju Sejdić i Finci", koji nalaže obavezu ustavnih promjena u pravcu zaštite jednakosti prava pripadnika nacionalnih manjina. Tim promjenama i predstavnici nacionlanih manjina imali bi pravo da budu kandidovani na sve pozicije zakonodavne i izvršne vlasti u Bosni i Hercegovini. Do odluke u spomenutom slučaju, poznatom kao "Sejdić – Finci", samo su pripadnici tri konstitutivna naroda u Bosni i Hercegovini – Srba, Bošnjaka i Hrvata, mogli da budu kandidovani za te funkcije. U više navrata Savjet Evrope je posredstvom Parlamentarne skupštine ili Komiteta ministara prijetio suspenzijom, čak i izbacivanjem Bosne i Hercegovine iz ove međunarodne organizacije. Istovremeno, čak i koordinisano, institucije Evropske unije raznih nivoa uslovljavale su ratifikaciju Sporazuma o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju (SAA ), postignutog još 2008. godine, isto primjenom navedene odluke. Prijetnja se odnosila na nepriznavanja izbornih rezultata na lokalnim izborima 2012. i opštim izborima 2014. godine. To se nije desilo, a u međuvremenu BiH je bila zemlja – predsjedavajuća Komiteta ministara Savjeta Evrope. Novoizabrani saziv Evropskog parlamenta i nova Evropska komisija prihvatili su Sporazum o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju nakon opštih izbora u BiH 2014, iako odluka Evropskog suda za ljudska prava nije primijenjena. Predmet rada biće razlozi relativizacije manjinskih politika Savjeta Evrope i Evropske unije u politikama zaštite prava nacionalnih manjina u BiH. Time su postale vidljive i upozoravajuće i druge politike relativizacije položaja i prava nacionalnih manjina, poput Mađarske i Hrvatske, do čega je došlo nakon prijema ove dvije države u Evropsku uniju.

This paper aims at defining the concept of "geopolitical space of the geopolitics of the Sea" and it analyses the way it is constructed. Given that the notion of geopolitical space in the general sense has been largely neglected in contemporary geopolitical theory, this is not a simple task. The paper deals with a physical space of the World Sea and utilizes the theory of modern human geography in which space is understood as a product of human activity. We argue that there is a significant connection between geopolitics of the Sea and the academic discipline of the International Law of the Sea. This link is taken as the basis for the discussion regarding geopolitical space, which encompasses three teleological elements: the fulfillment of the paper's main objective; the argument regarding the connection of Geopolitics of the Sea with the International Law; and, finally, presenting the political science context of the codification of the modern International Law of the Sea. By using earlier studies, the paper analyses the geopolitical space through ideas of construction within dichotomy, as well as through the process of establishing a community within the international framework. The paper also offers our own theory according to which the geopolitical space is the space of manifestation of geopolitical phenomena. ; Temeljni je cilj rada prikazati na koji način nastaje i šta zapravo jeste "geopolitički prostor geopolitike mora". Argumentacija nije bila jednostavna jer je geopolitički prostor kao pojam u općem smislu zanemaren u recentnoj geopolitičkoj teoriji. U diskusiji smo se bavili fizičkim prostorom Svjetskog mora te koristili teorijom suvremene humanističke geografije u kojoj je prostor proizvod društvene djelatnosti. Iznijeli smo stav da je geopolitika mora posebno disciplinarno povezana s međunarodnim pravom mora. To smo, dalje, iskoristili kao poligon za raspravu o geopolitičkom prostoru, i to s tri teleološka elementa: ispunjenje osnovnog cilja rada; argumentacija veze s pravom; te prikaz politološkog konteksta procesa kodifikacije suvremenog međunarodnog prava mora. Geopolitički prostor smo ispitali kroz postojeće ideje konstrukcije unutar dihotomije, te pri uspostavi zajednice u međunarodnom okviru. Ponudili smo i vlastitu teoriju po kojoj je geopolitički prostor prostor manifestacije geopolitičkih fenomena.

Treći, završni dio ove studije, analizira odnos Bošnjaka i Bosne kroz interakciju tri hronološki i problemski povezana procesa. Prvim postupkom, definiranim kao 'arheologija politike zaborava', rekonstruiraju se, u svim dosadašnjim istraživanjima potpuno zapostavljeni, aspekti geneze historijskih i političkih faktora projekta negiranja Bošnjaka kao posebnog naroda/nacije, brisanja njihovog historijskog imena, naziva jezika te etničkog, duhovnog, kulturnog i državotvornog identiteta. Drugo, razmatra se pitanje odnosa Bošnjaka kao naroda/nacije i Bosne kao njihove matične države, koju su oni stvorili i odbranili, iz generalne problemsko-teorijske perspektive kao i iz novijih zbivanja i aktuelne situacije. Treće, argumentira se teza da je očuvanje historijskog imena "Bošnjaci", vraćenog 28. septembra 1993. godine, trajni strateški imperativ svih Bošnjaka svijeta i conditio sine qua non opstanka Bosne kao države i kao koncepta. Kritički se analizira inicijativa da se umjesto historijskog imena upotrebljavaju teritorijalne odrednice "Bosanci", odnosno "Bosanci i Hercegovci" što ima za cilj definitivno ukloniti s historijske scene Bošnjake kao narod/naciju. Budući da je opstanak Bošnjaka nužni uvjet opstanka i postojanja Bosne, imperativ historijskog trenutka nalaže bezrezervno prihvatanje historijskog imena "Bošnjaci", obnovu osjećanja zajedničke pripadnosti i uzajamne povezanosti Bošnjaka kao naroda/nacije, jačanje emotivne veze sa sopstvenim nacionalnim bićem te uspostavljanje svijesti o moralnoj obavezi svakog pojedinca Bošnjaka prema svom narodu, Bošnjacima, i njihovoj matičnoj državi Bosni. ; The third, final part of this study, analyses the relationship between Bosniaks and Bosnia through the interaction of three chronologically problem-related processes: 1. The procedure defined as 'The Archeology of the Politics of Oblivion' reconstructs in all previous research completely neglected aspects of the genesis of historical and political factors of the project of denial of Bosniaks as a separate people / nation, erasing their historical name, language name and ethnic, spiritual, cultural and state identity; 2. The issue of the relationship between Bosniaks as a people / nation and Bosnia, as their home state, which they created and defended, from the general problem-theory perspective as well as from recent events and with the current situation being considered; 3. The thesis is argued that the preservation of the historical name "Bosniaks", returned on September 28, 1993, is a permanent strategic imperative of all Bosniaks in the world and a conditio sine qua non of the survival of Bosnia as a state and as a concept. The initiative to use the territorial determinants "Bosnians" or "Bosnians and Herzegovinians" instead of the historical name, which aims to definitively remove Bosniaks from the historical scene as a people / nation, is critically analysed. Since the survival of Bosniaks is a necessary condition for the survival and existence of Bosnia, the imperatives of the historical moment require the unconditional acceptance of the historical name "Bosniaks", the renewal of the sense of common belonging and mutual connection of Bosniaks as a people / nation, strengthening the emotional connection with one's own national being and establishing the awareness of the moral obligation of every individual Bosniak towards his/her Bosniak people and their home state of Bosnia.