In my research I decided to examine the characteristic features of management in civil organizations. In this context, I touched upon the conflict conditions of these structures. When examining conflicts, I had the assumption that in case of an organization with such a widespread network of connections and so many interactions, many sources of conflicts can be identified. An examination of the conflict, because I considered important, since it seemed that these organisations operate at a high level of conflict. In civil activities and in society it often occurs that the participants give different responses to a given issue. The civil interpretation conveys the concept of diversity and different opinions. Even the existence of these organizations expresses disagreement. Thus, they convey conflicts in themselves since they often get into conflicts even with the state powers. These results show that the examined civil organizations have hardly any conflicts. The goal of my examination conflicts was to explore how strong the conflicts are between civil organizations and the participants of their system of relations. I examined which participants get into conflicts and the analysis of the entire sample shows that conflicts are not really characteristic of civil organizations. If conflicts happen to develop, they mainly develop between the civil organizations and the members, the civil society and the supervising organizations. However, the implementation of tasks causes interaction in each type of organizations and interactions generate conflicts. Thus, the low level of conflicts means a low level of activity. Based on the results of conflict examinations, I concluded that the rate of conflicts can be used as a parameter of civil activity in certain cases.
In South America in the 1960s and 1970s the contradictions of economic, social and political structures were deepening. The excepcional states of the new militarism appeared on the continent. Formally these state systems were set up by the institutional takeover of the armed forces. The military governments strove for the total reorganization and modernization of the societies in their all ‒ economic, political and ideological ‒ territories.The break-down of the military dictatorships in South America, in the one of three semi-peripherical areas of the world, took place in the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s and it was followed by the restoration of the civil governing in the form of hybrid systems. All these processes constituted the parts of the democratization.However in those societies have been present the authoritarian enclaves and the so-called "powers that be" as well as the inherited non-elected system of institutions of the controlled democray endangering the democratic establishment.The study aims at analizing these processes, the governmental and the state structures and the Económic transformations on the ground of the Brazilian experiences.
Considering the recent series of events and intensified diplomatic and economic relations, many experts envisage a new Cold War between the two superpowers of the twenty-first century. Although the Chinese-American relationship over the last half-century has experienced some great moments, it has mostly been characterised by less amicable or even hostile attitudes, as well as economically volatile competition. The pragmatic realist approach and diplomatic appeasement of the 1970s and 1980s served mutual interests for the two countries against their common foe, the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, concerning their political values and visions, the democratic US and the Marxist-Maoist People's Republic of China have proven to be two irreconcilable political and social experiments, worlds apart from each other's spheres and paradigms. Within the context of the drastically altered global political milieu of the new millennium, the two great powers have manoeuvred themselves into heated confrontational positions over the last decade, not even excluding the possibility of a severe clash of interests in the future.
The fragmentation of the Montenegrin society is significant, in terms of identities, ethnic groups and political values as well. However, the subsidized nature of the alternative of joining the EU is significant and almost unified, which can not be stated in the case of the NATO membership at all. The above mentioned fragmentation goes also with strong political division but the internal conflicts of the past 20 years have not led to violent occurrences, civil war, which can be considered a remarkable phenomenon among the Western-Balkan relations. The country is characterized by organized crime, nepotism, the presence of clan-like phenomena, corruption and the underdevelopment of democratic culture. Among the tasks of Montenegro regarding its accession to the EU, besides strengthening the jurisdiction, reducing the political nature of the administration, the fight againstorganized crime and in this context the elimination of the extensive corruption are prominently included.
During the Cold War, the Philippines was an indispensable US ally, and this was still basically the case at the turn of the 21st century. However, the inauguration of President Rodrigo Duterte in June 2016 heralded great changes for the international position of the Philippines: a shift towards China and Russia occurred, followed by the emergence of a more balanced foreign policy. The partnership with the US has changed, too: during the Obama administration, the relationship between the two countries became cooler, although the foundations of the alliance were never contested. In the wake of Donald Trump's assumption of office in January 2017, the alliance seems to have become as strong as before, and economic as well as security-military cooperation has continued. The author's aim is to analyze the Philippines' position in the US-led world order from 1945 to the present, as well as the foundations of the United States–Philippines special relationship. After that the main components of Duterte's "independent" foreign policy and the fundamental changes in the Philippines' foreign relations are presented. The analysis focuses on the causes of the conflict at the end of Barack Obama's presidency, followed by the improving partnership during the Trump era and the main geopolitical challenges the alliance has had to face. According to its conclusion the US–Philippines security cooperation will remain strong under Presidents Duterte and Trump due to strategic considerations, which indicate the military alliance is in the interests of both nations.
This paper explores how Britain's and Colombia's privileged relations with the United States (U.S.) influenced their journey through the European Community (EC) and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). The Anglo–American Special Relationship (AASR) was compatible with British participation in the European Single Market, but not with adherence to creating the EC's common currency, nor with leadership in building a European defence structure autonomous from NATO. Thus, since the start of the Iraq war, Britain played a rather obstructive role in what later was called European Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The US–Colombia Partnership (USCP), based on a longstanding military association reinforced under Plan Colombia, naturally discouraged any meaningful Colombian participation in UNASUR's South American Security Council (CDS), a regional cooperative security project, promoted by Brazil. Cherished projects of the liberal CAP – such as triangular cooperation (to export Colombian security expertise to Central America with U.S. co-financing and oversight) and NATO partnership – also distracted Colombia's interest from UNASUR, diminishing the latter's relevance collaterally. A role for UNASUR – alongside the Organization of American States (OAS) – in South American security management was compatible with the liberal CAP, but not with the neoconservative CAP. Even a lopsided complementation – such as the one between NATO and the CSDP – proved unviable between the OAS and UNASUR.
A 20. század második felének bipoláris hatalma struktúráját (Amerikai Egyesült Államok versus Szovjetunió) követően a 21.században a két hagyományos nagyhatalom mellett egy újabb globális geopolitikai és geoökonómiai nagyhatalom is megjelent Kína gazdasági és katonai előtörésével. Az Amerikai Egyesült Államok vezető szerepe ugyanakkor (egyelőre) megkérdőjelezhetetlen, de Kína gazdaságilag tíz éven belül beérheti, Oroszország ásványkincs vagyona (földgáz, kőolaj) pedig függőségét jelent számos gazdasági hatalom számára. A három globális geopolitikai hatalom egymás közötti, bilaterális gazdasági és kereskedelmi kapcsolatai az elmúlt évtizedben nagyon heterogén módon alakultak: az amerikai-orosz relációban lineárisan csökkenő, az amerikai-kínai relációban jelentősen növekvő, majd a kereskedelmi háborúnak köszönhetően (talán átmenetileg) megtorpanó és csökkenő, az orosz-kínai relációban pedig folyamatosan növekvő trend figyelhető meg az elmúlt évtizedben. Az Oroszország által életre hívott gazdasági és kereskedelmi kezdeményezés a Szovjetunió felbomlását követő integrációs törekvések folytatása, az Eurázsiai Gazdasági Unió az elmúlt öt évben sikereket tud felmutatni, azonban már rövid távon is jelentős kihívásokkal néz szembe és kérdéses a további fejlődése. Előre tekintve új globális kockázati tényezők jelentek meg, melyek közül a legaktuálisabb és legnagyobb hatású a koronavírus járvány világszintű megjelenése és elterjedése. A globális szereplők egészségügyi és gazdasági járvány adott válasz lépései mind sebességet, mind mélységet tekintve heterogén képet mutatnak. Kérdés, hogy a jelenleg még mélyülő globális gazdasági válság a nemzetállamok szerepét fogja-e felerősíteni vagy új szövetségek jönnek létre a világban. Izgalmas, fordulatokkal teli évek következnek a globális geopolitikai színtéren, ahol a status quo megváltozása várható, új hatalmi központok jöhetnek létre, régi szövetségi rendszerek szűnhetnek meg illetve újak alakulhatnak ki, melyek a jelenlegi tripoláris világrendet alapjaiban változtathatják meg. Following the structure of bipolar power in the second half of the 20th century (United States versus the Soviet Union), in the 21st century, in addition to the two traditional superpowers, another global geopolitical and geoeconomic superpower emerged with the economic and military outbreak of China. At the same time, the leadership of the United States of America (for the time being) is unquestionable, but China can reach the nominal GDP of the US within ten years and still many economic powers depend on Russia's mineral wealth (natural gas, oil). Bilateral economic and trade relations between the three global geopolitical powers have evolved in a very heterogeneous manner over the last decade: linearly declining in the US-Russian relationship, significantly increasing in the US-China relationship, and then (possibly temporarily) due to the trade war stagnant and declining, and the Russian-Chinese relationship has been steadily increasing over the last decade. The economic and trade initiative launched by Russia is a continuation of the integration efforts following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the Eurasian Economic Union has been successful over the last five years, but it faces significant challenges in the short term and its further development is questionable. Looking ahead, new global risk factors have emerged, the most relevant and influential of which is the global emergence and spread of the coronavirus epidemic. The response of global actors to the health and economic epidemic shows a heterogeneous picture in terms of both speed and depth. The question is whether the global economic crisis, which is currently deepening, will strengthen the role of nation-states or create new alliances in the world. Exciting, turbulent years will follow on the global geopolitical scene, where the status quo is expected to change, new centers of power may emerge, old federal systems may disband, and new ones may be formed that can fundamentally change the current tripolar world order.
