Suchergebnisse

This paper aims to give a comprehensive picture of the objectives and perspectives behind the creation of the Central European Initiative (CEI). It also analyzes the role of CEI in the political, economic and social transition in the post-Socialist states. The article studies how CEI helped the integration of the Central European countries to the Western institutions, especially to the European Union (EU). The cooperation was founded in 1989 by Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Yugoslavia. It was unique and special in the era, as it had member states from totally different political and economic blocks. There are more approaches to explain the creation of this cooperation. According to the Liberal one, the founder states wished to create a flexible platform for the cooperation of countries from different blocks. This was also a political initiative to overcome on the divisions of bipolarity and the Cold War. The laid down political objectives in the official documents included the values represented by the European institutions. These values were adopted by the post-Socialist states. At the project level, the initiatives of CEI indirectly contributed to the economic and social transition in these countries. CEI and EU progressively built their close relations, and the support of EU integration became the mission of CEI. If we study the EU accessions in the region, we can state, CEI had a successful and important role in bringing closer the post-Socialist states to the EU.

The aim of the study is to present the position and possibilities of Vojvodina in the European territorial cooperation with special focus on the EU Strategy for the Danube Region. Firstly, I examine the external relations of Vojvodina. I analyse the institutionalisation and the future of the DKMT Euroregion and the Banat-Triplex Confinium EGTC from the aspect Vojvodina, because these cooperations are significant component of the European integration process. The European territorial cohesion includes all the cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperations and democratic local and regional structures, forming under the identity of the EU Danube Strategy. This macro-regional strategy covers parts of 8 EU countries and 6 non EU countries (include Serbia) and faces numerous specific challenges: big socioeconomic disparities, underdeveloped potential of the Danube waterway, a unique environment threatened by pollution –to name just a few. Accordingly, there is a need for a stronger than usual cooperation dimension and for an integrated cooperative response across borders. Finally, I summarise how the Danube Strategy can achieve greater effect and reveal how macro-regional cooperation can help tackle local problems in Vojvodina, providing alternative solutions to problems stemming from legal and institutional differences of the border regions.

Central Europe means different political, economic, cultural, geopolitical and a "regional security community" contents in relation to my topic. Nowadays, this region, the "Central Europe" region primarily means the V-4 cooperation and the very important role and initiatives of the region in the EU. The V-4 cooperation, which was established in 1991, can be conceived as an attempt at creating a special form, as a mechanism and sub-stance to the political dimension of this region. The four members of the special mechanism are trying to get closer to one another by relying on solidarity with each other. The V-4 cooperation is based on the common history of the participating countries and close similarities between their recent transformation processes. Such resemblances explain the V4 structure's success, including parallel navigation in the problems of European Union and NATO accession. In the absence of permanent institutions [except the International Visegrad Fund (IVF)], the dimension and ambitions of the V-4 cooperation depends on the political objective of the governments and direct security environment, which impacts on these countries.

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.

The adoption of the new multiannual financial framework for the period 2021-2027 is one of the most important questions in the EU nowadays. It always belongs to the most difficult and time-consuming decisions the member states have to make. Such a decision should represent several interest like the net contributor and net beneficiary states' aims, the willingness of the European Commission and the European Parliament to make the cooperation among the countries deeper and to extend the cooperation to new policy areas too. The EU's long term multiannual financial framework (MFF) influences and somehow defines the next years' yearly budget and the benefits the member states can receive from the common budget of the EU as well. The main spending numbers represents the importance of the different policy areas as the EU provides resources for the topics which will be in focus in the next seven years. The decision about the new MMF is more complicated than the earlier ones. As a result of the Brexit there will be a gap in the common budget. As at the beginning of the MFF negotiations the way and the exact date of the Brexit was not clear the whole process became less transparent and predictable. On the other hand, the EU planes to provide significantly more money to new priorities and goals like border security, competitiveness or foreign policy. It means that the two traditional beneficiary policy areas' (the CAP and the Cohesion spending) share should decrease within the common budget. This study examines the effects of this decrease on the CAP 2nd pillar, rural development.

After the transformation to democracy and market economy the Visegrad Four (V4) countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia) have rejoined the group of donors providing international development assistance to poor emerging countries. The aim of the paper is to help to better understand the foreign aid policy and practice of the V4 countries and their contribution to the development of the poor emerging countries by providing foreign aid for them. The main research questions focus on the following issues: What is the history and the major motif of the V4 countries for providing foreign aid? Which are the most preferred beneficiary countries and why? How much foreign aid and in what area is provided? How does it relate to other international donors? What does it mean to the recipient countries? Are there similarities or differences between the V4 countries in this respect? What are the major features distinguishing V4 donors from others? What kind of challenges and opportunities can arise? The hypotheses of the research to be tested are as follows: 1. Providing foreign aid by the V4 countries has its roots in the past regime which still has an influence on the present practice. 2. The V4 countries represent a special model for development cooperation with the aid recipient countries. 3. The major motif of the V4 countries for providing foreign aid was to support the geopolitical interest of the ex "Soviet Block", while after the change of the regime the aspiration of the V4 countries shifted towards gaining economic benefits from the cooperation with the aid recipient countries. The method of the research is literature review related to development theory and foreign aid as well as statistical analysis based on data on Official Development Assistance (ODA). Results prove the hypotheses.

On the whole we can claim that in the last almost sixty years there was a significant change in Croatian-Hungarian trans-border relationships. State-governed cooperation was replaced by project-controlled co-operations under the guidance of local-governments and the civil sphere. Unfortunately, stock and human workforce deficit very often obstructs success. Besides it is a permanent problem in our country that state politics has a great influence on local-government politics. So in a certain euroregion the success of operation highly depends on where the local-governments and civil organization belong to politically and on the leaders' ability to validate their interests. As a result of stock deficit mentioned previously project-based co-operations occurred.1 But these ad hoc project associations are not able and won't even be able to use union sources efficiently and generate any kind of long-term regional development. ; On the whole we can claim that in the last almost sixty years there was a significant change in Croatian-Hungarian trans-border relationships. State-governed cooperation was replaced by project-controlled co-operations under the guidance of local-governments and the civil sphere. Unfortunately, stock and human workforce deficit very often obstructs success. Besides it is a permanent problem in our country that state politics has a great influence on local-government politics. So in a certain euroregion the success of operation highly depends on where the local-governments and civil organization belong to politically and on the leaders' ability to validate their interests. As a result of stock deficit mentioned previously project-based co-operations occurred.1 But these ad hoc project associations are not able and won't even be able to use union sources efficiently and generate any kind of long-term regional development.