Suchergebnisse

After the failure of the European constitutional process, the question of creating the European identity has become in the center of attention of the academic public again. According to the scientific literature about Europe it is mostly discussed as the set of institutional solutions, but not as the collective cultural space, the dominant paradigm discussing the European identity is the one that sees it as entirely political, indeed. The goal of this work is to show that insisting on creating of purely political European identity has its basic neither in theory nor in practice. In order to document the claim, in this work the author critically investigates different theoretical approaches studying the European identity and analyzing the results of available empirical researches tries to determine a role of cultural, civil and instrumental components in its creation.

The basic problem that the process of Euro integrations faces today is the absence of the European identity. There are ideas how it could be built, on what it should be based, but the basic problem is the EU has give up in a great extent from the real European values - the ideals like freedom, equality, solidarity, social justice, etc. Human rights are the European achievement, but a distinctive, therefore identity difference between the European and the Anglo-American interpretation is that the European variant guaranteed social-economic rights, which was actually a concretization of the great ideal of solidarity. Today, with prevailing ideology of globalism, just this element of human rights has been brutally waded, a part of the European identity with it. A similar situation is with what the Europeans consider the greatest achievement of the EU - free movement of people, goods and capital. Free movement of people is questioned by building barbed wires and creation of a new ante murale christianitatis, even in Islamic states, far away from the Schengen Area that is proclaimed untouchable. Moreover, all those people swarming to the Europe actually have close connections with it - they originate from former European colonies, brutally exploited by their metropolises for decades and centuries. Not only that, but recently their new 'Europeanization' has been attempted through the initialization of the 'Arab Spring' , which resulted with increase of the Islamic fundamentalism, disintegration of certain Arab states and tribal war in them, increase of terrorism and, of course, migrants from those areas. Although it would be justified to try to return the evil gotten to them at least partly, by refusing to accept the miserable the Europe gives the mortal strike to some of the main values that are considered its identity characteristics - free movement of people and solidarity. All this, actually, indicates on the absence of the European identity consciousness. There is no clearly defined content of the idea of the Euroidentity, nor there is consciousness of it with the citizens of the EU. The citizens of the EU are still more French, Englishmen, Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Poles, Czechs rather than the Europeans. Their Europeanism exists only on the level of usefulness and efficacy, therefore, the prediction is that the model of the EU as an international organizations generis will be kept for a long time, while identities in future will be tied for (European) nations.

The Lisbon Treaty has brought significant changes into the architecture of the European Union. The most important novelty, however, is the establishment of a full unity of the Union structure achieved by creating new and strengthening the existing elements. The new elements of this unity are the disappearance of the European Community, the 'independence' of the European Atomic Energy Community, constituting the European Union as a single entity and the introduction of EU values. At the same time, the Lisbon Treaty has strengthened the existing elements of the common institutional mechanisms, rules on amending the founding treaties and EU membership. However, constituting the Union as a single entity which has replaced and succeeded the European Communities has not abolished the EU elements of diversity. In the areas that differed, even before the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, from the community pillar, there remain significant differences in the nature and the scope of competences of the Union institutions. This mainly regards the common foreign and security policy, which now includes the defense policy, where the existing model of inter-state cooperation has been only slightly interfered with. In contrast, in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which has become part of a larger Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, the inter-state model of cooperation has been abandoned in some of its most important elements. However, the implementation of some of the important elements of the supranational model has been postponed.

In this paper it had been started from the question what was in diachronic included in the term Middle Europe, and why it was impossible to define it precisely in any sense. 'New Middle European Concept', actual in the 80s of the previous century, had also political background, but in his creation Middle European intellectuals had part in it, and it meant the fight for cultural unity of Middle European, for the recognition of their European identity. One of the first, and the most important supporter of this concept from Yugoslav area is Danilo Kish in whose literary oeuvre this virtual space is additionally mythologized. The research attention was directed to Kish's essay 'Variations on Middle European Themes', in which he had elaborated in a concise manner his comprehension of Middle Europe, Middle European culture, Middle European writer, and numerous interviews in which he had thoroughly been elaborating these attitudes. There the writer expresses his comprehension of fascism, and Stalinism, Ahasuerus, and Judaism as 'family happiness', nationalism of small peoples, inferiorities of their 'barbarian languages', and attitudes on ironic lyrisms, 'consciousness on form', and stateless people as basic poetic features of Middle European writers. Due to all mentioned, and some universal truths on the mentioned symbolic tops, this essay is rightfully considered as one of Kish's most important self-poetic texts.

The paper analyzes military capabilities of the European Union, as an important element of the credibility of the EU Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). It discusses the development of these capabilities, and main problems that go along with the operationalization of these capabilities, as well as the prospects of their further development. Is the intergovernmental approach to the area of the EU security and defense policy a barrier to the development of EU military capabilities? What is the extent of the harmonization between 'military' competences of the EU and national specificities? The paper aims to provide answers to these questions. The first section analyzes the institutionalization of the EU security and defense policy, which includes both the establishment of special political and military structures responsible for the decision-making process within the framework of this policy, and the adoption of specific goals for the development of EU military capabilities. The second section analyzes the main difficulties met in the operationalization of EU military capabilities, concerning the efficiency of decision-making procedures, lack of strategic capabilities, the discord of national reforms regarding the modernization of the armed forces, and duplication of national programs covering the military equipment. The third section discusses the prospects of the development of EU military capabilities in the light of EU member states' military budget cuts. It concludes that the gradual evolution of the EU security and defense policy can be seen as an incentive for coordinating the efforts of the member states in the development of EU military capabilities.

Since the end of the 1980s, the intensifying of the politicization process has been one of the important characteristics of the EU integration process. The politicization in the EU is understood as the way of contesting and decision-making on public issues, the way that is opposite to the elitist and technocratic mode of decision-making, typical for the first decades of EU integration. Thus, the politicization, and also the politicization in the EU, is grasped as complementary to the public character of modern politics, especially with democracy. The European union is conceptualized as an extremely compound and non-centralized political system of a non-state type with the elements of consensus democracy and with a deeply segmented society as its basis, divided by national and many transnational lines. Within that society, as well as within its political institutions, the politicization process has been developing which has been influencing the functioning of the system considerably. We explore the experiences of politicization in other compound, consensus democracies in Europe – Belgium and Switzerland – and by comparing the specific cases of politicization, we are searching for the possible specific characteristics of politicization in the EU that stem from its described nature. Also, we are analyzing the possible impact of such politicization on the future of integration and politics in the EU. Although not always contributing to deepening of integration, the politicization in the EU, under specific circumstances, could have a democratizing effect. It serves as the opportunity for stimulating the debates on important issues and articulating the will of the citizens while the adequate forms of participation in the political process are still missing in the EU. In addition, we discuss the potential impact of the politicization of European issues on the gradual creation of the European public sphere or the Europeanisation of the national public spheres, as well as on the Europeanisation of society and emergence of the European political identity among the EU citizens. ; Jedna od značajnijih karakteristika u razvoju evropske integracije od kraja 1980- ih godina jeste intenziviranje procesa politizacije. Politizacija u Evropskoj uniji se razume kao način raspravljanja i odlučivanja o javnim pitanjima suprotan elitističkom i tehnokratskom načinu donošenja odluka, uobičajenom naročito za prve decenije razvoja evropske integracije. Stoga se politizacija, pa i politizacija u Evropskoj uniji, shvata kao komplementarna sa javnim karakterom moderne politike, posebno sa demokratijom. Evropska unija je konceptualizovana kao izrazito složen i necentralizovan politički sistem nedržavnog tipa sa elementima konsensualne demokratije koji za osnovu ima duboko segmentirano društvo, ispresecano osim nacionalnim i mnogim transnacionalnim podelama. Unutar tog društva, kao i unutar političkih institucija, odvija se proces politizacije koja ima značajnog uticaja na funkcionisanje sistema. Rad nastoji da izuči iskustva politizacije drugih složenih, konsensualnih demokratija u Evropi – Belgije i Švajcarske – te poređenjem pojedinih slučajeva politizacije traga za posebnim karakteristikama politizacije u EU koje proističu iz njene opisane prirode, kao i o mogućem uticaju takve politizacije na budućnost integracije i politike u EU. Iako neće uvek doprineti produbljivanju integracije, politizacija u EU pod određenim uslovima može imati demokratizujući uticaj jer predstavlja način da se oživi rasprava o važnim pitanjima i artikuliše volja građana u nedostatku adekvatnih oblika učešća u političkom procesu EU. Dodatno, razmatra se potencijalni uticaj koji politizacija evropskih pitanja može da ima na postepeno kreiranje evropske javne sfere ili evropeizaciju nacionalnih javnih sfera, kao i na evropeizaciju društva i kreiranje evropskog političkog identiteta među građanima Unije.