Suchergebnisse

Ovaj rad bavi se ostvarivanjem neovisnosti Kosova i Abhazije te uspoređuje ta dva slučaja ističući ključne prednosti i nedostatke borbe za neovisnost i međunarodno priznanje Kosova i Abhazije. Većina današnjih država stvorena je u posljednjih stotinjak godina kao rezultat procesa dekolonizacije i raspada multietničkih država. Velike svjetske sile, ponajprije SAD i Rusija, u slomu jednih i stvaranju novih država vide svoju šansu za širenje utjecaja i jačanje moći držeći se maksime, koja se pripisuje Machiavelliju, da cilj opravdava sredstvo, dok se međunarodno pravo vješto zaobilazi, a politički saveznici samo slijede politike koje diktiraju ti centri moći. Rad donosi kratak povijesni pregled izgradnje kosovske i abhaske države i analizira momente koji su ključni za njihov status danas. ; This paper deals with the issue of achieving the independence of Kosovo and Abkhazia, and compares their cases, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages that are crucial in achieving independence and establishing sovereignty over their territory, as well as gaining international subjectivity. Through the 20th and at the very beginning of the 21st century, most of the states known today were created. Most of them were created by the process of decolonization, but there are also those states that fought for independence by separating from multinational state communities, which ceased to exist after the mentioned secession. This left many questions open. Some of their successors were immediately guaranteed independence, while others had to fight both with arms and through diplomatic channels to reach the desired status of an independent state. The great world powers, in this case primarily the US and Russia, saw in these state breakdowns and the creation of new ones their chance to expand their influence and increase their own power in a historical period that we can freely call the Second Cold War, if the first ceased at all. These great powers, according to the famous Italian Niccolo Machiavelli and the proposition that the ...

The protracted conflict in Kosovo has led to the European Union's special concern on the issue, specifically its special activities in the entire area of the Western Balkans with the aim of fully Europeanizing the area and bringing it closer to European integration. The period from the 1980s was a kind of turning point for Kosovo, given that the changed constitutional possibilities in the then state gave the opportunity for independence and the establishment of the state of Kosovo. The understanding of the entire Kosovo issue needs to be observed from the historical aspect and the role of the international community. In general, the state of Kosovo was created mainly based on international action, which laid the foundations for the establishment of a modern European state. In this process, the Ahtisaari Plan and Resolution 1244 from 1999, from which the European Union derives its activities, played a particularly important role. Until now, Kosovo has gone through three periods – that of political unrest until the 1990s, the intensive actions of the international community until the 2000s, and the period of the European Union, which is still ongoing, more precisely, only beginning since Kosovo has signed the Stabilization and Association Agreement. The European Union has a significant impact on the further development of the state of Kosovo in terms of the rule of law, the establishment of democratic standards, and the strengthening of transparent government. Profiling itself as an important global factor in peace and stability, the European Union in Kosovo has achieved the results that are visible through the EULEX mission and the actions of the High Representative of the European Union in Kosovo, as well as all other European Union institutions. At the end of the second decade of this century, the influence of the United States of America in Kosovo, which has never lost interest in establishing peace and stability in this area, is growing again. That is the reason why joint action by the United States of ...

Dugotrajnost sukoba na Kosovu dovela je do posebne brige Europske unije o tome pitanju, konkretno njezina posebnog djelovanja na čitavom području zapadnog Balkana s težnjom potpune europeizacije toga prostora i njegova približavanja europskim integracijama. Razdoblje od 80-ih godina 20. stoljeća za Kosovo je predstavljalo svojevrsnu prekretnicu s obzirom na to da su izmijenjene ustavne mogućnosti u tadašnjoj državi davale mogućnost osamostaljenja i uspostave kosovske države. Shvaćanje cjelokupne kosovske problematike potrebno je sagledati i iz povijesnog aspekta te uloge međunarodne zajednice. Općenito, kosovska država nastala je uglavnom na podlozi međunarodnog djelovanja čime su postavljeni temelji za uspostavu suvremene europske države, pri čemu su osobito važni Ahtisaarijev plan te Rezolucija 1244 iz 1999. godine iz koje svoje djelovanje izvodi i Europska unija. Do danas, Kosovo je prošlo tri razdoblja – ono političkih nemira do 90-ih godina 20. stoljeća, razdoblje intenzivnog djelovanja međunarodne zajednice do prvog desetljeća 21. stoljeća te razdoblje Europske unije koje još traje, odnosno tek počinje s obzirom na to da je Kosovo potpisalo Sporazum o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju. Europska unija ima značajan utjecaj na daljnji razvoj kosovske države glede vladavine prava, uspostave demokratskih standarda te jačanja transparentne vlasti. Profilirajući se kao važan globalni čimbenik mira i stabilnosti, rezultati Europske unije na Kosovu vidljivi su kroz misiju EULEX-a te djelovanje Visokog predstavnika Europske unije na Kosovu, kao i svih ostalih institucija Europske unije. Na izmaku drugog desetljeća ovog stoljeća ponovno jača utjecaj Sjedinjenih Američkih Država na Kosovu koje nikada nisu ni izgubile interes za uspostavu mira i stabilnosti na ovom području. Upravo zbog toga, zajedničko djelovanje Sjedinjenih Američkih Država i Europske unije jedini je put ka konačnom rješavanju komplementarnog kosovskog pitanja. ; The protracted conflict in Kosovo has led to the European Union's special concern on the ...

Apart from relations with its neighbours, Croatia's relations with the United Kingdom (UK) were undoubtedly its greatest international challenge since it won its independence in the early 1990s. Relations between the two countries during this period were frequently strained partly due to Zagreb's democratic shortcomings, but partly also due to competing visions of post-Cold War Southeast Europe and due to long-lasting biases rooted in Croatia's and Britain's conflicting policies during Yugoslavia's breakup and wars. Croatia's accession to the EU in 2013 offered an opportunity for the two countries to leave the burdens of their past behind, since Zagreb and London had similar preferences on a number of crucial EU policy fronts. However, Brexit changed everything. Croatia's future relations with the UK are likely to be determined by the nature of Brexit negotiations and the evolution of British policy toward the pace and direction of EU integration. ; Apart from relations with its neighbours, Croatia's relations with the United Kingdom (UK) were undoubtedly its greatest international challenge since it won its independence in the early 1990s. Relations between the two countries during this period were frequently strained partly due to Zagreb's democratic shortcomings, but partly also due to competing visions of post-Cold War Southeast Europe and due to long-lasting biases rooted in Croatia's and Britain's conflicting policies during Yugoslavia's breakup and wars. Croatia's accession to the EU in 2013 offered an opportunity for the two countries to leave the burdens of their past behind, since Zagreb and London had similar preferences on a number of crucial EU policy fronts. However, Brexit changed everything. Croatia's future relations with the UK are likely to be determined by the nature of Brexit negotiations and the evolution of British policy toward the pace and direction of EU integration.

Ovaj rad pruža dokaze koji govore u prilog tome da društveni mediji omogućavaju javnu deliberaciju, što je u suprotnosti s hipotezom koja naglašava dominaciju učinka "eho-komore". Rad se bavi konverzacijskim interakcijama na Twitteru između podupiratelja suprotstavljenih strana u debati o katalonskoj nezavisnosti. Ta tema, o kojoj mišljenja mogu biti snažno polarizirana, upotrijebljena je za studiju slučaja. Istraživanje je provedeno na slučajnom uzorku komunikacija na Twitterovoj platformi za odgovore i uključuje zagovornike i protivnike nezavisnosti. Unatoč tendenciji stvaranja "homofilnih mreža" koje okupljaju ljude sličnih stavova, utvrdili smo da je komunikacija između suprotstavljenih političkih tabora relativno česta. Nadalje, heterogene konverzacije (u kojima se suprotstavljene strane upuštaju u dijalog) značajno su duže nego homogene (u kojima svi sudionici dijele isto mišljenje), što se može smatrati znakom prave deliberacije, utemeljene na racionalnoj razmjeni argumenata između suprotstavljenih perspektiva. ; This article provides evidence in favour of social media serving as facilitators of public deliberation, in contrast with the hypothesis that emphasises the dominance of the "echo chamber" effect. It focuses on conversational interactions on Twitter between supporters from opposite sides in a potentially highly polarised political issue, i.e. the debate on the independence of Catalonia, which is used as a case study. Methodologically we rely on a random sample of communications on the Twitter reply network, involving for and against independence supporters. Remarkably, despite the tendency of forming homophilic networks, we find that communication across political lines is relatively frequent. Furthermore, heterogeneous conversations (where opposing sides are engaged in a dialogue) tend to be significantly longer than homogenous ones (where all participants share the same view), which can be seen as a sign of genuine deliberation based on reasonably exchanging arguments between competing viewpoints.

Hrvatski sabor donio je 25. lipnja 1991. Ustavnu odluku o suverenosti i samostalnosti i Deklaraciju o proglašenju suverene i samostalne Republike Hrvatske, čime je objavio i formalizirao volju hrvatskoga naroda i građana Republike Hrvatske izrađenu na referendumu održanom pet tjedana prije. Usvajanjem navedenih dokumenata, a u nemogućnosti postizanja novog političkog dogovora kojim bi se razriješila jugoslavenska državna i politička kriza, Hrvatska je ušla u završnu fazu procesa osamostaljenja. No, unutarjugoslavenske i međunarodne prilike i odnosi nisu predstavljali povoljan okvir hrvatskoga osamostaljenja, nego je u tom procesu Hrvatska nailazila na brojne prepreke, opstrukcije, nerazumijevanja, pa i otpore. Dio međunarodnih aktera, pritisnut odlučnošću hrvatskog političkog vodstva kao i brutalnošću srbijanske oružane agresije, postupno je gradio afirmativan stav prema odluci o izlasku Hrvatske iz SFRJ kao jedinom racionalnom odgovoru na jugoslavensku krizu i rastući velikosrpski nacionalizam i ekspanzionizam. Tri desetljeća nakon sudbonosnih odluka Hrvatskoga sabora prigoda je da podsjetimo na ključne državno-političke i međunarodnopravne akte koji su doveli do priznanja te međunarodne i diplomatske afirmacije Republike Hrvatske, kao i da ukratko ukažemo na one unutarnje i međunarodne dionike koji su se tom procesu odupirali, ali i na one koji su ga podržavali. ; On June 25, 1991, the Croatian Parliament passed the Constitutional Decision on Sovereignty and Independence and passed the Declaration on the Establishment of the Sovereign and Independent Republic of Croatia. In doing so, the Parliament declared and formalized the will of the people and citizens of the Republic of Croatia, which was expressed at a referendum held five weeks earlier. By adopting these documents, and without the possibility of reaching a new political agreement that would dissolve the Yugoslav state and solve the political crisis, Croatia entered the final phase of its independence-gaining process. However, inner Yugoslav and additional international circumstances and relations did not provide a favourable framework for the Croatian independence. In this process, Croatia had to overcome a number of obstacles, an overall lack of understanding, even resistance. Having understood the pressure of decisive Croatian political leadership and the brutality of the Serbian armed aggression, a number of actors on the international stage gradually built their acceptance of the Croatian decision to leave the SFRY. They saw it as the only rational answer to the Yugoslav crisis and the growing Greater Serbian nationalism and expansionism. Three decades after these historic decisions of the Croatian Parliament, it is now a good time to remember the key national political and international legal acts that have led to the international and diplomatic affirmation, as well as the recognition of the Republic of Croatia. This is an opportunity to highlight the local and international stakeholders who resisted this process, as well as those who supported it.

The author describes the political & geopolitical genesis of the Kosovo crisis & offers a polemically intoned criticism of the great powers regarding their policies in the entire territory of the former Yugoslavia, particularly Kosovo. The author advocates the continuation of the military struggle of the Kosovo Albanians until they have achieved their total political independence. 5 Appendixes. Adapted from the source document.

Supilo, one of the most significant Croatian politicians, left an indelible mark on Croatian political life due to his discerning political judgments. After his attempts to secure the unification of Croatia with Bosnia-Herzegovina within the Austro-Hungarian Empire by means of a joint Croatia-Serbia effort had fallen through, he became one of the most fervent advocates of the unification of all south Slavs within a common state. But he was also the first to recognize the destructiveness of Greater Serbian politics for a harmonious political life of the future South Slavonic state; with the same ardor with which he once advocated unification, he began his fight against it & for the independence of Croatia, hoping in this way to save its territorial & national integrity. Adapted from the source document.

Foreign policy & diplomatic skills played a key role in the survival & development of the Dubrovnik Republic for more than four & a half centuries. Throughout the period, the Dubrovnik Republic had foreign-policy sovereignty, which was manifest in the fact that it autonomously decided upon its relations with other states (including recognition of other states), signed international contracts, & established & maintained diplomatic & consular relations. Through timely awareness of the advantages of their geopolitical position & through their orientation towards the sea, the people of Dubrovnik entered into numerous international political & trade relations, both with countries in their continental background & with countries throughout, & beyond, the Mediterranean. They were able to assess & utilize such geopolitical & other relevant characteristics wisely & skillfully in the defense of their independence, sovereignty & economic growth, resorting almost exclusively to diplomatic means & diplomatic skill. The Dubrovnik foreign policy was based on the principle of remaining neutral in international conflicts & of stressing its position of the last Christian enclave in south-eastern Europe. As a small country with no military force, Dubrovnik managed to survive by seeking protection of powerful states, such as the Ugric-Croatian Kingdom, the Pope, the Spanish King and, finally, Turkey. In spite of the fact that first the Ugric-Croatian Kingdom, & then Turkey, provided it with "supreme protection," the Dubrovnik Republic succeeded in establishing & preserving for centuries all relevant components of state sovereignty. Adapted from the source document.

The author looks into the role & the position of judges in Croatia following the democratic changes of 1990 & Croatia's recognition as an independent state of 1991. Three events affected the status & the role of judges: (1) political independence (the formation of a nation-state), (2) state of emergency (war & semiwar), & (3) the changes in the political & the legal system. The author claims that the standard legal/positivist methods, justified in well-ordered & stable societies, are not entirely suitable for transitional societies. Besides the normative models he also provides a brief review of the practice, which deviates from the ideal. The author refers to the major events within the two periods: the wartime years (1991-1995) & the peacetime years (1996-1999). The author talks about the current social & institutional position of the courts & the judges, & points to certain potential sources of troubles for the future reformers. Adapted from the source document.