If we take political economy to be concerned with the way a society satisfies its needs, we would expect that an account of Marx's critique of political economy of art should begin with a critique of the way a need for art is perceived within capitalistic production relations. We will try to provide a sketch of such a critique in this paper, taking various accounts of the place and role of art within a system of human needs as a context in which art works and artistic creation are connected with categories of commodity, production, labour, market etc. Then we will turn to an account of human needs, provided by Agnes Heller, that are not limited to political economy and aim to show that the need for art is properly located within that system of "non-alienated" needs and human self-determination. ; Ako znamo da politička ekonomija proučava način na koji društvo zadovoljava svoje potrebe, očekivali bismo da će prikaz Marxove kritike političke ekonomije umjetnosti krenuti od kritike načina na koji se potreba za umjetnošću percipira unutar kapitalističkih proizvodnih odnosa. U ovom radu pokušat ćemo skicirati takvu kritiku, uzimajući različite prikaze položaja i uloge umjetnosti u sustavu ljudskih potreba kao kontekst u kojem su umjetnička djela i stvaralaštvo povezani s kategorijama robe, proizvodnje, rada, tržišta itd. Zatim ćemo se okrenuti prikazu ljudskih potreba kako ih vidi Agnes Heller, a koje nisu ograničene na političku ekonomiju, i pokušati pokazati da je potreba za umjetnošću s pravom smještena u sustav "neotuđenih" potreba i ljudskog samoodređenja.
The article problematizes dominant understandings of moral rights to territory and rejects the claim that the legitimacy of independence of the former Yugoslav republics can be grounded in the right of their peoples to self-determination, either within ethnic or then-existing administrative boundaries. Instead, the most promising normative justification for a decision to recognize Yugoslav republics as independent states follows from a particular interpretation of the all-affected interests principle in democratic theory, which leads to a radical reconceptualization of the idea of the people, 'its' territory, and the legitimate role of the international community. Adapted from the source document.
This article's point of departure is that the national self-determination doctrine remains one of the most paradoxical, contested, but successful doctrines which has largely contributed to the shape of our existing international system of nation-states. It argues that the doctrine which is intended to safeguard peace and human dignity is and always has been at the heart of many conflicts. Starting with the tension between the universality of the national self-determination doctrine and the particularity of the national group whose interests it promotes, the article explores other paradoxes contained within this doctrine. They range from political and legitimacy challenges to the very nation-state it creates, through the violations of human rights contrary to its very meaning, to the fact that national self-determination doctrine, far from being a national issue, is actually an international affair. While not rejecting the doctrine, the paper concludes with the final (ninth) paradox that perhaps the success of this doctrine should not be measured by how many states it can produce, but how it can make the existing states a safe home for more self-differentiating national groups. Adapted from the source document.
This article deals with the issues of self-determination and multiethnic regionalisms in Dalmatia, Istria and Vojvodina - historic regions of today's Croatia and Serbia. The main aim is to explain the outcomes of regionalisms since 1990. The article analyses three important elements of regionalist mobilisation - the use of historiography, regional economic specificities and intergroup relations. Particular constellations of self-determination claims based on plurinational and multinational principles in the cases of Istria and Vojvodina respectively are the key theoretical contribution of the article. The article also finds that the lack of success of Dalmatian regionalism is largely due to the inability of regionalist parties to address multiple cleavages on the territory of Dalmatia. Adapted from the source document.
The article explores the process that led to Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence and argues that the willingness of many countries to contribute to the creation of Kosovo as cannot be explained solely by humanitarian concerns, and the remedial understanding of the right to self-determination. What seems to have motivated the Western powers was also the recent memory of the UN's failure to stop the internecine wars which characterised the SFRY's dissolution (particularly the war in Bosnia), as well as the rejection on the part of the international community with the way in which Kosovan autonomy, previously entrenched in the SFRY constitution of 1974, had been emasculated from 1989 onwards by both Serbia and the FRY in a process which served to deny Kosovo Albanians both the minority rights and the right of internal self-determination. Finally, the article speculates on the long-term implications of the Kosovo intervention. Instead of being seen as a 'unique case', the intervention in Kosovo may be seen as the consolidation of a growing European commitment to the rights of internal minorities, including the right to territorial autonomy for national minorities. Adapted from the source document.
What are the doctrinal implications of international responses to the demise of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY)? Faced with harshly conflicting internal visions of Yugoslav self-determination, the international order - taking direction from the Badinter Commission - reacted in an essentially ad hoc manner against the most manifestly virulent of the competing ethno-nationalisms. In ascribing international legal status to a particular set of constitutionally-established internal boundaries, the Badinter Commission gave a rationale that masked rather than highlighted its departure from existing doctrine, seeking thereby to minimize any implications for the future of sovereignty and s elf-determination. Any effort to invoke the Badinter Commission judgments as evidence of a broader doctrinal transformation, attributing international legal personality to constitutionally-delineated sub-national units more generally, neglects the peculiar context of those judgments and threatens to lend undue support to externally-promoted secessionist projects. Adapted from the source document.
According to Paul Kahn, one of the leading American constitutional theorists, the terms 'nation' and 'national sovereignty' are beyond the moral argument. From the perspective of constitutional ontology, the nation is the community of all those who share the 'political eros' love of the nation, who are ready to respond to her call and, if necessary, lay down their lives on the altar of its self-preservation. The moral debate about the limits of nation's state is meaningless, tells us Kahn. The boundaries of all, even liberal states arise through a 'make sacrifices' they 'never just a matter of geography', and therefore 'there is no abstract drawing of borders by some principle of justice. As in the life of the individual, the limits have the same necessity: There is nothing abstract in that necessity.'. Adapted from the source document.
In his first interview to Croatian media after a long period of silence, in October 1989 the leader of the newly formed Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), Franjo Tudjman, described himself as 'a Croat man, Marxist, Revolutionary and Historian'. Why did he use concepts such as 'Marxist' and 'Revolutionary' at the time when elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe these concepts became politically incorrect and unpopular? In this article we argue that Tudjman's views on self-determination and secession of Croatia from Yugoslavia were driven by life-long commitment to Leninism and (especially when it comes to the 'national question') Stalinism. When he reappeared in Croatian politics in 1989, Tudjman used the Leninist - not Wilsonian - concept of 'self-determination', which in Lenin's and Stalin's interpretation includes the 'right to secession'. This position enabled him to form an unusual - but logical - coalition with former Communists who were at the same time also nationalists, as well as with anti-Communist separatists. The author analyses the link between Tudjman's politics in the 1990s and Leninist-Stalinist principles of the 'right to self-determination' and 'right to secession'. Adapted from the source document.
Do proleća 1917. godine, na teritoriji (bivšeg) Ruskog carstva našlo se nekoliko desetina hiljada ratnih zarobljenika Južnih Slovena, od kojih su se mnogi direktno uključili u revolucionarna događanja započeta padom monarhije u februaru. Nakon Oktobarske revolucije, hiljade Bugara, Hrvata, Slovenaca i Srba borile su se na strani boljševika. Od 1918. godine, imali su svoju Južnoslovensku komunističku grupu pri Boljševičkoj partiji, kao i novine Svetska revolucija. Grupa se, međutim, brzo sukobila po pitanju ustrojstva posleratnog projekta. Jedni su se zalagali za stvaranje Jugoslavije kao države Južnih Slovena, dok su drugi smatrali da buduća socijalistička država treba biti Balkanska federacija, stari projekat balkanske socijaldemokratije. Ovo neslaganje dovelo je u konačnici do odvajanja Bugara iz Južnoslovenske komunističke grupe. Iako pitanje buduće radničke federacije na Balkanu nije razrešeno čak ni formiranjem Komunističke internacionale, ova zaboravljena rana debata između tada vodećih južnoslovenskih komunista bila je uvod u kasnije marksističke rasprave o nacionalnom pitanju u Bugarskoj i Kraljevini SHS. Analiza ovih projekata otvara pitanja o prijemu boljševičkih ideja među Južnim Slovenima, kontinuitetu i diskontinuitetu marksističke misli među balkanskim socijalistima pre i posle 1917. godine, kao i o razvoju koncepta lenjinističkog prava na samoopredeljenje u kontekstu političke situacije na Balkanu u posleratnom periodu. ; By the spring of 1917, tens of thousands of South Slavic prisoners of war had found themselves on the territory of the (former) Russian Empire, and many of them took an active part in the revolutionary events which had begun with the collapse of the monarchy in February. After the October Revolution, thousands of Bulgarians, Croats, Slovenes, and Serbs fought on the side of the Bolsheviks. Beginning from 1918, they had their own South Slavic Communist Group of the Bolshevik Party, as well as a newspaper called Svetska revolucija (The World Revolution). However, the Group soon became divided over the question of building a future postwar order. Some communists supported the creation of Yugoslavia as a country of South Slavs, while others thought that the future socialist state must be a Balkan Federation, an old project of Balkan social democracy. The pro-Yugoslav current was composed primarily of people who were radicalized by the world war and the revolution and who fought together in the South Slavic units of the Russian Imperial Army before 1917. The supporters of a Balkan federation were those who were active in the labor movement before 1914. The Bulgarian communists, influenced by the theoretical tradition of "narrow socialism" developed by Dimitar Blagoev, were the standard bearers of the idea of Balkan federalism, while most Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes eventually opted for Yugoslavia, also as a federal state. This disagreement eventually led to the separation of Bulgarians from the South Slavic Communist Group. Even though the question of the future workers' federation in the Balkans was not ultimately resolved even after the creation of the Communist International, this forgotten early debate between the leading South Slavic communists foreshadowed the later Marxist discussions on the national question in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. The analysis of these projects raises new questions regarding the reception of Bolshevik ideas among the South Slavs, the continuities and discontinuities of Marxist thought before and after 1917, as well as the development of the concept of the Leninist right to self-determination in the context of the political situation in the Balkans in the post-WWI period.
Local self-government units are key cells of every country's development, pervading deeply needs and interests of local community members, the citizens of a state, who are considered to be the key factor in survival and development of a community. No successful democratic society can be achieved without a good and effi cient local self-government. For that reason, a special attention needs to be brought to the issue of local self-government units. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, there is a fragmented system of local self-governmentmunits at entity level, with a very low degree of mutual cooperation, which greatly complicates and hinders the functioning of local self-government units at the state level. There is no unity in regulation and compliance of local self-government units functioning, at the state level, with the European Charter of Local Self-Government, or the documents of the Council of Europe, which is at odds with the aspirations of our country in the process of Euro-Atlantic integration with the rest of Europe.
The paper emphasizes the most important global problems in the field of the environmental protection in the context of the debate about the importance of the participation of the local self-governments in addressing those. The paper points out to the fact that the Republic of Serbia harmonized the national environmental legislation with the EU legislation as a part of the European Integration process of the Republic of Serbia. This process included the transfer of a significant part of the work in the environmental field (including activities related to global environmental issues) to be carried out by the local self-government. These are the following issues: climate change, protection of the biodiversity, forest resources management, sustainable use and management of water resources, waste management. This paper identifies how the RS regulations transferred jurisdiction on environmental responsibilities to the local self-government. The paper also refers to the national regulations in the field of the environment in which the local self-government has been made competent for the activities related to the global environmental problems and the question of the capacity of the local self-government to implement these regulations.
The issue of territorial disputes is a problem of a large number of states. These problems exists in the EU and in countries candidate for accession to this organization. As to the former Yugoslav republics following the collapse of the common state, the problems are created in terms of determining the territory. The issue of borders after the dissolution of a federal state such as Yugoslavia, creating major problems that can be solved only by applying two basic principles - the principle of demarcation and the principle of self-determination of nation. In international law there is no general rule, according to which the retreating boundary between the states. The author deals with issues of particular territorial disputes in the EU and between the EU countries and countries of the Western Balkan. Practically, these disputes between EU countries have existed before, and have not been resolved to their joining the organization. Whether the EU can guarantee resolution of these disputes is one of the issues raised in the paper, given that many disputes are not settled in countries that are longer or shorter time-EU countries. The conclusion is that it can not, because there are no adequate tools for this so that all the leaves to the states in disputes.
Pitanje prava drzava na samoodbranu je jedno od fundamentalnih pitanja medjunarodnog javnog prava. Ovo nacelo koji postoji koliko i samo medjunarodno pravo, formulisano je na univerzalan nacin sredinom proslog vijeka, i postoje mnogi pisani radovi o njegovoj izradi i tumacenju. Pozivanje na samoodbranu kroz cijelu istoriju je koristeno kao opravdanje za zloupotrebu sile od strane drzava van svojih teritorija. ; Question of right of states to self-defense is one of the fundamental questions of public international law. This principle, which exists just as long as public international law does, was formulated in universal manner by the mid 20th century and there are many written works on its formulation and interpretation. Invoking self-defense during the course of history was used as a pretext for the use of force by the states outside of its territories. Right of states to self-defense originates from customary international law. During antic and medieval times, principle of self-defense was linked to the theory of just war which was differently interpreted in different times. In the period between two world wars, still there was no absolute prohibition of the use of force in international relations so the principle of self-defense was linked to the right of self-help through use of different forcible measures: retorsions, reprisals, naval blockade, intervention and demonstration of naval power. Contrary to the period of League of Nations, mechanism of implementation of international law was centralized by the foundation of the United Nations because a single body – Security Council – was entrusted with the authority to determine when the use of force is allowed in international law. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter defines that the states have a right to individual or collective self-defense in case of armed attack on the UN member state. This right is considered legitimate until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
