Suchergebnisse

The aim of the discussion paper is to assess the current state of Romanian−Hungarian relations in Transylvania, the causes of the problems and possible ways to improve interethnic links. The proposals include legal and non-legal solutions. From a Hungarian point of view, is not possible to circumvent the redesign of the dialogue; it is necessary to be able to explain why the goal is to achieve consociational democracy. In this context, it is also necessary to write a short programe document in Romanian outlining the ideal model of coexistence. The legal instrument for moving forward still seems to be the Minority Act provided for in the Constitution but never adopted. In this regard, Romania is in a situation of anti-constitutionality due to omission. Resolving the problem of language use in the judiciary is also a key issue. The establishment of training centres in Cluj-Napoca and Iași within the framework of the National Institute of Magistracy in the short term may be a step forward to tackle the under-representation in the judiciary, while consociational democracy is the solution in the long term for this issue as well. The topic of cultural autonomy, which already exists in certain elements, is also open and may lead to progress, and this must be resolved within the framework of the Minority Act.

The conventional view of the sustainability of social development is based on the works of the Roman Club, particularly the book "The Limits to Growth" by Donella Meadows and her colleagues (1972). In their opinion, the human population and economy are depleting the wealth of the Earth and pollutants and wastes are burdening the environment. However, the concern that mineral resources will be depleted is unsubstantiated. Environmental economics argues that a higher number of people and a higher income make resources scarcer on a short-term basis. For investors and entrepreneurs, higher prices represent an opportunity and an incentive to search for solutions. Many of them will not succeed in this search and they will bear the costs on their own. However, in a free society, the solutions are eventually found. And in the long run, we are better off thanks to the new discoveries than if the original problems had never occurred. Adapted from the source document.

The fact that the fossil fuels are getting more expensive all around the world most probably will cause certain difficulties in the energy supply of Hungary. Promoting the use of renewable energy resources in our country is vital. We don't have to pay to foreign countries for them and we can employ Hungarian workforce while producing renewable energy resources. We are concerned about the risks while using renewable energy resources and we take full responsibility for them. The expansion of use of renewable energy resources relies fully on economic productivity. The lack of capital, the biggest problem in Hungary, doesn't give much of a hope either. Still every single consumer should see that a lot of money should be spent on the use of these local resources on the short term. This constraint must be widely known by the population. Economic progress demands from everyone to use renewable energy resources as frequently as possible, though these may seem more expensive than the traditional energy sources.

The Chechnya conflict itself broke out yet during the existence of the USSR - in September 1991. On 11 October 1992. Dudayev announced the state of emergency as a reaction to the mobilization of Russian military forces at the borders with Chechnya. The Russian troops left their positions at the Chechen borders only on 18 November 1992. ... In one year after the outbreak of the war, Moscow's policy on Chechnya (1995) returned to the beginning the necessity. to solve the Chechen prob1em by "Chechen hands" and not by military force. It became the central topic of the election campaign before the elections to the State Duma which took place on 17 December 1995. ... From a short-term point of view, it would be possible to speak about the consequences on the presidential elections in 1996, from a broader point of view it is about the permanent presence of official violence in the Soviet-Russian history of the 20th century which forms the basis of a specific "Russian way". This factor has always influenced the contents, the orientation and the result of all processes (economic, social, spiritual, ethical etc.) that is confirmed by the political events in Russia not only in 1995 but mainly from 1985 up to today. (SOI : MO: S. 79f.)

It was only recently, in the early 2000's, that the national councils were formed as institutions of policy making. The present paper concerns the second election of the national councils, which was held in the traditional way and not by means of electors. In 2010, the primary issue was whether and to what extent the institution is considered legitimate by majority of the Hungarians in Serbia. However, mitigating the collective social inequities of Hungarians in Serbia/Voivodina was not empha-sized. This inequity is partly due to the political deep structure of the representational form of rule. In other words, the dispute on the working of the MNT paralleled the current challenges of the Hungarian party-political system in Voivodina. The actual possibilities of minority policy making or the sensibly discussable circumstances of a given policy area were not really included. The discourse belonged to the dimension of politics rather than that of policies. Even the most skilled intellectuals were unaware of the ways how interests can be institutionalized through policy making. The debate addressed the elections of the MNT and not its procedures of functioning/competence/decision. The 2010 election facilitated the progress in the legality and legitimacy of the body but it also pointed out that, due to the short-term and tactical workings of daily political struggles, the political possibilities and articulations of minority interests will continue to be kept in the background.

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.