Suchergebnisse

Shanghai Cooperation Organization was founded in 2001 under a Declaration signed by the leaders of five independent states from the territory of former Soviet Union and the President of the People's Republic of China. The Charter, adopted by the organization's member states as their basic document, emphasizes their commitment to strengthen their mutual trust and good-neighborliness and friendly cooperation; to keep and maintain the peace, stability and security of the region; as well as to fight together against all forms of terrorism, separatism and extremism. Although there are significant differences between the member states in almost all matters of social and governmental organization, over its ten-year existence the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has proved its vitality and has become respectable entity not only of the regional but also of international cooperation on the whole. In recent years all main actors of contemporary international relations have tried to establish and develop the cooperation with this important intergovernmental association. What the further development of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization will be like and where the organization will be positioned within the future world order is difficult to be definitely determined. Apart from the role of the two leading states of this organization - Russia and China, its eventual position will be greatly influenced by other major international factors as well, which, in the era of unstable energy and other forms of security, find the area of Central Asia ever more significant and attractive.

United States participation in international politics during the period between the two world wars, come not only from the general and often declarative interest in peace, but was also a consequence of extremely rapid expansion of their foreign trade and overseas capital investments. It was a period of intense financial diplomacy, when efforts to maintain the gold standard, to determine the amount of reparations and the manner of payment of war debts, brought confusion not only in relations between victors and vanquished, but also in relations between the United States and its former European allies. Abandonment of the gold standard and the creation of the tripartite agreement between the United States, Britain and France, in the 1936, was a milestone in the development of international monetary cooperation and the role of United States in international economic relations. .

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.

More than one decade Serbia has been passing through the process of market reforms. Establishing of market economy institution had to allow the country one stabile economic development in the light of EU accession. That is, by the way, the same strategy of the most countries of Western Balkan. Actual economic crisis showed the other side of the result of previous changes, and of the realized growth and development. That were the consequences on macro economic and financial instability and structure of the economy. Many circumstances showed that in the Serbian real and normative economic system there were numerous controversies stopping or slowing EU accession and basic re forms process. European economic system is based on institutions. In spite of many bureaucratic obstacles of this system institutions are the main guarantee of the system surviving. The institutions in Serbia were not established in desirable way. The government, the parliament and courts are continually in conflicts, based on formalization of institutions. Regulatory bodies are very week and under pressure of parties power control, as well as corruption and institution formalizing. All those facts have negative influence on the process of EU accession and market reforms. Serbia need to accept lawful state and institution strengthening in order to catch a connection for advanced economies in reform. Most important conditions are not only better laws, but better education. .