scholarly journals BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA FACES THE EXISTENTIAL THREAT: TIME TO STOP SEPARATISM

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teoman Ertuğrul Tulun

AVİM, for some time, has been drawing attention for developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) that threaten the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Confirming this foresight, the High Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the report he has recently presented to the UN Secretary General stated the view that BiH is in imminent danger of breaking apart, and there is a very real prospect of a return to conflict. During the UN Security Council UNSC) debate, the representative of the USA expressed concern over Milorad Dodik statements indicating an intention to withdraw Republika Srpska entirely from the Government and described this move as a dangerous path for Bosnia and Herzegovina and the wider region. The Russian Federation (RF) insisted on the closure of the Office of the High Representative and openly declaresd that RF does not recognize the new High Representative. In the UNSC debate, Croatian representative made a "revisionist" statement, while the Serbian representative expressed balanced and careful views. Croatia was supported by the EU Delegation. The declaration of support by the EU for Croatia has a content that could lead to a dangerous path to the more revisionist developments in BiH. It is difficult to say that it is appropriate for the EU to make such a statement supporting the one constituent people at such a critical time. Bosniaks, one of the constituent and the most populous peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina, were left without support and alone in the Security Council. At this critical juncture, Turkey, as a member of the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council, seems to be the only country that can show its support to the Bosniaks, reveal the EU's inaction and its partisan position in BiH, and not give an opportunity to those who want to drive the Bosniaks into the corner.

Author(s):  
Klein Pierre

This contribution gives an account of the actions undertaken under the auspices of the United Nations in order to restore peace and security in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995, in the context of the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. It describes the measures taken by the UN Security Council, the mandate and deployment of UNPROFOR —the UN peacekeeping operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina— and the actions undertaken in support thereto by other organizations such as NATO and the Western European Union. This chapter also discusses the legal issues that gave rise to discussion in that context (particularly regarding the extent of the authorization to use force given by the Security Council and the degree of control exercised —or not— thereon) and the impact of this precedent on the rules relating to the use of force in self-defence, on the one hand, and on the use of coercive measures under Chapter VII of the Charter in co-operation with regional organizations or arrangements, on the other.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 86-107
Author(s):  
Alexander Merkulenko

Due to the new coronavirus pandemic, high alert regimes were introduced across the Russian Federation in spring 2020. These emergency regimes were established exclusively by the state bodies of the Russian Federation’s constituent units – federal authorities did not introduce their own emergency regimes. This decentralized strategy of fighting the pandemic was also introduced by the USA and Brazil. Their states, without the sanction of the federal government, and in the case of Brazil, ignoring its bans, set emergency restrictions similar to those in Russia. The legal regulation of emergency regimes existed before 2020, when constituent units of the federation (states) actively used their emergency powers. However, the regimes introduced during the fight against the pandemic were slightly different to previous ones. The restrictions on rights and freedoms within these regimes were so severe that not only their proportionality was questioned, but there were also doubts as to whether the regional level of the government had the authority to establish such strict restrictions. In addition, the pandemic exposed old problems and revealed new shortcomings in the legal regulation of emergency regimes: lack of control over the realization of the emergency regime by legislative (representative) authorities, and gaps in legislative regulation – notably in the establishment of possible restrictions and of a mechanism for scrutinizing their proportionality. All this raised questions about the proportionality of the established restrictions. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation resolved a very insignificant amount of the problems. While the United States and Brazil faced similar issues, the practice of scrutinizing implemented restrictions in these countries was more common. This article takes domestic and foreign experiences into account, while examining certain aspects of the establishment and the operation of regional emergency regimes.


Politologija ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-51
Author(s):  
Lina Strupinskienė ◽  
Simona Vaškevičiūtė

This paper proposes to see Croatia’s becoming a member state of the European Union in 2013 as a particular critical juncture that created uncertainty over the type of decisions the government would take in the field of transitional justice once international pressure had stopped. It compares the period before and after the accession by looking into the three elements of transitional justice policy that were given priority by the EU conditionality framework – fighting impunity for war crimes, fostering reconciliation and respect for and protection of minority rights. It finds that all three have deteriorated in the post-accession period. On the one hand, the findings illustrate the power of international pressure, but on the other hand, they question the overall effectiveness of the conditionality policy, as it seems to not have affected deeper societal issues at stake and has not resulted in true transformation.


Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 84-103
Author(s):  
O. F. Zasemkova

In May 2018, at the 4th and final meeting of the Special Commission of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters that had been developed since 1992 was represented. It is expected that after the Diplomatic Session that will be held in the mid-2019 the draft will be finalized and the Convention will be adopted and opened for signature.In this regard, the article attempts to analyze the main provisions of the draft Convention and assess the appropriateness for the Russian Federation to access it, taking into account the fact that Russia has a limited number of international treaties permitting recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Russia and decisions of Russian courts abroad. Based on the results of the analysis, the author concludes that the adoption of this Convention will provide for a simple and effective basis for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments eligible for States with different legal, social and economic circumstances. This, in turn, will increase the practical value of court decisions ensuring the most comprehensive protection of the rights and interests of the party in whose favour the decision has been made and, as a consequence, will contribute to the attractiveness of this method of dispute resolution for parties involved in cross-border private law relations.However, the mixed attitudes of the EU and the USA to the Draft Convention raises the question of their accession to the future Convention and may significantly reduce the impact of the adoption of the document under consideration.


Napredak ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 15-20
Author(s):  
Vladislav Jovanović

The paper recapitulates the process of the destruction of the Yugoslav state (SFRY and FRY). Special attention is given to the key factor in that process, the will of the West, embodied in the USA and the EC (EU), for whom the continued existence of Yugoslavia was no longer of geopolitical interest. The conferences on Yugoslavia, organized in Brussels and The Hague, were supposed to serve to legitimize this goal: the disappearance of Yugoslavia. The author points out that when the West did not manage to achieve its goal with political solutions, it involved NATO, through the aggression in 1999. Previously, Serbia's legitimate opposition to terrorist acts by the KLA on its territory, as an internal issue par excellence, was declared a threat to "peace and security in the world", and the UN Security Council took it as a permanent topic of its sessions. There had been secessionist uprisings and armed conflicts in UN member states before, as there are today, but the Security Council never before dared to violate the article of the UN Charter that states that these questions are the exclusive competence of the member state concerned. An exception was made only in the case of Serbia, although the defense against KLA terrorism was legal and limited to the territory of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, i.e., the Yugoslav state border was never crossed. The false claim of William Walker, the head of the OSCE mission in Kosovo and Metohija, concerning the massacre in Racak, was the cause of the war of aggression against the FRY. By illegally naming the protectorate of Kosovo as the so-called state of the Albanian national minority, the West took this as the final stroke in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and Serbia, thus ignoring the story of the phoenix rising from its ashes.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 397-408
Author(s):  
Nadezhda S Vinogradova

The image of Russia is one of the key components for determining the self-identity of the population, the growth of trust in the government, and an understanding of current politics and economics conducted in the country. The purpose of this study is to identify the image of Russia in Russian political and non-political television programs for the period of 2017-2019. The research methodology included content analysis of Russian television programs. Quantitative and qualitative methods, including case studies, were used to interpret the data. The image of a country consists of a spatial (territorial) image, an image of a population, an image of power, and an image of a leader. In the analysis, subjective, objective, spatial, temporal and communicative sections were identified. The performed analysis made it possible to identify some features of the formation of the image of Russia in TV shows. The resulting image is directly dependent on the event context and is its reflection. The underlying parameters, such as political culture, are not considered. The main topics raised in TV shows were the conflict in Ukraine, conflict in Syria, sanctions and international relations of Russia, the USA and the EU, election of the President of the Russian Federation and the election of the President of the United States. The image of the country is translated as strong, cognitively complex, dynamic. Most of the messages are positive, since they are focused on the domestic audience, the policy of the channels themselves is designed to show the diversity of opinions, but, at the same time, to raise the country’s prestige in the eyes of the audience. The negative characteristics of the image involve the comments of foreign politicians and experts, which are broadcast on Russian television. Changes in the spatial image due to the reunification with Crimea are shown most vividly. This topic has been relevant for a period of five years. The political leader is represented as strong both in the international arena and in dealing with domestic issues.


2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edith Drieskens

AbstractZooming in on the serving European Union (EU) Member States and exploring the legal parameters defining regional actorness both directly and indirectly, this article analyzes the EU's representation at the United Nations (UN) Security Council. Looking at the theory and practice behind Articles 52, 23 and 103 of the UN Charter, we shed fresh light on the only provision in the European Treaties that explicitly referred to the UN Security Council, i.e. the former Article 19 of the EU Treaty. We define that provision as a regional interpretation of Article 103 of the UN Charter and discuss its implementation in day-to-day decision-making, especially as for economic and financial sanctions measures. Hereby, we focus on the negotiations leading to UN Security Council Resolution 1822(2008).


2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (12) ◽  
pp. 30-40
Author(s):  
V. Vasil'ev

The article investigates approaches taken by major political parties and civil society in the FRG toward the Transatlantic partnership. It reveals the tendencies of the prospective promotion of Berlin’s cooperation with Washington; the article also gives a forecast of further interaction between the EU and the USA, indicates the direction of discourse regarding the future Russia–Germany relations model in the context of the Ukrainian crisis and in reference to the increased transatlantic solidarity. Disputes in German socio-political circles on the issue of the FRG’s policy toward the U.S. are emerging all the time, but they have to be considered within a concrete historical and political context. Being of primary significance for all German chancellors, the Trans-Atlantic factor has been shaping itself in a controversial way as to the nation’s public opinion. This has been confirmed by many opinion polls, including the survey on the signing of the EU–U.S. Agreement on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Chancellor A. Merkel is playing an important role: she is either ascribed full compliancy with Washington, or is being tentatively shown as a consistent government figure in advancing and upholding of Germany's and the EU's interests. A. Merkel has implemented her peace-seeking drive in undoing the Ukrainian tangle by setting up the “Normandy format” involving the leaders of Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine while having cleared it through with the U.S. President B. Obama well in advance. Despite the increasing criticism of Washington’s policy among some part of Germans, for the majority of German voters, the USA remains a country of implementable hopes, the only power in the world possessing a high education level and the most advanced technologies. Americans, for their part, are confident of the important role that Berlin plays in world politics, particularly in what concerns the maintenance of unity within the EU. Berlin aims at further constructive interaction with the USA in the frame of NATO as well as within other Trans-Atlantic formats. Notwithstanding the steady tendency toward increasing of the Washington policy’s critical perception degree in German society, officially Berlin continues as Washington’s true ally, partner and friend. There is every reason to believe that after the 2017 Bundestag elections, the new (the former) Chancellor will have to face a modernized Trans-Atlantic partnership philosophy, with a paradigm also devised in the spirit of the bloc discipline and commitments to allies. The main concern for Berlin is not to lose its sovereign right of decision-making, including the one that deals with problems of European security and relations with Moscow. Regrettably, Germany is not putting forward any innovative ideas on aligning a new architecture of European security with Russia’s participation. Meanwhile, German scholars and experts are trying to work out a tentative algorithm of a gradual return to the West’s full-fledged dialogue with Russia, which, unfortunately, is qualified as an opponent by many politicians. Predictably, the Crimea issue will remain a long-lasting political irritant in relations between Russia and Germany. Although not every aspect of Berlin’s activation in its foreign policy finds support of the German public, and the outburst of anti-American feeling is obvious, experts believe that the government of the FRG is “merely taking stock of these phenomena and ignores them”. Evident is the gap between the government's line and the feeling of the German parties’ basis – the public. It is noteworthy that the FRG has not yet adopted the Law on Holding General Federal Referendums on key issues of the domestic and foreign policy. There is every indication to assume that the real causes of abandoning the nationwide referendums are the reluctance of the German ruling bureaucracy and even its apprehensions of the negative voting returns on sensitive problems, – such as basic documents and decisions of the EU, the export of German arms, relations with the U.S., etc. The harmony between Berlin’s "Realpolitik" and German public opinion is not yet discernible within the system of Trans-Atlantic axes.


Author(s):  
Neziha Musaoğlu

Many important changes occurred in the Russian Federation's foreign policy since 2000s with Putin's coming to power. Although the foreign policy is defined as pragmatic during this period, it is in fact ideologically constructed on the basis of the concept of “sovereign democracy.” The concept constitutes in the same time the source of loyalty of the Russian reelpolitik towards the West, especially the USA and of the Russian anti-globalist policies. The aim of this chapter is to analyze the intellectual, normative, and conceptual dimensions of the “sovereign democracy” concept that could serve to conceive the foreign policy practice of the Russian Federation, on the one hand, and on the other hand its dialectical relationships with the West in the era of globalization.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document