globalizacija i desuverenizacija ispravljeno u stampi
DESCRIPTION
ГлобалиѕацијаTRANSCRIPT
-
GLOBALIZATION AND SOVEREIGNTY DECLINE
-
GLOBALIZATION AND SOVEREIGNTY DECLINEThematic Collection of Papers of International Significance
2013.
-
,
, ,
. ,
, ,
. ,
,
.
. ,
.
Kjell Magnusson, PhD, Associate Professor, Upsala University, The Hugo Valentin Centre, Sweden
Michele Papa, PhD, full professor, University of Florence, Italy, visiting professor of Columbia Law School,USA
. , ,
,
,
Graficolor,
300
ISBN 978-86-6349-018-5
47023 -, .
-
v
? ........................................................................ 3
j, ............................................................. 17
XX XXI ......... 39
, .................................................. 53
1974. ........................ 73
Vihren BouzovThe Development of Global Society Cosmopolitanism or Republicanism ............... 91
.......................................................................................... 97
, , a ........................................................ 109
....................................................................... 117
Rafael Vzquez-Garca, Aleksandra SojkaDefining European Identity in Post-Socialist EuropeA Comparative Analysis in a Globalized World.......................................................... 143
.... 171
, ........................................... 191
?......................................................................... 215
............................................ 239
........................................................................... 251
-
vi
................................................................................. 267
.............................................. 281
............................................................. 297
19981999. ...................................................... 311
, - o ............................................................... 339
..................................................... 353
Dafer Sahib, Wasen HasenArapsko prolee: od Dejtonskog sporazuma do ruenja abe .................................. 367
, ..................................................... 383
, ................................................. 403
....................................... 417
Irina KovaeviGlobalizacija i ekonomska i politika desuverenizacija............................................. 433
Braco KovaeviNeoliberalizam i erozija suverenosti.......................................................................... 449
- ..................................................................... 465
.................................................... 479
: ......................................... 491
......................... 507
, M ........................................................... 521
-
vii
. , ...................... 545
Dushka Matevska, Zoran MatevskiNational and Religious Identity in Republic of Macedonia in the Global Age.......... 561
Milica MatijeviAnti-discrimination Legislation, IDPS and International Standardsfor the Protection against Discrimination in the Post-conflict Kosovo.................... 577
Slobodan MiladinoviGlobalno siromatvo kao razvojni i modernizacijski paradoks.................................. 595
......... 615
............................ 631
-, : / .................................................................. 645
, ............................................. 655
............................................ 667
............................... 683
- ....................................................................................... 701
, A ......................................................... 723
: ...................................................................... 737
....................................................... 765
........................ 777
Dragan PrljaVirtuelni prostor, suverenitet, teritorija i mo .......................................................... 795
-
viii
, , ...................................................................... 809
Miodrag Savovi, Danilo Savovi
Regionalizam kao novi oblik decentralizacijeili kao dekonstrukcija nacionalne drave .................................................................. 821
,
A .............................................................................................. 837
: ...................................... 853
.............. 875
: ................... 897
................................ 919
Irina Trotsuk
Patriotic and Geopolitical Components of Youth Outlook in Russia........................ 933
.............................................................................................. 949
............. 977
...................................... 993
Marija Drakulovska Chukalevska, Anica Dragovi
Globalization Challenges: Socio-economic andCultural Changes within Modern Macedonian Society........................................... 1015
, .
, ........................................ 1029
, ............................................................................ 1047
............. 1059
-
1
80 .
: - , - , - .
- . , - ( ) , , , ( -). e , ,
. - .
, -- , , - o - e . - , - . -. , .
,
-
2
, , , . - , - . - . , , .
.
-
3316.32:008316.75
. 1
()
?
. . . -, . .
. - . .
: , , .
: (1) (, ), (2) -, , (3) . -, -, , . - . ? , .
-
4
. - ( 10.000) - . . , (, , ) , , - ( , ). -, - .
- , . - - -. - . . , - - . ( ). .
- ,, . . - , ( 2009, 2003).
. - , , - , , , - ( 2005).
-
. : ?
5
, - ( ), . - . . . - . , . , , , .
-, , - . . - ?
. , . - . .
:
, - . , , , - . - - . -, , -, . . - . , - . , , . -
-
6
, . , ,, . .
. , . - (1719. 2006) -, , , , , . ; - .
-. , - . . - - . . - , - , - . ? , - , , , ( 1994, 38).
() ? . , - - . - : ) ( , ), ) - (, ,).
, , , - . , , , - , . , (
-
. : ?
7
, 2003). -, .
(1996), - . - -, , , , - , (1996, 11). , . , , , . - (1996, 11).
, - . , , , . - , - . , . , , .
, , , - . , - . , - . , - , - .
, . , , , -. - -. , , - . . . , , - .
-
8
- (Bauman 1997, 76). . , , , . - . - , , , .
- , , , . -- . - , - .
. - ? , , . - : 1) . ; 2) - ; 3) (- ), , ( ); 4) - . , . .
- . - . , - - , , - . , 12. 13. , . .
- . - . - . , , . - ,
-
. : ?
9
, (, 7.11.2002).
. - , , - ( , , 7. 11. 2002).
. -, . - -92 .
a, , o . - . - 19. . - (-, , , , , ) , -, , - , ( 1996, 199).
-.
:
- ? - .
. - - . - . . . , . - (, , , ). . ( 1989, 624). - (). : -
-
10
? ( . 1970, 87).
, , . , , , . - : (), , .
() , , . . , . , , -. , , , - , , , .
, , , -, , , . , , - , , , .
. . - , , . - . -. . , . , ( 2002, 247248).
. - : ?
. - . , , . - . - : , , -, , .
-
. : ?
11
, , . - . .
- . - , . .
- .
() . -. .
. - . 320 - . ( 1991).
-, -, ( ). - , -, , -- , . .
. - . - . -. . , . , , , - .
,, , , . - , . , , , , , . -
-
12
. .
-. 21. . (, , , ), (, , ). - ( ), (), ( - ).
, , - , , .
. , - . -, .
, - . . - . .
, . .
. , - . . - , - ( 1991).
. . . -? ? - . . . , . . . (40). -, . , - , . .
-
. : ?
13
(62). -. - - .
? ( )
, , , -, . () , - . - : ? -, , ? - : - ?
. .
, , - . , . , - .
, -, . - , , - 19. ( 2003).
. . . , , .
. . . ( ) .
- 19. 20. . - , , -
-
14
, - ( 2009).
, - . , . -- . - -. .
-. . , . ? - - - . , .
, - - . -- . , . - . , - .
, . . : , 2009.
, . . : , 2011.
, . . , 2003.
, . . : , 1970.
( ). : , 2003.
, . . : , 2003.
, . . : , 1994.
, . . . : XX , 1991.
, . . (: ). : -, 1987.
, . . : Clio, 2003.
-
. : ?
15
, . : . : , 2002.
, . , : , 2009.
, . . : , 2003.
, . . : , 2002.
, . . : , 1989.
Bauman, Z. Postmodernity and its Discontents. New York: New York University Press,1997.
Brown, F., Lauder H. Education, globalization and economic development. London:Tavistoc, 1997.
Kofman, E. and G. Youngs, eds. 2003. Globalization: Theory and practice. London andNew York: Continuum.
La K. Pobuna elita i izdaja demokratije. Novi Sad: Svetovi, 1996.
-
16
ZORAN . AVRAMOVI
THE GLOBALIZATION OF CULTURE AND ITS LIMITS
SUMMARY
The paper considers contradictions of globalization in the field of cultural subsystemof society. It distinguishes between globalization as a social process of contemporaryworld and globalism as an ideological programme. The key argument in the paper isthat globalism within culture denotes the expansion of Euro-American system of val-ues and world view into other national cultures.
The author analyzes the capabilities of a national culture of setting bounds to the ex-pansion of globalization ideas and cultural praxis. That limit appears in the form of tra-dition and educational system. The author makes use of the culturological being ofSerbian nation as an instance of this effort.
KEY WORDS: globalisation, globalism, national cultures, Serbian culture.
-
17
327 (497.11)"20"323.1 (=163.41)"20"
. 1
, , ()
J,
*
. , , , , - , . , - , . , - , , . . -, ( ) , - . , , . - . ,, , , - .
: , , , , .
1 [email protected]* 47023
, - , .
-
18
, -
. .
.
.
, () , - ( , , , , ) ( ). 20. 21. , - . 20. - , . - - .
- , , --, - . - 2, , , . , , , ( , ) - . , - , -. , , , . (-
2 , , - , , , , , , 2013.
-
. :
19
) - , . , - - .
, , , , - , , , - , . . -, , , . , - . - . - - . , -, , , , : , - ( 2011, 120). , , - ,3 , - . , , . (, 121).
3 je 10 , 7 . ? , .
-
20
, , - , .
, , , . , , - . - , ,
.4
(, , , -) , , -
, , .5 20. , - , a , , , . 20. . ,
6 , , - .
. - . , , -
4 . - , , . , . , , .
5 , -, .
6 19. (18481923) : . . , - . .
-
. :
21
. -, , . , , -, , . . . , , :
, , , , , - ,
.
, , . , . - ( 2012, 2122).
, , je - , . , , , , , .
- , : - . , ( 2013), . ( ) . , - , - -. , , , , , . .
-
22
. - , , , -- (), -, - . , , . ( ), , , ( ) . - ( , , ) ,
, (2010, 601).
, (, ), . , . - . , (-, , ) , -. - , : - .
-
. :
23
- . , , , - - - -, , . , - , .7 , , ( ) . - - . .
( Serbien muss sterbien) - : , , ; : - . , ? . , , , - . , , , , , -, -. - , ( ) 9. . - . . , , ,
7 . , . (2001), , -, , . 35. . 34, 213234.
-
24
, , - . , 8, - , - ( ) - - . , - , . - . - . , ( ), . - - ( , ). , , , . : . : , - . , (-, 274/2013, 28). . ?
, , , .9 (- 1991) , , , , . . , , , , -
8 : , , .
9 (1991) . , , . (, , 1991, ).
-
. :
25
. , , - 1878. ( 2010, 146). , - - ,10 - : , , , , , , , ., , 1995, 1999. - (, 146).
, , , , -, , , . , - = -, - . - , ( ) . ( mir.h19.ru) - 11 -, . , , , - ( ). , , . - : - . , , , - , , ( )
10 , : . . , 13. 1991.
11 , 2009. ( ) . , - .
-
26
, - ( 2013, 46). , - . , , , -. , , . - , , ( ), - . - .
, , : , , . , . , - , 1930. - , , : , , , . . , , ( 2009, 13). , , , , , ? ( ), , , , . : , . , . -
12 , , , -. , , , , , -
-
. :
27
, , , - ?
, . , . , , - . () - ( ) ( ). , , , ., , - , , ., . , ( ) - , , - . , , , , ,, . - , , , , . , , - ( -, , ), .
12 , , - . . , - , : 1872, . 239. - , - , , . , - , - .
-
28
(), 22. 1999. , , , . - . - , . - - , - , . - , -, , . - - , . (, , , ), - , (failed states). , , - . , - , - . , , -, . , , , (- ) . , - 2003. . . , , , - , , , . , - , -
-
. :
29
(18571947) (,, , ).
, - ( , ), , , , -, . , -, . , - , , , , . - . . (, ,) .
- . , , , 2000. - , , (). , - , ,() () , . ( 2013, 42). . : , , - . ( 1648. -) . , , , , - , , ,
-
30
(, 43). : (), ( : , , ) - ( )
.13 .
14 , - . - - : - , - . : (- 2004, 191). , , , : , -, , - - ( 2002, 7).
. , ,
, .15 ( - 2020, , , , -
13 ., , . , , .
14 , 300 90 , 60 . - : 144, 124; 58, 52; 49, 46 : , , : ,2000, 66.
15 -, , .
-
. :
31
, 10 ) -, , , . - , , , ( ) . -, , - . - . - , , - - , (. ).
, , - , , -, ( ) : ( ..) , - , ( 2011, 342). , 2003. -, , , , , , , ? , - , - , , - . - , , : , . 24. 20. - - , - , , , , , (, 341).
-
32
, . , , , , -
, 16, . , . , , - . - , - ( ). - , . , , , , - , , , .
, - , . , - , . , ( 2009, 142).
; -, , , -. . : , , - . - , - , ,, ( ), - . - , -, - , . , -. , ,
16 , 50%.
-
. :
33
, , , , - . . . , , , : -, - ( 2011, 340). - , , -: , : , - ( 2013, 303).
. , , . , -, 1999. - : , -. , - , , , . , ( ), ( ) . - , - , , - . - , , . - . - , . - - . , , , ? - -, - . - ? , , ,
-
34
, -, . , .
, , . ( - , , ) , - - , : ( 2010, 130).
.17 : , - ? , - (. ) -. , , , . , , . , - , . ( -) , ( ) . - , . . - , , ,
17 , - -. , , http:/www.nspm.rs/savremenisvet/dobrimomciloseprolaze.html, 10. 2010.
-
. :
35
18. , .
, . ? , , , . ( ) -, , . - - . - , , . , ? - . , , . , - , . - , - . , , ( ) . . , , , : , , - - . , , , ( 2013, 44).
: . -, , ( ) , , - . -
18
-
36
, () , , , , - . (. ) - -, , , , , , . , , , (1998, 328) , , , . , - , () - . , , (-, , ), . -, . , , , , - .
, . . : , 2009.
, . . : , 2011.
, . . -: , 2013.
, . . 19122012, . ,3759. : , 2012.
, . , . , .35. . 3-4 (2001): 213234.
, . . : , 2010.
. . , . 274 (2013).
-
. :
37
, . , .: , 2007.
, . . -, : , 1991.
, . . . , 13. 1991.
, . . , . 260. , 2013.
. . : , 2007.
, . . : - , 2013.
, . . - . : , 1872.
, . . , . 260. 2013.
, . . : , 2012.
. . : , 1998.
, . . : , 2013.
, . . : , 2000.
-, . . 2/2010.
, . . : , 2004.
, . . : , 2004.
, . . : , 2011.
, . , 2010. http:/www.nspm.rs/savremeni-svet/dobri-momci-lose-prolaze. html.10. 2010.
-
38
PETAR . ANELKOVI
BAD STUDENTS OF HISTORY AS A TEACHER: YUGOFANATISM, EUROFANATISM AND THE
DE-SOVEREIGNIZATION OF SERBIA
SUMMARY
After epochal historical collapse of project of communism, and all the more obvioustransitional failure, that, instead into better, led us to peripheral world, increasinglyemerges the need to define new path for Serbia. Serbia need's to redefine its own posi-ton and role on the Balkan and in Europe, to formulate and resurrect devastated na-tional self-consciousness, and choose a true path for construction of non-communistsociety, but also modernize state without westernisation. Of course, deliberat questfor true national idea, one that would lead Serbia out of epoch of decadency and sys-tematic crisis, out of alienated time's, means both common sense and critical consid-eration of own mistakes from the distant and recent past. Serbian people often in theirfriutfull and long lasting history were bad students of history as a teacher. One of thebiggest mistakes, the one (revenge of history) that is fatal and cost's Serbia today veryexpensively, is creation of Yugoslavia. It seems that we havent learned the lesson andthat we are now heading for the bigger mistake, entering the EU, that would definitelymean the end of serbian idea. We replaced yugoutopia for euroutopia. National ideathat we see in patriotism, statehood, comradeship, orthodox Christianity, certainly isnot found in bright capitalistic future of EU, neither in failed experiment of commu-nism.
KEY WORDS: Serbia, Yugoslavia, EU, Eurasia, history.
-
39
327 (4-12)"19/20"342.31 (4-12)"19/20"
. 1
. ()
XX
XXI
. - - . . , ( ), , , . , - . -: - . - , , , - . ( ) XIX - ( ) .
: , , , .
, - , . XIX , -
-
40
. , XX - , . - . - - , . - , , - , , , . - . , . (, , ) , - . - - ,, , . - - . - , XIX .
- . , , . - , . . , : 20. , (Luce 1941, 118). Pax-Americana ( ). - , , -, , -. . - ( 1986, 19; , 1994, 95). - , , : , -
-
. :
41
, , . - , - .
. , -. , - : . , (); , ( 1999,52).
:Drang nach Osten : - ( .), , , ( 1997, 34; Centerstage AmericanDiplomacy since World War II 1990, 52).
: NSC 20/1 18. 1948.. (-); NSC 20/4 23. 1948. . (-) ; NSC 58 14. 1948. . ; NSC 68 14. 1950. NSC 20/1 18. 1948. (http://www.helicop.chat.ru/rus57.htm).
68 (National Security Council) . , - . 68 , , - 23 1948. - - - ( 2001, 2326).
-
42
1955. ( 2001, 27).
15. 1947. 400 , 300 , 100 . , . - . - . . New York Herald Tribune 1, 1. 1947. : , , ( . 4. 1977, 269).
- , . , - . , - ( http://www.analysisclub.ru/index.php?page=hist&art=2031; 1997, 41).
, 12. 1947, 100 , . - . , - . - . . 300 . - . 100 - , - .
- .
-
. :
43
19471957. 1,7 . , , - . 11 , 23 ( 2000, 206207; 1984, 172173).
1948, 4. , - . : - ( - , .); - , , - - ; - , ; - , - , - , - ( - ), . 30. 1952.. , - 351.7 . - . , ( 2000, 208209; 1984, 173).
, . - - . ( 1984:166; 1998: 140149).
, .
-
44
1947. 200 . 42/1 22. 1949. - . 353.6 , . 1946. . - ( 1986, 80).
4. 1953. - - -. -. 12. 12. 1953. - - . - - . 8. 1954, , . , , , , - - . , , - . - . , ( 1989, 5960; 1986, 122123).
, . . ,1999. ( ) (Le Monde diplomatique 17. 04. 1999). - . - , 1999. - , -, -
-
. :
45
. - , .
. , - , . . - . , , , , , , .
, -, , . - .
. , : . , 19. 1984. , NSDD 133 (U.S. Policy Toward Yugoslavia http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-133.htm), NSDD 54 (U.S. Policy Toward EasternEurope http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-054.htm) 2. 1982..
NSDD 133 -, , - . -, , (U.S. Policy Toward Yugoslaviahttp://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-133.htm). ,
-
46
(- ) .
- . , 15 . 1984. - , -, - , - (U.S. Policy To-ward Yugoslavia http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-133.htm)
, 50- , , - -, (: 2000, 247, -).
2. 1990. , - , 7. - 1990. . ( // , 2006, 204205; 2008, 123; 1999, 3). - (j, ja 2002, 451) . 1991. . - 2630. , -, 87% . 21. , , -, , , - ( 2006, 220222).
1992. . , - , -
-
. :
47
. - - -. , , , . . UK(Ushtria lirimtare e Kosoves) () (2007, 347).
, 1994. - (LPK, Levizja popullore e Kosoves), 1981. ( http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/Polit/Aras/12.php).
26. 2007. - - . - , , , - . , - ( http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/bg/features/setimes/features/2007/03/28/feature-02). - . - .
28. 2007. - , , , -, , - . , , , 13 , (A, ,--, , , 2007 http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/bg/features/setimes/features/2007/09/28/feature-01).
10. . 14. - 2007. - , -. . , . ,
-
48
, , , .
17. 2008. - . , 18. 2007. , . , , - . . - 18. 2008. (Correspondent.net). . ; , . - - . ( , , - , .)
, , , - , . - , . , . , , - ( 2008: http://nvo.ng.ru/wars/2008-02-29/1_balkany.html).
- . - - , 1244 ( 1999. ). , ( 2008:http://www.rg.ru/2008/02/19/sovfed-kosovoanons.html). -
-
. :
49
. , , .
, , - . - .
, - . , , . - , - ; . , .
, . 19441955 . . :
. , 2000.
, . , . http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/Pol
it/Aras/12.php
.
. http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/bg/features/
setimes/features/2007/03/28/feature-02
. . . . :
90- . , : , , 10
(1994): 95.
. . -
- . (1999): 52.
. 19451975. ., 1986.
. . ., 1986.
, . . . . (2008): 123. : -
. , 69, 25 1999 . 3
. . 4.
. . (1977).
. . -
V- . ., 1997.
, . . . ,
2007.
-
50
j, . ja, . . 3, 451., 2002.
. . .
http://www.analysisclub.ru/index.php?page=hist&art=2031
. (19451948). -
19441948. . (1984): 172-173.
.. 19441947 . -
19441948. . (1984): 166.
. :
(19461949 .). . . (1998):
140149.
. . ., 2000.
. . ., 2001.
. (19581967). ., 1989.
Kreitorvon, N. The Geopolitics of containment. http://www.helicop.chat.ru/rus5 7.htm
Luce H. R. The American entury. New York: Time, 1941.
. . , 1997., . 3-4
NSDD 54 (U.S. Policy Toward Eastern EuropeNSCNSDD54
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-054.htm) 2. 1982. .
. //
. . . 1. (18781997 .).
. 2006. . 204205
Brown ., ed. Centerstage. American Diplomacy since World War II. New York: Holmes &
Meier Publishers, Inc., 1990.
U.S. Policy Toward Yugoslavia NSC-NSDD-133
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-133.htm)
A, , , , , 28/09/07; A, , , ,
, , , 92, -
27.09.07.
http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/bg/features/setimes/features/
2007/09/28/feature-01)
. . -
. http://nvo.ng.ru/wars/2008-02-29/1_balkany.html.
, 69, 25. 1999. . 3
, -
, 19. 02. 2008.
http://www.rg.ru/2008/02/19/sovfed-kosovo-ano ns.html.
Le Monde diplomatique, 17. 04. 1999.
-
. :
51
STEFAN I. ANCHEV
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUPPET STATEON THE BALKANS AT THE END OF THE XX
AND THE BEGINNING OF THE XXI CENTURY
SUMMARY
In its policy the West has always viewed the Balkan peoples and their countries witharrogance of Catholicism, an arrogance which in more or less born from the complexthat are following the cultural civilization of Europe, but not the first . This attitude iscreated and approved in the nineteenth century, the time of recovery of the Balkanstate and the formation of nations. Next twentieth century the countries of the penin-sula are under full economic, political and military dependence on the West. This ispossible because of the desire of the Balkan governments to volunteer satellites of oneor another great power to help them realize their national doctrines. Historical realityshows that any territorial or internal state change in the Balkans, is always due to thedesire and the appropriate involvement of one or another great power or group of greatpowers with prominent state leader. By the end of 30s Britain, France, Germany and It-aly have somewhat influence in one way or another Balkan country, and they in turn donot conceal their dependence on them. After World War II these countries lose most ofits positions in the region. Russia is back in the Balkans, but now as the USSR. Thequest for the return of the lost resources and geopolitical positions in the politics of theWest (NATO, the Common Market, EU), is expressed in a more familiar and easily un-derstandable to the communities in these countries, ideological opposition, known asthe cold war. After the collapse of the Soviet Union voluntarily given up a long alliesunder Gorbachev West, led by their leader, the U.S. was quick to regain influence in theBalkans. New geopolitical realities and its relevant economic environment broughtabout new regulations in relation to the region. Their sovereign status is not returnedat the end of the 30s of last century, and to the first half of the nineteenth century
KEY WORDS: puppet states, Balkans, Turkey, Greece, USA, Kosovo.
-
53
339.9
. 1
, , ()
. 2
()
. , e- , , - . , . , , - , , . . - , , , - . , - - .
: , , , ,.
-
54
- , - . , , - . , , , . , , - , , -.
, - , . , , , , , - . , , -, , , , -. -, .
- , . -, , . . , - , - ( 2012).
(Canton 2009) , - . e - , .
-
. , . :
55
: ,
, . - XXI .
- , , , , -, . , , , , .
-, . .
-, , , - .
, .
-, . XXI .
: - ; ; ; .
, . ?
, XXI , .
, -.
, -, . , - , , .
-
56
- . , . : . , , , , .
: , - , - ( -), ? , -, . . .
, , . -, . - , . , - , , , .
XX , -. , , , , , - , , .
, . , de facto
-
. , . :
57
, . ( globus . , ) , , , ,, , . - (, , , -, .). , , , , - . , idest , , , -, -. - , ( ) (Gradika-Temenugova, 2003). , - , , - .
, -, - , - , , -. , - . (Soros 2002), , - .
, - . - . - , , , , - . . -
-
58
, , - . - , - .
, ,, , , , , , , . , , , , , , , - . , -, , - .
, - . -, , - , , . - . , , . . , - . , , .
, - , . , - - . , .
(2003) , ,
-
. , . :
59
. , - , -, . . - . -. , , - , , - , , (Soros 2002).
, . - -, . , - .
, - . :
- , , . - , - ;
- . , , . , - . - , -;
- , , ;
-
60
, , (Stiglitz 2003).
. , , , , . , -. - . - , , . , , . .
. - . , - , -, , , .
, , . , - . , , . , - . - , . , -company , E-commerce . , - , - ( 2003).
( )
-
. , . :
61
(), (). , , . - , , - .
. -, - . ( ) - , -. - -- , (Soros 2002). - , - , , . - , , . . , , , .
- . , , ,, , . , : ,, ( 2003).
- . - .
-
62
- , - - . , - , , , - , .
. (). - 1948. -. , - , () - . .
- , - . , - ( ) . - , , - , .
-, . - . - - , . , , (- 2003). , .
, - ,
-
. , . :
63
( , , ). . ,, , - . . , . : , - ( 2003). -, . , -. , , , , . - , (. , -, , , ), -, .
:
, , () , , .
, -. , (, . 1937). - . , -, .
.
-
64
. -, . XX , , , , , .
, - . XIX XX , , , (),, . () - ( , -, , , ).
- (- 2002). - , , , - , .
. . - , - . , - , . , - .
. . -
-
. , . :
65
, . , - , - . - , - .
- ( ) -. -, , , , . , .
, . - , - . - . , , , , , ( 2004).
-, , , .
, . , , , :
, - 67% , 20002010. 81 ,
, - , ,
, - , - (2011).
-
66
- , , . , - , , - .
, -, , , , - . , - . - , . . , . - - , - , .
, , :
- , , , , - ,
- , - ,
, , -, , - .
19901999. 60%, . - , . ( 2004, 174.)
(2004) - -
-
. , . :
67
. - -. ? - , - . - , , - , . - , .
XX XXI, XVIII , - . - 70- XX - . - , , , , , -.
, . - :
,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, (Albretch, Sack 2008). T -
-
68
. -, ( , ), , .
. - XX : , . - , , , . - - , . - -.
. - .
, , , , - . - , , - .
, , . - - . ,
-
. , . :
69
, - .
, , . , - per capita - . , . , - (Kim, Murborene1997).
, - . - - , , - , .
:
-, ,
,
- (, ) ; - ,
- ,
,
,
, , -,
- ,
-
70
.
, , - , .
, . , - . . ( , -, , - ), , , , - , .
, . , -, , , - , , , (, 1992). , , , . , , . (18201903) , , .
. -, . , -
-
. , . :
71
, . , , . - . - , , - . , - .
Albrecth, W. S., Sack, R. J. Charting the Course Through a Perlous Future. Joint pro-
ject, AccuEducation Series (2008): 5.
Beck, U. Mo protiv moi u doba globalizacije. Zagreb, 2004.
Buharin, N. Imperialismus und der Acumulation des Kapital. 1937.
Veselinovi, P. Globalizacija surova trina utakmica. Ekonomske teme 2003/2, 2003.
Gradika-Temenugova, O. Globalizacija haotian ili upravan proces. Ekonomske te-me 2003/2, 49.
Kim W. C., Murborene R. Value Innovation strategic logic of the High Growth. HBR,januar 1997 (1997): 78.
Kudrov, V. Sovremennaja mirovaja ekonomika i Rossija. Voprosz ekonomiki, 3/2003(2003): 46.
Mazyka D. A. De Konning and Churchie. On Transformation and Addaptation.Eurpean Management Journal, 2006, 5663.
Macura, M. Projektovanje organizacione strukture na osnovama savremenih informa-cionih tehnologija. Doktorska disertacija, Univerzitet u Beogradu, FON, 2012.
Novievi, B. Globalizovani i liberalizovani poslovni ambijent i osnovni koncepti upra-vljanja preuzeem. Ekonomske teme, 200/6, 2002, 2.
Poper, K. Otvoreno drutvo i njegovi neprijatelji. : BIGZ, 1992.
Responses to the Challenges of Globalization. A Study on the International Monetaryand Financial System and on Financing for Development, Working documentfrom the Commitsion Services, Brussels, 13. February 2002.
Soros, G. On Globalization. Oxford: Public Affairs Ltd, 2002.
Stiglitz, J. Protivrenost globalizacije. Beograd: SBM-X, 2003.
Todorovi, M. Osnovne poluge procesa globalizacije. Ekonomske teme, 2003/2, Ni:Ekonomski fakultet, 2003, 29.
-
72
MARKO P. ATLAGIMILENKO . MACURA
GLOBALIZATION EFFECTS ON BUSINESS PHILOSOPHY OF MODERN NATIONAL COUNTRY ECONOMIC
ASPECT
SUMMARY
Globalization, as an universal process of modern society integration and change onan international basis has penetrated almost all spheres of scientific, economic and so-cial life. Along with the process of globalization, the process of interdependences andintegration also develop, in the domain of technology and economy, as well as in the po-litical area. In oder to exploit opportunities and avoid risks, the process of restructuringand merging develops, which means creation of partnerships and strategic alliances, ofcompanies as well as countries i.e. regions. In their work authors display critical atti-tude towards globalization as an objective social process, raise some questions, possiblesolutions and consequences of globalization in terms of capitalistic way of production.According to that, the work points out positive and negative sides of historical move-ment of globalization from economic aspect and to uncertain consequences on devel-oped countries and developing countries.
KEY WORDS: globalization, transformation processes, profit, economic growth, unem-ployment
-
73
323.1 (=163.41)"1974"342.31 (497.11)"1974"
. 1
, , ()
1974. *
. 1974. , , , , - , . 1974. . - , , , - . , . - . - 1974. , - , .
: 1974. , , , -.
(. III47023), .
-
74
1974. - . , , - , . -, - . - a , , - . , 1974. - (1992, 191194). , 1981. - , - .
1981. - - (-, 2004, 177). . - 2. - , . , - , , .
, .3
1) , . . - . -
2 , , , . - . 1985. , 1989. . , , . - . . , 1994. , 2002. , , , 1990.
3 . 2002, 279284.
-
. :
75
, ,, . , , , , . , , , , . - , - , , . , , .
2) . . - . . , .
3) - . , , -, . -, , , - , . ( -), , , , - . , .
. -, - , , , -. , 1981. ( ),
-
76
- (- 2004, 185).
, , - . , - , . , - - , - . 1982. , , , , - . , , - , , - . - , . , , . , , , . . - , , . , - (. -, 218219).
, , , (, 189) . , -, , -
-
. :
77
- . , , (2002, 338).
, . -- ( ) - 60- -
.4 -, 80- , - .
, 80- , , . , 1982. , , - , , , , - . : , , , , , . , , , . - , - , , . , - (. -, 189190). 80- . . , , - , - ( 1996, 306).
4 , - , www.starasrbija.com
-
78
- -, , 1981. .
5. , , . , , . , . , . , 01. 1985. -. - . - (. 1986, 66 ). , - , - , -, - . , - ,
5 , , 1985. , , . . - . , . , . . , , - . , , - -, -. , , , - - . ., 1986.
-
. :
79
, - , ( , 1986).
-, , - , - . , - , . , , (-- 2004, 220221). ,
6 - , . . , , , - . , . - - , 1974. . , , - , , - . , . , - 1974. , (. : 224 ).
, ,
6 , 1991. , .
-
80
1974. , -. - . . 1985. . . 2.016 , 80.000 . - , . - , 1986. - 211 . . . - , , . 1974. , - , - , . (. -, 4446).
-, , -, , , , , - , . , . - , , - . -
7 (: 209).
80- , - , . - , , ,
7 . , . . , 4749.
-
. :
81
. , . , 80- (. 1998, 2). - - ?
. , (, . . .) - . ; - , -, . - : . ( 1998, 35). , , . , (, 6). , - , , - . - - - , , , , - (- 2002, 343344).
- 1986. 1987. -, . - -. , ,
-
82
( ) 8. , , , , , ( , , . . .) , , - , , - , , , , - , , , 9 (, 1989, 1314). , , -, () . , , ( ) : - ( 2002, 410). - (, 2002: 431), , () , , . , ( ) , , , -
8 . , , , 1982., . (-- 2004, 211).
9 , . , ( ), . , , - , : . , . , , - . , . : . -. , , . , (- 1999, 305).
-
. :
83
, , 10 (,437439, 440). , . - () - . - ( , . . .) -
, 1987198911. () ( 2002, 409). - , , , - . , , . , -, , 1974. , -
(, 411).12 -
10 , , , , , , , , .
11 / 1987. , 1988. - , 1987. - . 1989. , - (). - , 1988. , , , . , 1989. - ( ) , - , , (- , ) (). , - (. , (. 2002, 409410).
12 . - , , - , , , , , -. , - , (, ) (. 2004, 5364).
-
84
1974. . - , , , - (. 1986,7).
() . - , . -: , - , - , , . - . , - , . 1912. , - , . . - ( ) - . - . . - -- , , - -, , - (, 1986).
1988. - . , - , - . . , -
-
. :
85
, , . - , , - . , 1974. -, , - . - , - , , : - , , , , , - , (, 2002).
, , , , , , . , - .
, , , , , - , - , . , - , - . - , , -. , , -, ,
-
86
. -, , - (), , - (), (). , , - , . , - , , - . , . -, , , -, , -. - , .
.
-, . , . 6, . 34 (1999).
, . , 19441993, - . : , 2001.
, . . , - . : 92, 2002.
, . : , . www.starasrbija.com
, . . -. . : , , 1994.
, . . : , 1997.
, . . , - . : 92, 2002.
-
. :
87
, . , 19451991. ., 1993.
, . , - . : 12 (1984).
, . , , , . 20. ., 1997.
, . . , 3, ,2001.
-, . , . : , , 2004.
, . . : , 1989.
, . , . : , 1999.
, . . , , 1985.
, . a Wall Street Journal, , 1986, , 1986.
, . , . : , 2001.
, . . , . , 92, 2002.
, . : . : , 1989.
Eyal, G. Szelenyi, I. Townsley, E. On Irony: An Invitation to neoclassical sociology. Lon-don, Sage publications, 2003.
, . , - . : -, 2005.
, . . , . 6, .34 (1999), .
, . . : , 1981.
, . , - . : , 2000.
, . . : , 1968.
, . . , . : 92, 2002.
, . . XX . , , -. : : 1972.
, . . . : , 1974.
,
. , . 6, . 34 (1999).
, . 1986. 1991. , .: , 1998.
-
88
, . . : , 1983.
, . , 19681988. : , 1989.
, ., . , .: 92, 2002.
, . ., . : . : Chronos, 1990.
, . . , - . : 92, 2002.
, . . , XXIV, .34, , 2000.
, . Nationalism and Federalism in Yugoslavia 19621991. Indiana, UniversityPress, Bloomington, 1992.
, . . : 12, 1984.
, . . . : , 1986.
, . o , , .709 (1986), .
, . . : Equilibrium, 2004.
, . . : , 2004.
, . . .
, . , . . , 1983.
, . , , : , 1973.
, . , . , 9. 2009.
, . , . -, 14. 2009.
, . . : 12, 1984.
www.starasrbija.com
-
. :
89
IVAN M. BAAREVI
SERBIAN INTELLIGENTSIA IN SOCIALISM AND NATIONAL INTEREST THE CONSTITUTION OF 1974
AND ITS IMPACT ON THE DESOUVERENISATIONOF SERBIA
SUMMARY
The 1974 Constitution, by which the autonomous territories were established andunder the decentralization got some features of the state, pleased the nationalistic as-pirations of the Kosovo Albanians, but only briefly. Numerous authors share the sameopinion that there has been graduate albanization of all institutions in the Provinceafter 1974. Consequently, it had a heighten pressure that reflected on, among otherthings, the increased percent of the Serb migration from Kosovo and Metohija. Regard-less to the existence of the problem, the reaction of the Republic and Province author-ities seemed not to have been adequate. The intelligence took over the role of thearbiter. The majority of the Serbian intellectuals interpreted the amendment changesand especially the 1974 Constitution as a goal toward making FR of Serbia desovereign.Its decentralization was going toward giving the legitimacy to the separatist and na-tionalistic aspirations of the Kosovo Albanians.
Changes of the inner political, social and economical system of the SFR of Yugosla-via, and relevantly different position that such changes imposed to Republic of Serbiaas a federal unit, made that the most of the intellectual effort is directed toward cor-recting such unequal position in the Federation. Moreover, the intellectuals wereconcentrated on managing the national issue.
Namely, due to its weaknesses in the political, economical and cultural areas with theunsettled mattes of the cultural heritage, the whole social frame of the SFR of Yugosla-via was subserved to the nationalistic tendencies. In the process, each of those tenden-cies had reciprocating mechanism national homogenization of some jeopardizedother people, and vice versa. In this process of homogenization of the Serbs, the Ser-bian intellectuals had a major role. The lack of legal political founding contributedgreatly to it as well as inferiority of the communist regime toward the upcoming prob-lems, and incomprehension and cynicism of the non-Serb intellectuals. The presidingelite were not managing to keep the situation under control in Kosovo and Metohijaeven when it threatened to jeopardize the whole disposition which the communist gov-ernment was made on. The communists themselves confessed how adverse was the op-portunistic and indolent behavior, unobjectiveness and covering of the real state of thematters (Sukrija) and that it was a big political mistake of the communist Alliance to neglectdrawing a clear line between the national affirmation and Albanian nationalism and irre-dentism and that there was an uncompromising battle lead in that border against Albanianirredentism and nationalism (Minic), as well as that there were major and complex tasks leftin order to completely mend the situation in Kosovo (Kurtesi).
-
90
On the other hand, non-Serbian intellectuals refused to see the real state of the mat-ters trying to direct all inappropriate statements towards the parties that were oppositeto what the Serbian party was representing, even when there was no real ground forsuch actions. With the lack of the objective qualifications, such statements only madethings worse and prolonged disputes as well as antagonism. The realistic existence ofthe problems in Kosovo was used for solving individual national interests in the processof constituting the national identity. The nationalism of the works of literature of theSerbian intellectuals cannot be observed separately and completely isolated of the so-cial and historical context that it was in since it was understood as the reaction of thenationalistic tendencies of the other Yugoslav people, in this case Albanians. National-istic engagement of the Serbian intellectuals was the product but at the same time thecause of the string of socio-historical factors and circumstances of the time and, assuch, it can be observed in that time frame only.
KEY WORDS: 1974. Constitution, Serbian intellectuals, decentralization, desovereign-ty.
-
91
316.42:172.16316.42:316.334.3
316.32:327.7
VIHREN Y. BOUZOV1
University of Veliko Trnovo,Veliko Trnovo (Bulgaria)
THE DEVELOPMENT OF GLOBAL SOCIETY COSMOPOLITANISM
OR REPUBLICANISM
ABSTRACT. Today the main determining factors of globalization are the focal point ofserious discussions in social sciences. The view that there are significant changes in thedevelopment of international relations has many proponents. However, there exists abig difference in their characteristic features. There are those that speak. about the na-tional state`s outliving its time, saying that an individual country cannot sustain its se-curity and should be seeking for coalitions or alliances. New actors enter in internation-al relations and the process of globalization requires new principles of understandingof their prospects. The issue of adoption of new principles of building a system in inter-national relations is really very important in this context. It could not be a system basedon relationships of nation states only.
Two possible options are available here: choice of cosmopolitanism or choice repub-licanism. The thesis that cosmopolitanism is a utopian view and republicanism is amore reliable basis for determination of the nature of international relations is treatedin this paper. Cosmopolitanism can be used as an ideology by the most well-to-do elitesin the world to justify their expansionist practices. This ideology justifies the so-calledhumanitarian interventions of the international community. But there is no doubtwhatsoever that some of them are only imperialist strategies of the Great Powers inaction. On its part, republicanism implies respect for the principle of sovereignty ofeach country and coalitions of countries set up on the basis of commonly-shared inter-ests. Then: in the Globalization Era we are now living through national states do not dieout their functions only undergo important changes!
KEY WORDS: global society, cosmopolitanism, republicanism, the Balkans conflicts.
-
92
Today the main determining factors of globalization are the focal point of se-rious discussions in social sciences. The view that there are significant changesin the development of international relations has many proponents2. However,there exists a big difference in their characteristic features. There are those thatspeak. about the national state`s outliving its time, saying that an individualcountry cannot sustain its security and should be seeking for coalitions or alli-ances. Today new actors enter in international relations and the process of glo-balization requires new principles of understanding of their prospects. The is-sue of adoption of new principles of building a system in international relationsis really very important in this context. It could not be a system based on rela-tionships of nation states only.
In this paper are analyzed two basic views on the principles of building up asystem of international relations in the Global Age cosmopolitanism and re-publicanism. The key difference between them lies in their understanding ofthe new status of the nation state and the building of a global society. It is com-pletely rejected by cosmopolitanism as regards the tendency of building up aglobal society and global rule in the interest of mankind or the global communi-ty. It is based on the moral consciousness of every individual in mankind and re-sponsibility for its future. Cosmopolitanism today perfectly fits in liberalismwith its individualistic approach, although it is an old philosophical positionleading to Antiquity. Today the world society is understood as a non-state entityand an expression of the globalization of social relationship3.
Developed in this paper is the thesis that cosmopolitanism is a utopian viewand republicanism is a more reliable basis for determination of the nature of in-ternational relations. Their opposition could be understood in the context ofthe ongoing debate between liberalism and communitarianism in the philo-sophical-political thought.in our days It settles differently the conflict betweenindividual and community. Liberalism in general rejects the existence of com-mon interests and collective actors. It only recognizes the existence of individ-ual players, who, being under the influence of accepted moral responsibilitystandards can stand for defense of the underprivileged members of mankind4.
The understanding of the benefits of political and economic arguments ascompared to moral ones is not the only reason for our rejection of cosmopoli-
2 David Held, Anthony McGrew, The Global Transformation Reader. An Introduction to the Glo-balization Debate (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005)
3 Ulrich Beck, Shto e globalizacia [What is Globalization] (Sofia: Kritika i humanism, 2002),140180 (in Bulgarian)
4 John Kekes, Protiv liberalizma [Against Liberalism] (Sofia: Kritika i humanism, 2001), 3142(in Bulgarian)
-
Vihren Y. Bouzov: The Development of Global Society
93
tanism. There are deep moral grounds beneath the understanding that every in-dividual human being is part and parcel of mankind. This should be the guide-line in his/her behavior.5
But neoliberalism is the main driving force of global transformations in eco-nomic and political aspects. It leads to enrichment of a minority and social ex-clusion of the vast majority of people. It turns cosmopolitanism into an ideologyand deception that conceals the actual state of affairs. One can say that theskepticism expressed by classical liberal thinkers (Kant, Rols) to the project ofbuilding of a system of international relations based on social justice and thecosmopolitan moral principles is completely justified.
It could be used as an ideology by the most well-to-do elites in the world tojustify their expansionist practices. As an ideology it justifies the existence ofthe so-called humanitarian interventions of the international community,which has shouldered the responsibility for mankind`s development. Terroristorganizations and even whole countries could become the target of internation-al police actions. Some well-grounded counter-arguments could be developedas regards the actual nature of the international community6. There is no doubttoday that some of these interventions have been the expression of the imperi-alist strategies of the the Great Powers in action.
A telling example for us is the Balkan Peninsula it has lived through themost dramatic period of its history over the past two decades. Interventions donot lead to resolution of national, political or religious conflicts, altogether. It istrue that the majority of these conflicts have been inspired by actions of West-ern countries. The Great Powers policy on the Balkans abounds in examples ofdouble standards, lack of objective assessment of reality and violation of moraland democratic political principles.
Republicanism provides for respect for the principle of sovereignty of eachcountry and coalitions of countries set up on the basis of commonly-shared in-terests. We can definitely say that the assertion of nation-states outliving itstime is a propaganda cliche and not a real process in development7. Many argu-ments lead to a different conclusion. Some of the high tech achievements of to-day are the product of nation-states` efforts and investments, especially the
5 Thomas Pogge, Cosmopolitanism, in: A Companion to the Contemporary Political Philo-sophy, eds. Robert Godin, Ph. Petit and T. Pogge, V. I (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2007)312332
6 Vihren Bouzov, Can the International Community of Today Use Political Violence in a Legi-timate Way?, in: Political Violence (Uros Suvakoviced.) ( , Kosovska Mi-trovica, 2012), 123129;
7 Graham Harison, Globalization, in Contemporary Political Concepts. A Critical Introducti-on, ed. Georgina Blakaley and V. Bryson (London: Pluto Press, 2002), 1435
-
94
ones in communication and information technologies. The social systems of na-tion -states are the only obstacle to negative consequences of global crises andeconomic imbalance.
Global inequalities between peoplesin the world today have their repercus-sions on inequalities between countries we are witnessing the existence ofnew intensive conflicts between rich and poor countries. There is a new trend ofbuilding up new alliances of nation-states, jointly seeking to react to challengesof the globalization process and trying to beat off negative consequences of ne-oliberal economic experiments. Examples are the development of the EU andnew alliances in Latin America built up through efforts made by countries likeBrazil and Argentina. Also, mention should be made of the integration of devel-oping countries to stave off dictate by rich ones especially in the field of envi-ronmental challenges and ecological constraints on economic growth (the Co-penhagen Summit 2009). Another ambition of neoliberal globalism existenceof a unipolar world, is countered by the growth of new economic leaders in dif-ferent parts of the world and collective resistance of the people against the ex-pansionist policies of rich countries. There are many more opportunities avail-ablemaking it possible to ensure security in a multipolar world8.
The global society continues to be a community of nation states and nationsocieties, although it involves also other actors with a greater economic poten-tial. It could be based on the cooperation among different communities na-tional, religious, social and cultural. From the point of view of communitarian-ism each individual could show his worth through participation in various com-munities as a significant component of human nature. Nationstate is the mostadvanced form of human community it guarantees rights, freedoms and inter-ests of everyone.
Nation-states are in a process of transformation in the Global era there is areduction of the scope of their functions on behalf of the power and effective-ness of their implementation9. This enables them to better respond to globalchallenges and to protect the interests of the people.
What about us, people on the Balkans? To overcome accumulated mutual dis-trust and aggressive attitudes we must look for the common interests bringingus closer together. We should categorically reject practices imposed by theGreat Powers favoring one or another participant in Balkan standoffs. Prob-lems cannot be solved through integration in the EU because it is not able to en-
8 Vihren Bouzov, Global Injustice as a Threat to World Security, In: Public Reason, An International Jo-urnal, Bucharest v.4, N12, 226232 (2012)
9 Fransis Fukuyama, StateBuilding. Governance and World Order in the 21th Century (London:Profile Books, 2004)
-
Vihren Y. Bouzov: The Development of Global Society
95
sure security on the Balkans Development of regional cooperation and forma-tion of regional groupings should be the watchword here!
ReferencesBeck, U. Shto e globalizacia [What is Globalization]. Sofia: Kritika i humanism (2002):
140-180. (in Bulgarian)
Bouzov, V. Global Injustice as a Threat to World Security. In: Public Reason, An InternationalJournal, Bucharest v.4, N12 (2012): 226232.
Bouzov, V Can the International Community of Today Use Political Violence in a Le-gitimate Way?. In: Political Violence, edited by Uro uvakovic, 123129. : Kosovska Mitrovica.
Fukuyama, F. State-Building. Governance and World Order in the 21th Century. London:Profile Books, 2004.
Held, D., McGrew, A. The Global Transformation Reader. An Introduction to the Globaliza-tion Debate. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005.
Harison, G. Globalization, in Contemporary Political Concepts. A Critical Introduc-tion, ed. Georgina Blakaley and V. Bryson. London: Pluto Press, 2002, 1435.
Kekes, J. Protiv liberalizma [Against Liberalism]. Sofia: Kritika i humanism, 2001),3142 (in Bulgarian).
Pogge, T. Cosmopolitanism, in: A Companion to the Contemporary Political Philosophy,edited by Robert Godin, Ph. Petit and T. Pogge. V.I. Malden: Blackwell Publish-ing (2007): 312332.
-
96
.
- . . , - . , . .
: . , - . - . . , . , . , , - !
: , , , , -.
-
97
316.32:323.1341.211
316.72:316.33
. 1
, , ()
. . - , , -, , - . , , , ., - -, , -, . , , , - . , -, , , , , , - , , . , . , , , . - , -; , , , . 2008. , , , , , . , .
: , , , , -.
-
98
, . , , , , . , -; , , , -, , . - . , ( ), ().
- ( ). , -. () . , -. , , , - , . - -, - . , , () () . .
. . , , : , . - , . - , , . - , -, , -. -, . , - . - , - . ,
-
. :
99
. , ? , ?
, - . , , - , , . , - , - . - . . - , - ( ) .
( - ) - . 1945. - , , , laissez-faire - . , - . . , , - . , -. , , - . , , - , . -, 70- , . , , , , - , . , - . , . , , (, -) -.
-
100
laissez-faire , - , , , , . , , , . -, . - , - . - . , - . , Steingernde Potenz Dialech-
tische Aufhebung.2
, -. - , . , , 1945. , , - , , . , - , -, ; , - , , . - ; -, . , ( ), - , -, . , ,
2 , , (, / , 1994) 36.
-
. :
101
-, .
3, - ; , 1929. , , , ; , - , - . , , - , .4 - (New Age), - , , , , , , , , ( , - , --, , ). , , - , - (1979), (1980). . - , -, , , . .
( , ) , , - , - . - , . - ? . . , . ,
3 , , , (: Zepterbookworld, 1998).4 , , , , , 1988.
-
102
, . . , , . - . . - , . ; , . -, , . . , - .
. , - . - , , - ( -) , -
.5 , - , . , , -. , -- . , , - , . , , - -
5 , , , , , 1997.
-
. :
103
. , , .
, , . , , - . , - , . - , . - . , - , , , , , , , . -, , - ( ) , - , . , , , - . , . , (, ) - () - (, ) /.
- , -. - . -, , , . , , . -, ?
-
104
, - , . . , - , . , , , , . , , , , . , , , . , , -, , . . - , - .
, - , - . , . - . , , , -, , . - , - . - , - . . , . -, 1984-, , .
(), . , - .
-
. :
105
, . - , . , . , . , - ( - ) .
, , , . . , - , (, .) , , . No place to run, no place to hide. , -?
. . , , -. , , () - , . - , , . , -, . , , - . . - , - . , .
, , - , . - , . ,
-
106
, - . (), -. , , - , . - , - .
- . , , , , . -. , , -, , , . . , , . , , - . - . , ; - . - , . . , : , .
, . . / : 1994, 36.
, . , : Zepter book world, 1998.
, . . : -, 1988.
, . . : , 1997.
-
. :
107
BORIS R. BRATINA
GLOBALIZATION AND IDENTITY
SUMMARY
Globalization is not a homogeneous process. In an era of increasing connectivity andall the freer flow of goods, ideas, capital and people boundaries should have becomeirrelevant, there should have been a widespread economic deregulation and the issue ofnational and other collective and cultural identity should have been replaced by a moregeneral idea of cosmopolitan citizenship and global identities. However, it appears thatthis only applies to some states, peoples, nations, etc., that is, in terms of conditionsthat must be met, just to so called states-satellites, while the holder of globalization, theWestern empire, not only retained but well exceeded the warrants of even the most rig-id sovereignty. Therefore, on Huntingtons trail, we may talk rather of unipolar globali-zation, of a struggle, a cultural and civilizational vivarium then of a balanced globaldevelopment and overcoming of cultural differences. As heterogeneous, unipolar glo-balization represents an attack on the sovereignty of states, peoples, nations, and lowercollectives, and even on personal integrity, as is evidenced by the latest discoveries ofJulian Assange, Edward Snowden, Jeremy Zimmerman and others. Each identityshould have dissolved in the name of globalization as the greatest good, and what hadactually gained force was a society of surveillance and control. Of course, globalizationas such is not to be blamed for all this, but globalization as unbalanced, as one carriedout only in the name of one civilization, should. Identities would not have been at-tacked if globalization had been of a neutral type. Therefore, it is not bad as such, butbecause it brings good only to some and evil to others. However, the entropy of a such,unipolar globalization is inevitable since 2008, showing that as a political project, it isliving its last days, and the same could be said for the civilization in its bases. In otherwords, postmodernity is dead.
KEY WORDS: globalization, sovereignty, identity, society of control, postmodernity.
-
109
316.334.2/.5316.344.2
. a ()
. ()
. A ()
. , , , - : , , - .
: , , , .
1. , - - - . , . , , . , - -
-
110
. , ( ) , , ,
.1 - . - - , , . , -, . 460 , , - 2010. . - , - , -. , ( ), , - ( ) - . , , - , , , - ( ) -
. - , -, , . 800 ,
, .2 - ( - ) , (
1 . . , (,2010).
2 , . , , , 46/2009 (16.01.2009): 21.
-
, , :
111
) , - , . -. , 90 . , - . -. 99 .3
() -, . , - , ( - ). . - , - .4
( - ) () - . , -, - , -. , -, - .
. , , , , -
, . ( ). - , -
3 , ., , , , (- 2011, 1. 2. , 2012): 10.
4 . , . , (, . . , 2010), 39.
-
112
.5 , -, , , , , .
2. . , . - , , , .6 -, . , , - 7, - . .8 - ( ) -, , , - .
, .9 ., , .10
5 . . , , (, -, 2010), 42.
6 . , ( : . . , 2010), 19.7 . . , ibid, 42.8 . . , -
, (: , 2009), 315321.
9 - ( , , . , 57).
10 . , (; , , - , 1996), 60.
-
, , :
113
, - , , , , , (), , .
, - , , , - . , , , - .11
3. : , - . - - . , .12 - -. , - .13 .14
, - , - , -
11 : . . , - , , 9 ( : 2012), 201214.
12 , , ,14 (: 1994), 2124.
13 , 2124.14 , 2124.
-
114
.15 : , , , , -, ,16 , , , - . -, . - .17 - , , , , , .18
, , , , - . , . - ( , -) , laisser faire . , , () - - - , .19
, , . - - , () . -
15 , , , . 34500 (: 2010),15.
16 . . , 21. , , 271 ( 2013), 91.17 , , , . 34500 (: 2010),
15.18 , (: : 1989), 31.19 . ,: , , :
(, , - , 1996), 18.
-
, , :
115
, 20 . - -, , laisser faire , , . , .
., . . : . . , 2010.
, . . , . : , 2010.
, . . , , 46/2009. (16.01.2009).
, . . : , 1989.
, . . 21. . : , 271/2013, 91.
, . , . , : . : , , 1996.
, . . : , . 34500 (2010), 15.
, . . : , , , 1996.
, . . . : ,2010.
, . . . : , 9/2012.
, . . - . , : , 2009, 315321.
, . . : , 14 (1994), 2124.
, . . : . . , 2010.
, . . , , , 2011. 1. 2. , 2012.
20 . . , (: , 2010)2551.
-
116
IVAN . BULATOVIDRAGIA R. SIMIDUAN D. MARKOVI
THE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF GLOBAL INEQUALITY
SUMMARY
Globalization as a multi-faceted and specific process of unification of humanity on aplanetary scale, leads to a unique, primarily economic space with the elements of theglobal economic system. In that sense, its contradictions arise from its economic na-ture based on private ownership, competition and profit, and inequality in terms of theeconomic condition of population with the emphasized majorization of the owner ofeconomic resources. This majorization, which is performed through various forms ofexpression and conflicts, results in social tensions between the majority and minorityof population both on a national and a global scale. These conflicts demand empiricalresearchesaiming at finding solutions to them, as well as theoretical considerations oftheir repercussions for the development of our civilization.
KEY WORDS: globalization, inequality, consequences, nation.
-
117
316.32:008
. 1
()
. , , . - . -, . -. , , , . , , . , , , . -. , , .
: , , , , -.
-
118
, !
( )
!
( )
, !
( )
, , . .2 . , , , , , - .
, - , , , -, . : , .
, global globus. XVIII global sphere. , XIX , global e . , . , , - , . , , (globalisation) , , 1961. . , - , .3
. , (mondialisation). , , - , , - .
2 , , (: -, 2006), 208.
3 , , , -, , , -, 381. : , 2008.
-
. :
119
, - . - . , .
, .
.
1.
, , , , - par excellence , , -. - , , . , XX XXI . , , , , - , , () . . , !
2.
-, , - , - , -, 8 20 - .
XX , , , ,
-
120
, -. , XXI -, , . - , , , -. , -.
, . - , , , . , , , , . , - , .
, . , - , , , , ( ) .4 -, ! ? - , - : , .5
- , . - 1994. , 40% 1997. , 1998. - , 1999. - 2001. - . -. , - , , 1997. . -
4 . E. , , SBM X, , 2002, 23.5 , 34.
-
. :
121
.6 , - . , , -. . , - ( - ).7 -.
, , - . . - , - -.8 , , - , .
-. , . , , . - , - .9 II - 2007. , 2008. . - , - . - , ,. . - -. -
6 , 34.7 , 35.8 , (: 92, 2003), 13.9 , 14.
-
122
80- XX , , . .
, , , . , - . , . , -
.10 , , - . - , . , , - . , -
.11 - . , -