Review of International Affairs





Changes following the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 made the last decade one of the most important ones in contemporary European history. It had to be presumed that the changes could introduce not only better relations, but also worsen the fragile stability established in the bipolar era. Some of these profound changes will undoubtedly have a long-term influence upon international relations; others have not yet been fully shaped, or will probably undergo important changes.

The contemporary security situation in Europe is influenced by a group of issues: global changes (the end of the Cold War; new information technologies; changes in the military-political field with the existence of just one superpower which, however, cannot claim to have absolute power to impose all its views); parallel development of processes of globalization and regionalization (growing cooperation and unification of standards and equipment on the one hand, and strengthening of regional cooperation and communication networks, on the other); it was for the first time after World War II that Europe was the arena of one of the most serious local conflicts, and major European powers were rather unsuccessful in finding quick solutions to the Balkan problems.

In Europe there is a specific network of security institutions: OSCE as a pan-European and trans-Atlantic organization; NATO, also a trans-Atlantic alliance, as the most powerful military alliance in the world; the European Union is gradually overtaking responsibility for security (and defense) matters and the Westeruopean Union has been integrated into the European Union’s structure; finally, there are also a number of regional cooperation networks (in the Balkans, the Baltics).

Discussion on which institution should overtake the main responsibility for European security issues was mostly of an academic-political nature, because it has rather quickly become clear that NATO will become the leading security and defense institution in Europe. There were serious arguments in favor of making the OSCE the central organization in this field; however, the OSCE has overtaken a crucial role in preventive diplomacy and conflict management. European Union’s CFSP is also an important channel for coping with these matters.

The role of Russia in this field is of great importance, and although her special role has been recognized through special bodies for cooperation between Russia and NATO, this country has not yet become a true partner.

NATO’s enlargement cannot be a rapid process. Therefore, the Partnership for Peace should serve to assist potential candidates to prepare for the standards and schemes of cooperation with the alliance, as in a way, a mechanism for controlled and postponed full membership.

In the last decade NATO has undergone a process of transformation which should strengthen its role as a regional security organization. The fact that NATO was given the UN mandate to act in Bosnia-Herzegovina illustrated the new role of the alliance; so did the UN mandate to lead the international forces in Kosovo, despite the fact that NATO’s bombing campaign in 1999 was organized without UN authorization. The aggression against Yugoslavia will be a crucial point for not only regional developments in the Balkans, but also for military-political relations in general.

Prof. Vatroslav VEKARIĆ

YUGOSLAVIA AND NATO (article in English)


Author elaborates arguments in favour of FR Yugoslavia’s joining the NATO Partnership for Peace programme, emphasizing that all the most important elements of the contemporary European security architecture show that it would be hopeless, if not even impossible, for any small or medium European country to seek for security guarantees outside of NATO. The option for FR Yugoslavia of joining PfP promises significant political and economic advantages which come with participation in preserving the democratic order in Europe; improvements in using military, material and human resources in the process of strengthening defense potentials of a country; better military planning and strengthening of democratic standards in civil-military relations. Particularly important aspect of joining PfP implies professionalization and modernization of armed forces with the support of the military and technologically most developed powers, which in itself enhances the security of the country. A significant effect of membership in the PfP is related to mechanisms which lead the member country to secure democratic control over the military budget without voluntarism and uncontrolled consumption.

Dr. Vladimir BILANDŽIĆ



Compared with other regions in Europe, which have well advanced in the process of integration, the Balkan countries have until recently found even the aim of elementary stability to be an elusive one. However, the democratic changes and processes, that took place in the region of the Western Balkans in 2000 and most lately in Serbia in October 2000, resulted in creating radically new conditions in this formerly war-torn region of Europe. For the first time in their recent history, all Balkan countries share the same ideology - liberal democracy, based on multi-party system, the rule of law and market economy, and have the same strategic goal - integration into Europe. For the first time, the axiom that democracies do not go to war against each other can now be tested also in the Balkans. This new development also gives ground to do away with two misconceptions which were frequently associated with the Balkans - first, that the region is stable and peaceful only when dominated by Great Powers, and second, that its lasting peace can only be achieved if its destiny is left exclusively to the Balkan peoples, without any international involvement. The experience has shown that the combination of the two - respect for legitimate rights of the Balkan peoples to decide on their own affairs and the necessity that this is accompanied by international assistance and close monitoring by international community provide the only durable basis for peace and stability in the region.

While the Balkan countries now face a brighter future, it is a legitimate question whether Balkans will emerge from all these processes as a distinct and integrated geo-political region and a “security community”, such as Scandinavia, for example. This seems questionable taking into consideration the fact that the Balkan countries, in spite of profound interest to develop regional co-operation, aspire, above all, to achieve their individual integration into the EU, as soon as possible. The “Balkan democracies” are still fragile, this particularly referring to the countries where instability and aggressive policies were most pronounced in the last decade while the democratic change came the last. Therefore, these countries need continued monitoring and involvement of international community at several levels - political, economic and military ones. Such international presence can be amplified by the planned opening of the OSCE Mission to FR Yugoslavia, and by a continued international military presence in the region (SFOR, KFOR). Such a military presence is necessary not only to preserve peace and prevent new conflicts, but also to support diplomacy, which is still faced with a lot of work in the region. So far the international community has been using, with mixed results, military leverage and military force to extinguish conflicts and forge the peace in the region. Although this use of military force is a subject of legal and political controversy and debate, it was a combination of diplomacy and force that eventually has managed to pacify the region.

In the future, the military presence of international community, combined with membership of all the Balkan countries in the Partnership for Peace programme, and maintenance of the regional balance of forces at lower levels, established by the Florence Agreement of 1996, should help keep stability and security of the whole region. Operationalization of the agreement on Balkan peace forces, concluded in Skopje in September 1998, can also be instrumental in this respect.

While the full social and economic recovery of the region requires overcoming of structural problems (economic inefficiency, high unemployment, lack of democratic culture and democratic institutions), most immediate problems could be alleviated by foreign assistance, especially in infrastructure projects, and by direct foreign investment. Suggestions were also made for some innovative or even radical steps, such as introduction of the common currency for the region (Euro), even before the accession of these countries to the EU.

Democratic reconstruction of the region requires not only strengthening of parliamentarism, through free and fair elections, but also development of strong institutions of civil society, such as independent media and wide network of NGOs, and creation of firm foundations for the rule of law and independent judiciary. Ethnically based disputes and the problem of national minorities still burden the stability of the region, but, with the exception of Albanian national question, that has not yet been resolved, they are not a serious a significant security threat to the region. Most of these problems can be solved by greater respect for the rights of national minorities, without touching into the territorial status quo, and by a greater degree of regionalization and decentralization. Also, the stability of the region requires a clear break from any form of nationalism, which has been singled out in the OSCE Lisbon Document 1996 as one of the main threats to stability and security in Europe.

Among a number of initiatives for regional co-operation, the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe, adopted in June 1999, seems most promising, because it treats the region as a whole and has all three main dimensions - political, economic, and security ones. Also, the Stability Pact encourages mutual co-operation, but without conditioning it as a requirement for accession of individual States of the region into the EU. The fact that the countries of the region place particular emphasis on their European identity, and not so much on their Balkan identity, indicates that the evolution of the Balkans into a distinct region is not a likely prospect. However, greater regional co-operation would help that this part of the continent become an orderly-arranged “Southeast European pavilion within a united Europe”.

Branislava ALENDAR



After the fall of the iron curtain, an opportunity has emerged for countries of East and Central Europe as well as of the former Soviet Union, to establish new relations of co-operation with the European Union. It is well known that the European Union defines relations with its trade partners by making separte agreements. For the purpose of regulating these new relations EU has also defined forms of agreements sui generis for each category of states, being guided by the criteria it set itself.

EU made the European agreement or agreement on association with Central and East European countries. It enabled the countries signatories of the agreement to apply for full membership in EU. According to the Treaty of Nice which amended the EU Agreement, its enlargement is realistically to commence not sooner than 2004. EU made the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement with the former Soviet republics, this including both European and Asian ones. Mutual trade based on the agreement develops between them, making possible to create a free trade zone in the future, while the possibility for accession of these countries to EU has not been opened. Free trade zone thus created could be joined to the Euro-Mediterranean free trade zone that already exists. Together, they could create the Euro-Mediterranean-Asian free trade zone including EU and the surrounding non-member countries. EU has prepared a new agreement on stabilisation and association for the countries from the territory of the former Yugoslavia - Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia and FRY - and Albania, too. These countries belong to the most unstable European region called the Western Balkans and the agreement would open a “communitary perspective” for them.

The basic difference between the three categories of states made by concluding separate agreements with EU is the likelihood to become full members of the European Union in the future. Principally, all European countries that are able to fulfil all necessary conditions may become full EU members. Besides that they belong to the European continent, these countries should also fulfil the conditions that are actually reduced to the ability of the state to accept and implement the rules EU member countries apply in their mutual co-operation and development of the common integration grouping. These conditions are called acquis communautaire or loosely translated as all that has been attained in the European Union.

Central and East European countries, and South-east European countries in particular, have a long way before them to reach acquies communautaire and prove themselves as truly capable of joining the integration, not disrupting with their presence its flows of deepening the integration in the economic and political sense. The evolution of integration - its deepening - has always been given priority over enlargement of EU. At present, the priorities of EU are establishment of a full monetary union of its members and common foreign and security policies.

The European states that would wish to fulfil conditions for association and accession or approaching to the European Union have a very difficult, demanding and expensive task of their transformation and adjustment. The first part of the task includes systematic socio-economic transformation or transition transforming the so called real socialism society into the capitalist one with parliamentary democracy, market economy and the rule of law. The second part of the task includes full adjustment to the internal market of the European Union and it is carried out by the detailed instructions of EU (White Book) within the pre-accession strategy. The objective is not only to adopt but also to implement the communitary legislation in practice of the applicant countries. The third part of approaching to EU includes mutual co-operation between the countries that have signed the associatin agreement. The purpose of it is to enable free movement of goods, this also including establishment of co-operation between the partners and harmonisation of their interests in some other fields. Such sort of co-operation has already been established between the applicants for membership in EU within the Central European Free Trade Association (CEFTA). As it has been assessed in EU, mutual co-operation is an important segment of the overall preparations, displaying in this way the individual and collective willingness of a country to establish closer mutual co-operation and join the international economic integration. However, each state has its own, individual way to reach EU.

In the region of the Western Balkans, including FRY, there are less opportunities for its adjustment to EU, due to the crisis that has not yet ended. The crisis prevents development of a genuine mutual co-operation between the states in the region, making it difficult to carry out the process of systematic transformation and adjustment to EU. Since the crisis has passed through several stages causing serious consequences, its resolution could be found only by taking a joint action on the part of the actors of the crisis and the international community that is constantly present in the region. The European Union bears a special responsibility since it co-ordinates all activities including the last project of restoration and co-operation in South-eastern Europe within the Stability Pact. Therefore, it has also a special role in searching a way out of the crisis and in accelerating approach of the Western Balkans region to the European integration.




The author firstly explains the origins of the Charter for European Security that was adopted during the OSCE Summit in Istanbul in November 1999. The adoption of this document was originally initiated by the Russian Federation in 1994 as a counter-move to NATO’s enlargement to the East. Russia actually proposed strengthening of OSCE instead of NATO’s enlargement. As a result of this initiative, the discussion in OSCE has been opened on the new Security model for Europe for the 21st century. In this regard, several seminars and a few working groups have been organised to treat this topic.

The Charter is divided into several major parts. They cover the following issues related to security in the OSCE area - common challenges, common foundations, common responses and common instruments. The Charter also strengthens the OSCE operational capacities and clarifies the relationship between this and some other international organisations within the newly adopted Platform for Co-operative Security. The Charter highlights the following major challenges for the European security - international terrorism, violent extremism, organised crime, drug trafficking as well as major forms of conflicts within states. As its main foundations, the Charter mentions all relevant documents adopted by OSCE in the last 25 years. The Charter identifies the existing OSCE institutions created to deal with preventive diplomacy, conflict prevention, crisis management and the post-conflict rehabilitation as the main responses to the present security challenges. The Charter also introduced several new instruments. The most important one is the so-called REACT - Rapid Expert Assistance and Co-operation Teams which envisages recruitment of civilian experts for various OSCE missions and their quick deployments when it is needed. The Charter also contains some other operational improvements of the OSCE institutions, like creation of the Operation Centre.

The Charter for European Security is an important document for FR Yugoslavia for at least two reasons. The OSCE mission in FRY is the first field presence established in the OSCE area after the adoption of the Charter. Therefore, some Charter’s provisions generally regarding the OSCE missions, which treat their mandates, activities and exit strategy should be applied in the Yugoslav case. In addition to this, the Charter is important since it contains some (admittedly mild) security guarantees for all OSCE participating states. In fact, all OSCE participating states agreed that they would “consult promptly” if sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of any of them were endangered.




This paper focuses on the costs of the Kosovo War to the international community outside the borders of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On the political side, the spillover effects of this war have upset relations between the world powers of the USA, Russia and China. On the economic side, its effects extended the borders of Southeastern Europe. On the legal and moral side these effects jeopardized a main pillar of the global security and peace structure, the United Nations Security Council. The author has argued that the economic and environmental costs of this war were significant to the region. She has identified and analyzed political and moral costs of the war: harm done to the international rule of law; rise in nationalism throughout the region; rise in anti-Western sentiment and mounting enthusiasm for nuclear weapons.

Predrag BJELIĆ



In this paper the author studies the Dispute Settlement Procedures in World Trade Organization. The procedure for settlement of trade disputes has existed under the GATT 1947, but had many floes. The disputes between Contacting Parties of GATT have lasted several year and for many of them rulings have not been accepted because consensus decision-making.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has been established on 1 January 1995. One of its primary functions is handling trade disputes between member countries concerning the WTO rules. Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), which is annexed to the Agreement Establishing the WTO, regulates this process. Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), a new organ, have been set up for that purpose. This organ has the authority to establish panels, adopt panel and Appellate Body reports, maintain surveillance of implementation of rulings and recommendations, and authorize suspension of concessions and other obligations.

The practical procedure for settlement of disputes, as author notes, consists of several phases. First phase in dispute settlement process is consultations. The consultations initiate the member of WTO which believes that it is threatened by the trade measure of other member. The parties that take part in consultations can request good offices, conciliation or mediation that provides Director General ex officio. Establishment of a panel to resolve the dispute is the second phase in the process. Dispute Settlement Body establishes the panel to make the objective assessment of the case. The adoption of the panel report is the next phase in the dispute settlement process. The panel report is adopted 60 days from the day when the report was presented to the parties in the dispute. The parties have a right to appeal in which the Appellate Body (AB) examines the appeal and revise the case. The surveillance of implementation of recommendations and rulings and the determination of compensation and the suspension of concessions are also phases of the dispute settlement process.

The dispute settlement process has been upgraded in the WTO comparing it to the same process that existed under GATT 1947. The settlement of dispute is now transparent, legally regulated and faster. But many obstacles remain, like the right of members to define some issues as national security. Revision of the dispute settlement process is embodied in the WTO provisions and will lead, as author states, to the improvement of the process.




Endeavouring to urge the progressive development of international law, the UN General Assembly established the International Law Commission in 1949. One of the first issues on its list for codification was the law of treaties. This can be explained by the fact that international treaties are the most important source of international law and the most efficient instrument for establishment and development of international relations. The author has firstly presented the discussions conducted by the International Law Commission on the character and contents of the codification instruments to be applied at the first stage of work on codification of the law of treaties. Then he has considered in detail the long evolution of endeavours to codify the law of treaties that resulted in adoption of the 1969 (Vienna) Convention on the Law of Treaties and 1986 (also Vienna) Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organisations or between International Organisations.

A separate part of the paper establishes conceptions and provides definition of the international treaty. It also makes a division of treaties based on application of various criteria as well as on the names of treaties. In the author's opinion a treaty is any agreement concluded between the entities of international law with the aim of producing a legal effect. As the author says the subject of research is "interdisciplinary" since some rules pertaining to conclusion of international treaties are also included in the field of internal law. Treaties are the most direct manifestation of wills expressed by the entities of international law, the most important source of international law and the most efficient instrument for establishment and development of international relations. Within the doctrine the very Convention on the Law of Treaties that was adopted in 1969 was called "the treaty on treaties" what certainly applies to the 1986 Convention, too. The author analyses in detail the elements that are included in the conception and definition of the international treaty in the way they are presented in those two Conventions. He particularly points to similarities and differences between the treaties concluded by states and those between states and international organisations or between international organisations.

As the author says there are numerous criteria to make a difference between various treaties. The starting point is the division 1. by the function of the treaty, and 2. by the number of parties to an agreement. The first division relates to the contents and character of the treaty-law (legislative, normative) and to the agreements-contracts (contractual). According to the second division, a difference is made by the character, contents and effect of bilateral, multilateral or collective agreements. The author also presents many other divisions of international treaties. The International Law Commission or actually the 1969 Convention do not attach much importance to these divisions, especially when bilateral or multilateral agreements are concluded.

Arguing about the names of treaties, the author states that there are dozens of them. He points out that the names such as treaty, agreement and convention are most frequently used and they are considered synonymous to each other. As the author says a general position has been adopted both in the doctrine and practice and according to it, there is no legal difference in the significance of treaties by their names. The practice shows that their use is largely arbitrary.

The author concludes that all these issues concerning the law of treaties and the very codification of the customary legal rules previously applied in this field are of exceptional importance for the progressive development of international law and international relations.




There are no recent data of the scope, numbers and constant changeability of causes and directions of international migrations and general and individual characteristics of their participants. This makes it difficult to define the concept of international migrants and to establish relevant standard terminology in a way that would facilitate a comparative statistical monitoring of international migrations and creation and pursuance of a policy in the field of interest for an increasing number of countries, both nationally and internationally.

Starting from this point, the author first deals with the definition of international migration and its individual participants - international migrants that are often identified with the totality of population moving and/or staying outside the country they originate from. She opts for the approach of a group of experts of the International Labour Organisation according to which the total population of “international travellers” could be divided into two groups: non-migrants (tourists, military and consular staff) and migrants and potential migrants.

Singling international migrants out of the total population of “international travellers” makes it possible to direct attention of analysts towards establishment of more precise criteria for identification, and thereby classification of members of this heterogeneous population of international migrants. Those are citizenship, residence, time of duration of stay, purpose of stay and place of birth. It might be said that this is a mixture of formal and legal as well as factual criteria based on the practice of countries included in the process of international migrations. However, they are even more based on their national policies and legislation and often on the policies and legislation of their regional organisations.

Taking into consideration the logic of these criteria and accepting them as a starting point for analysis in this paper, the author gives a further account, including a critical review, of each of them. She indicates the appropriate terminology in Serbian and English languages that clearly confirms the initial assumption on the diversity of terms in each of these languages. Examples coming from different countries and given by individual authors are presented here. Special emphasise is laid on the choice of terminology that migration policies of individual countries have at their disposal excluding in certain cases the use of some terms. A typical example is the term immigrant that due to its possible resemblance with the term settler is not used in European countries. This is for the fact that the majority of these countries, as distinct from overseas countries that pursue settlement policies, follow policies of temporary reception of migrants.

The paper has also tried to point out the effect of factual criteria that are basically derived from causes for migration, being most often of economic nature. They are conditioned by disparities in development of individual countries and regions in the world, and in recent times by strengthening of the globalisation process. However, they also result from geopolitical changes, unrest’s, wars and other sources of instability as well as to from threats to lives and existence of individuals.

The given examples pertaining to the classification used by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) particularly shed light on the complexity and diversity of concepts and terms used for identification of international migrants. While ILO divides all migrants into a single category of migrants citizens when referring to one’s own citizens who after a period of absence come back to their country, and the category of migrants foreigners divided into 9 groups or types of migrants, IOM classifies all migrants into only 6 groups or types. Though a more detailed insight into types of migration of this classification indicates that they, actually, cover all types of migrants if defined by applying the criteria contained in the mentioned approach of the ILO expert group, their direct comparison is burdened with the existing terminological differences.

In addition to general considerations, reference is also made to the problems of definitions and terminology relating to the Yugoslav external migrations. Their peculiar features were for years conditioned by a specific approach to this phenomenon. According to it, external migrations were practically treated as an exclusively temporary process of employment of Yugoslav citizens abroad. That is why the term Yugoslav citizens temporarily employed abroad was introduced into the legal and political vocabulary for persons who, within the context of the deliberations mentioned above, might be defined as migrant workers. With the omission of the qualifying word temporarily, the mentioned compound term has been retained in the latest law. But, within a broader context of a thorough analysis that preceded modification of the relevant law, the term Yugoslav migrant was introduced. Thus, it was made possible to cover a considerably wider range of persons that might be assigned to definitions and typology of international migrations as given by the ILO. This is viewed from the aspect of both positions of Yugoslavia in the process of international migrations, i.e. as the country from which and to which the migration flows. This term does not only cover the Yugoslav citizens going to work abroad, but also all other owners of the Yugoslav passport regardless of the reasons of their going and staying abroad, then the settlers from Yugoslavia or actually citizens of Yugoslav origin abroad, refugees, as well as foreigners who might have an interest in choosing Yugoslavia as the country of their stay and/or work.

Since it has been established in principle that there is a need to standardise definitions and terminology of international migrations at the broadest international level using the indicated criteria, the author also urges to take appropriate steps in the FR Yugoslavia. The application of internationally comparable definitions and terminology would contribute to elaboration of a more adequate statistical basis and thereby to a more selective approach to individual, specific types of migrants in drafting and implementing national legislation as well as in developing relevant international cooperation.



Branislav GOŠOVIĆ



This essay discusses global intellectual hegemony in the context of international development co-operation, showing how is nurtured in many different ways. It is argued that the mechanisms at work are well-known in national politics, in particular in undemocratic societies, and are now projected by new technologies and through the global domination by those with power, a task made easier by the lack of organised and credible opposition. It suggests the need for further study and policy debate of this global phenomenon which seems to have largely passed unnoticed in academic, policy and public opinion circles.


György SIMON Jr.



Since the fall of communism and the beginning of transition, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe have been striving to join the process of European integration, and following the end of the civil war in former Yugoslavia, the European Union (EU) has given an increasing consideration to the economic and political transition of the Balkan region, as well. In order to promote regional economic and environmental cooperation, in 1996 the Southeast European Cooperative Initiative (SECI) was launched under the auspices of the EU, United States and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Within the framework of the proposed subject, it, thus, seems reasonable to focus one’s attention on the participating states of this organisation, currently including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, Slovenia, Turkey, and Yugoslavia. All these states, with the exception of Moldova, also signed the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe, originally concluded in Cologne on 10 June 1999.

The states of South-Eastern Europe, including the republics of former Yugoslavia, are at different levels of socio-economic development. Concerning their relations with the Union, they can be divided into a number of groups. First of all, there are Greece and Turkey. The former has been a member of the EU since 1981, while the latter, for its problems with human rights, became a candidate country only last year. Then, the applicant transition countries should be considered. Within this group Hungary and Slovenia have not only concluded Europe Agreements with the EU, but they have also managed to become, together with Poland, the Czech Republic, Estonia, and Cyprus, the most probable first beneficiaries of its eastern enlargement. At the same time, the economic performance and democratic record of the other two Southeast European accession states, Bulgaria and Romania, which have also signed Europe Agreements, is far behind those of Hungary and Slovenia. Next, Albania and Macedonia should be mentioned as countries that have established trade and cooperation agreements with the EU. Macedonia has also concluded a stabilisation and association agreement with that organisation. In case of Moldova, we cannot speak of a consistent integration policy because of its dependence on Russia within the Commonwealth of Independent States. Bosnia, being under a virtual protectorate of international community, is still tackling with the problems of economic reconstruction and its aspirations for participaton in the European integration can be manifested only in the long run. Croatia and Yugoslavia have just recently begun to truly democratise their societies, having been under a quasi-authoritarian rule during the last decade.

The objective of the article is to explore the Balkan aspects of the eastern enlargement of the European Union. The economic development of SECI countries in the last decade is analysed from the standpoint of their adjustment to the rules of market economy with particular attention to their aspirations to participate in the process of European integration, as well as to the EU Balkan policy. The conclusions that are made in the article could be used not only by other researchers, but also by decision-makers in shaping their views on the region.


Axel Sotiris WALLDÉN



The author focuses his attention on the possibilities of regional co-operation in the Balkans within the contexts of the European stability and prospect of countries and the region adjacent to the European Union. The key to peace and stability in the region is democracy, respect of human rights including minorities, economic development and integration. Regional co-operation in parallel with rapprochement and eventual accession of all countries in the region to the Union are conditions sine qua non for this process. The author also deals with the Black Sea Economic Co-operation, pointing out that it is different to that of the Balkan schemes, since it includes Russia and a number of other New Independent States which are not candidates or potential candidates to the European Union.


Prof. Blagoje BABIĆ



The author analyses the issues pertaining to settlement of FRY's foreign debt and the ways it should co-operate with international financial institutions in the future. The foreign debt has become the biggest problem for the Yugoslav economy. Its future development will greatly depend on the success in managing it. However, this will be largely determined by the nature of relationships with international financial institutions, this including above all the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The former two will play a decisive role in reprogramming of foreign debt payments and access to international financial markets.

FRY inherited indebtedness from SFRY. During the ten-years of sanctions the debt almost doubled, not because the country raised new loans but because the interest was charged on the existing ones all the time. After that period the interest equalled the principal. Although all former Yugoslav republics shared the foreign financial obligations of SFRY within the process of succession, FRY has, nevertheless, remained one of the most indebted countries in the world. The problem with creditors is not the amount of the country's debt but its low capacity to repay it. Several blows were delivered to the domestic economy and each of them was sufficiently strong to diminish its capacity to repay debt. First, the break-up of SFRY caused great structural disorder in the domestic economy. Second, the sanctions prevented access to the world markets, depriving economy of normal conditions for business dealings. Third, the aggression did a great damage to the national economy.

The creditors have taken all these circumstances into account. Therefore, they have announced their willingness to acknowledge Yugoslavia the right to apply the "Naples model" in rearranging its credit relations with them. This implies that 67 per cent of obligations to foreign states and commercial banks will be written off, while this cannot be done with the loans granted by international financial institutions.

Reprogramming of payments is only the first step in the settlement of Yugoslav foreign debt obligations. The second would be to formulate a long-term policy of foreign debt management. The main elements of the policy should be the following: a) Prevention of uncontrolled borrowing. This means that it is not only the state that should respect the rules on borrowing but it should also ensure that companies and banks respect them too, regardless of the fact that they borrow on their behalf and for their own account. Foreign creditors could, however, force out “nationalisation” of the foreign debt as they did in the past, and in that case the state would undertake the obligation to repay the loans raised in such a way. b) Efforts should be made to apply the “Naples model” as promised in order to reduce the debt to a bearable level. c) Repayment of loans that Yugoslavia granted to foreign countries should be one of the most important measures in foreign debt management. d) The most important measure in foreign debt management is, yet, recovery of the national economy. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to adopt a comprehensive programme of recovery and development of economy. e) In the long term one should count on gradual decrease of the country’s indebtedness. This would produce a positive psychological effect on domestic actors in business dealings. f) Development of relations with international financial institutions is a constant prerequisite for appropriate management of foreign debt.


Prof. Slobodan ZEČEVIĆ



The prospect for accession of new member states to the European Union has imposed the need for changes in its institutional system. Some solutions were prepared at the Inter-governmental Conference of EU Member States in Nice. The conference was finished in December 2000 and then was held the meeting of the European Council that adopted the provisions of the new treaty changing the previous treaties on establishment of the European Communities and European Union. The Treaty was signed on 26 February 2001 in Nice and it should come into force in 18 months, while during that period member countries should carry out the ratification procedure. The article analyses the changes provided by the Treaty, affecting the European Commission, EU Council and European Parliament as the most important institutions of the Union.

According to the Treaty the future composition of the European Commission will undergo some changes. As provided for, the first Commission to be constituted after 1 January 2005 will include one national of each of the EU member countries. According to the present provisions big Union member states are represented by two of their commissioners. When the Union is composed of 27 member states not every of them will have the right to elect its member of the Commission, because a large number of »ministries« would thwart normal work of this institution. For that reason the members of the Commission will be chosen according to a rotation system. A gesture of goodwill has been made to states that will join the Union, since at the moment of their accession they will be entitled to have one of its nationals in the Commission. There have also been introduced some changes in the procedure pertaining to nomination of a candidate for the president of the Commission. Instead by agreement unanimously reached by heads of state or government (or by consensus) in the European Council the candidate for the president is nominated by the EU Council meeting in the composition of heads of state or government, but acting by a qualified majority. After voting in the European Parliament the president and members of the Commission are also appointed by the EU Council acting by a qualified majority instead by consensus. The Nice Treaty increases the powers of the president of the Commission, who can, among other things, force, with the approval of majority of his colleagues, a member of the Commission to resign.

Changes in the provisions pertaining to the Council of the European Union also include weighting of votes, this implying the number of votes to be cast by each of the ministers of the member states in making decisions by a qualified majority. It has been noticed that there has been increased the number of votes to be cast by ministers from big countries. In making decisions by a qualified majority it is also required that, apart from a certain number of votes which are necessary for adopting a decision, the qualified majority should also comprise at least 62 per cent of the total population of the Union. In the Protocol to the Treaty of Nice the member states presented their position on the number of votes to be cast by ministers of candidate countries. The data presented above can serve to make a calculation on the possible number of votes to be cast by the minister of FR Yugoslavia or those from Serbia and Montenegro each, in case they decide to accede the Union separately.

The Nice Treaty also provides redistribution in the number of members each member country is entitled to elect for the European Parliament. Germany as the country with the greatest number of inhabitants in the EU, will in the future be represented by the largest number of members, then follows France, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, etc. The Treaty also defines the position of the member states on the number of members the candidate countries would be entitled to elect for the European Parliament. In this regard, the data presented above can serve to make calculations concerning FR Yugoslavia or Serbia and Montenegro, respectively.

The conclusion that can be drawn is that the Nice Treaty has created such conditions so as to make the European Union institutions fit for accession of new member states. However, its constitutional system has not radically changed because the EU has retained its organic structure provided for by the treaties on establishment of the European Communities adopted in 1951 and 1957, respectively. It was necessary to carry out the reform and it has been a useful measure towards adopting new ones. Actually, the introduction of Euro, a single European currency, imposes the need for an efficient federal government that would pursue a single economic policy. The challenges of the foreign policy require that the agreed positions of the Union are represented by the authorised European body (ministry) and not, as it has been the case so far, by several persons who did it from various angles, and they are as follows: the presiding state of the European Union, high representative for foreign and security policies, commissioner for foreign affairs of the European Commission, German, French, British and other prime ministers. Command over the multinational European military forces that would enable Europe to gain certain degree of autonomy as regards the NATO, also imposes the need for efficient bodies of federal type. In that regard, the presiding states of the Union will hold this year a broad discussion on new reforms of the institutional system of the European Union.





The author analyses acting of composite states in international relations. He argues that in the field of international relations states act as single factors, regardless of their internal organisation or structure, this being within their exclusive jurisdiction. However, in actual practice they could, to some extent, exert an impact on acting in international relations as well as on undertaking and meeting of international commitments. Although simple (unitarian) states prevail, it was for historical, ethnic, geographic and some other reasons that composite state communities (personal union, real union and confederation) were also created, as well as composite states (federation). Composite state communities existed in the past, so the participation of only composite (federal) states in international relations could be considered.

According to international rules, the federal state is the only factor of international law and not its integral parts. The problem may arise in case of inappropriate division of competence within the federation itself. Principally, jurisdiction of the federation must be sufficiently broad to involve the most significant functions of the state, including the international relations sphere, and particularly conclusion of international treaties and meeting of international commitments in general. In all foreign relations the federation acts on behalf of the state as a whole and not as a representative of federal units. Treaties concluded by the federation makes the whole state liable and it is responsible for meeting its commitments. Constitutions were revised from time to time to be in line with broadened subjects of international treaties and this was aimed at establishing balance of competence in foreign and internal policies. Such act ensures legal security in international relations. The international community cannot endure for deficiencies of some constitutions that would practically prevent internationalisation. The federal structure should not put out of action meeting of international commitments that result from international treaties (Art. 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) or enactment of international organisations.

The increasing interdependence leads to integration and adoption of uniform standards of behaviour, achievement of efficiency in making decisions and carrying them out as well as in supervision. All states should adjust to these, including member states of international organisations in particular. Greater integration in the international sphere implies greater integration within states. Therefore, the attempts to disintegrate them, no matter how one tries to justify or explain them, are anachronistic and opposite to the logic of development of society. The future lies in strengthening and not in weakening of states (and that is the case with the federal ones, too) all until they are the most reliable guarantee that their international commitments will be met, concludes the author.







The author tries to decipher possible consequences of the terrorist attack of September 11 th on the USA and the campaign against Afghanistan as a part of the "war against terrorism", on the Washington's defense strategy and foreign policy priorities. He also considers the possible changes in the relations between the main actors in international relations and the whole geopolitics of the macro-region situated between Russia in the west, China and the Pacific in the east, and the Indian Subcontinent in the south. He concludes that apart from some tactical steps, it is not jet clear what will be the general approach in reshuffling of foreign and defense strategy of the Bush administration. He hints at some of the possible outcomes of the reshuffling of US foreign policy strategy but concludes that it is too early to decipher all implications of the current US-led campaign "against terrorism."





The Stabilisation and Association Process was initiated by the European Union during the NATO intervention in Kosovo to enhance, rather than replace, the existing Regional Approach for Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, FR Yugoslavia, Macedonia and Albania. The Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) presents a centerpiece of this process. Eventually, each country in Western Balkan should qualify for such an Agreement, as a step towards EU membership. The SAA has been signed to date with Macedonia and Croatia, and with Albania negotiations are starting during 2001. Yugoslavia and Bosnia have been given a set of preconditions to fulfill.

SAA is in fact an equivalent to the Europe Agreements witch were signed with the Central and Eastern European countries in the 1990s, but updated in the light of experience and reflecting also the new competences acquired in the meantime by the European Union.

This new type of Agreement focuses on the following main elements: the inclusion of political dialogue; the perspective of the establishment of a free-trade area between the Community and the states of Western Balkan; provisions on the movement of workers, freedom of establishment, supply services, current payments and movement of capital; approximate the legislation; cooperation in a wide range of fields, including justice and home affairs. The SAA is very explicit on the need for regional cooperation, what is the new element in as EU Association Agreement. The negotiations towards conventions on regional cooperation must be opened by SAA associates within one year of each SAA being sighed and concluded within two years of the SAA entering into force. Regional cooperation will be a condition for the further development of relations with the EU.

The supreme body in the agreement is the Stabilisation and Association Council, meeting annually at ministerial level and monitoring implementation of the agreement. At senior civil service level it is supported by a Stabilisation and Association Committee. At parliamentary level a Joint Parliamentary Committee is established between the parliament of SAA associates and European Parliament.

SAA, also, includes a perspective of full integration into EU structures because the five Western Balkan countries are "potential candidates" for EU membership. The reference to "potential candidate" means that the EU does not explicitly recognize membership as the ultimate objective and there is more detail concerning what is required before Balkan countries can join the EU. Status and position of the countries like Macedonia and Croatia in the enlargement process will be significantly influenced by the EU's approach to enlargement and by the fulfillment of the obligation under their SAAs.


Prof. Jelica KURJAK



After the break-up of the totalitarian systems in East and South-East European countries and Russia that were basically socialist or communist in their ideologies, almost all countries in this region opted for changes and they were oriented towards multi-party parliamentarism, democratic system of rule and market economy. The processes and achievements were not identical in all these countries: they depended on the tradition of multi-partism, democratic institutions, the degree of dependence on the previous ideology, social and societal willingness to take radical actions and perhaps the most important - on the level of economic development. Regardless of the fact that the elements mentioned above created some differences between them, there were also a few common characteristics that made single the process of changes in the post-totalitarian region.

First of all, it was a very rapid step forward to party pluralism and transformation of parliament from a thoroughly formal to a comparatively workable pluralist legislative body. Opening of the society at all levels brought about expansion of political parties, organisations, movements and associations with great variety of political programmes - this including traditionalist, monarchist, nationalistic, left-oriented, communist, liberal and neoliberal ones. The period of formation of political pluralism in the parliament had lasted until the second parliamentary elections took place. That varied from country to country, but in average, it was until 1993.

The second stage commenced after the second parliamentary elections. In the pre-election period some forces regrouped and this was primarily caused by numerous problems that emerged for the errors made in the economic transformation. Disappointment of the already fluid body of electors led to victory of transformed communist forces in most of the East and South-East European countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Slovakia, Moldavia, the Ukraine, Byelorussia and Georgia). The situation in Russia was, however, different and it kept the course of liberal-democratic orientation.

The third period began in 1999 when at the third parliamentary elections in many countries (Russia, Hungary, Poland, Byelorussia, the Ukraine and Slovakia) strengthened those forces that opted for a new approach to changes, thus creating conditions for achieving stabilisation in the parliament and society as well. The new approach varies from country to country, but it implies stabilisation of the taken course or its modification as regards the beginning of reforms. Thus, in Russia, for example, the liberal-oriented forces have been modified retaining the position of national liberalism. In Poland and Czech Republic, and to some extent in Hungary, the trend of democratisation of society has strengthened, and these countries have taken the course of adjusting themselves most greatly to the European integration institutional mechanisms.

During the ten-year period of rise and falls in the process of changes in the East and South-East European countries and Russia, the only country that remained closed for all forms of reforms was FR Yugoslavia. After the new authorities took power on 5 October 2000, this country has started to follow the same reform tendencies - pluralist parliamentarism and market economy. However, taking into account the fact that numerous national, structural, political and constitutional issues have not yet been resolved the problem of defining of the reform platform is still being re-examined. The Serbian and Montenegrin societies have before them enormous positive and negative experiences of the East European countries, so they can avoid numerous traps in choosing the contents and methods of changes.





After the collapse of the centrally planned system of economic operation in 1989, all East European countries initiated radical social and economic reforms. In the economic field, the objective of reforms can be globally reduced to transition from centrally planned to market economy by taking appropriate structural and institutional changes.

In its first stage, in the period from 1994 to 1995 the post-socialist or post-communist transformation was directed towards resolving of current economic problems. These, above all, included economic stabilisation, liberalisation and opening of the process of structural changes. The second stage, being in process, has been characterised by efforts of the countries mentioned above to build institutions of open market economy and integration into European organisations, and EU, above all.

The past experience shows that numerous difficulties, dilemmas and controversies follow the process of post-socialist transition. One of the dilemmas and controversies that is being put forth most often regards the very mode of transformation of the socio-economic system. Actually, a frequently raised question is should transition be radical by the model of the so-called shock therapy or be applied step by step and be a gradualist one. The dilemma whether there should be applied the former or the latter mode is still topical, particularly for the countries that are lagging behind or are about to start the post-socialist transition. There are some dilemmas concerning the type of economy one wishes to build in the process of transition. The dominant system of economic operation in the contemporary world is mixed economy. However, under the pressure of IMF and World Bank leaderships of majority of European transition countries have opted for return to liberal capitalism of free competition.

Mixed type of economy is dominant in the world today. Therefore, not only the role of market is significant, but it is also the role of state in the economy and society. Economic theories differently treat the role of state in market economy. Neoliberalism in various forms insists on unrestrained activities of market forces while according to Keynesians, Post-Keynesians and Neokeynesians state is the one that should take care of the economy of the country. By all this, the role of state is of special importance in the process of transition from centrally planned to market economy.

In the period of transition, all countries faced the so-called transition or transformation crisis. The transformation fall was most prominent in the first 2 to 3 years of transition in Central Europe, while this period lasted from 2 to 5 years in South-East European countries and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Building of an open market economy was included as a criterion and an objective in almost all programmes of social and economic reforms in East European countries. In the first stage of this process, all transition countries faced financial imbalances in the internal and external fields. Therefore, the programmes of reforms set as its objective to establish foreign economic balance and external convertibility of national currencies of individual countries in the region.

External financing is a significant factor of providing funds for structural changes and support of the transition process in some countries. In 1990-2000 period the cumulative net capital exports to East European countries amounted to about 146 $ billion. Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland recorded the greatest inflow of capital. The inflow of foreign capital recorded by other transition countries was much lesser.

In the period after 1989, radical changes were most prominent in the sphere of foreign trade in East European countries. After 1989, these countries have developed trade co-operation with developed Western market economies, and EU in particular and within it with Germany that is today their dominant foreign trade partner.

Almost all East European countries have made initiatives to become members of EU. The process of their accession to EU is irreversible. By accession of new members to this organisation, Yugoslavia will be economically and politically surrounded by the European Union. It takes a great economic and political interest to establish normal co-operation with EU. Yugoslavia should organically adopt the market economy model to be adjusted to its specific features. Political stability and general and economic security are not only desirable prerequisites but they are also condition sine qua non for substantial economic and social transformation Yugoslavia is approaching.


Prof. Brana MARKOVIĆ



When in late 1980s in now former SFR Yugoslavia commenced the process of transformation of the economic system putting forth efforts to make transition to market economy, then was also raised the question of introducing the so-called integral market, which would include a labour market, too. This means that “labour costs” or “costs of labour force” would be determined in a completely new way.

In order to create a genuine labour market it is necessary to fulfil some necessary conditions. These are as follows: establishment of the so-called system of industrial relations - completely new forms of relations between representatives of labour and capital; opening of perspectives that would enable trade unions and employers to assume quite a different role from the one in the past; establishment of a system of principles, rules and mechanisms that would help set employment and working conditions through the system of collective bargaining; introduction of pluralism of ownership that would clearly determine owners of any of its forms.

The author compares several key elements of the system of industrial relations introduced in FR Yugoslavia so far with those that exist in the countries of developed market economies for many decades. The author makes a detailed analysis of the place, position and role of trade unions and employers in industrial relations, the overall system of collective bargaining as the process within which trade unions and employers determine wages, pays and other terms of employment and working conditions. He also examines the role of the state in the system of industrial relations and collective bargaining and particularly the phenomenon of the so-called tripartism where the state has a special role as "the third partner" in relations between labour and capital.

A separate part in the paper discusses whether the system of collective bargaining should be obligatory introduced. The author points to the fact that collective bargaining is today taken not only as a method of self-protection of employees and an institutional form of confrontation between representatives of labour and capital, but also as an economic process that helps determine the value of labour as well as a "natural" method for regulation of industrial relations. For these reasons in developed market economies collective bargaining is considered to be a deeply rooted element of the overall system of market economy. That is why all the three parties, trade unions, employers and the state, have contributed to full assertion of collective bargaining. In almost all of these countries parliaments have adopted laws that define and support collective bargaining. At the international level various conventions adopted by the International Labour Organisation, but also some other enactment accepted by OECD and EU, regulate the obligation to establish the system of collective bargaining.

In FR Yugoslavia conditions for establishment and operation of genuine collective bargaining are rather unfavourable. We have behind us ten years of a general crisis, dissolution of the former SFRY, war conflicts, the economy that is far from being recovered, great losses of a large number of companies, high level of unemployment, and such a standard of living that enables the greatest part of the population only to survive. The nightmare of political, economic and social problems is the greatest obstacle for establishment of collective bargaining. The author also points to some barriers of systemic character that makes difficult to establish genuine collective bargaining. He concludes that all that has been said in this analysis is not, however, directed against collective bargaining or is a plead for postponing its application in our country "for some better times". On the contrary. The author presents some proposals that can contribute to genuine and full functioning of the system of industrial relations and collective bargaining.





The principle uti possidetis juris first arose in Roman law providing legal protection for the effective possessions on estate. It reemerged in Latin America at the beginning of the XIX century, but with different function, content and aim. The principle started to operate as a governing principle for the delimitation of newly independent states.

It is beyond the question that the principle of uti possidetis became established as a binding norm of international law with regard to Latin America. It is also beyond the question that the principle moved to Africa, governing the delimitation of the states emerging from the process of decolonisation. But, what is questionable is whether the principle spread its domain of application on the whole international community, namely, is it the general principle of international law. The Chamber of the International Court of Justice in the Burkina Faso/Mali case stated, according to the great number of writers, precisely that. Starting from that decision and taking into account the mode of delimitation of the former USSR republics, the Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia (so-called Badinter Commission) concluded that: “except where otherwise agreed, the former boundaries become frontiers protected by international law. This conclusion follows from the principle of respect for the territorial status quo and in particular from the principle of uti possidetis. Uti possidetis, through initially applied in settling decolonization issues in America and Africa, is today recognized as a general principle…”

The judicial practice coming after that, according to the author’s opinion, hardly proves that simple and clear answer. In Case Concerning the Land Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening) the Chamber of the ICJ noted that the unstable and uncertain frontiers - which, in fact, are the possible source of dispute “are almost the invariably the ones in respect of which uti possidetis juris speaks for once with an uncertain voice” (para. 41, pp. 386 Judgemet, ICJ Reports 1992). In author's opinion, the Chamber questions the sole function of the principle, the function to provide applicable law for the delimitation of the state emerged from the process of dissolution of former state. At least, it raises the doubt about uti possideti juris as the sole one and obligatory rule in deciding the dispute about the delimitation. The Chamber explores the effectivites principle as the alternative principle with equal legal relevance in the matter. The arbitral tribunal in the case Yemen/Eritrea goes even further.

The relevant jurisprudence makes the author to conclude that the principle uti possidetis juris undergone substantial evolution during last two decades. It is clearly not an absolute rule that applies automatically, but a presumption. Presumption which will be applied unless there is some other applicable principle, effectivites, for example.

Institute of International Politics and Economics, 11000 Belgrade, Makedonska 25, Serbia
Phone: (+381 11) 3373-633, Fax: (+381 11) 3373-835; E-mail:
Copyright © 1996-2002, IIPE.All rights reserved