Година 13, број 50, јуни Скопје 2015 _ Year 13, No 50, June Skopje 2015 политичка мисла _ Балансирање на меѓународните односи: 200 години од Конгресот во Виена political thought _ The Balance of Powers: 200 years of the Congress of Vienna Содржина / Contents ВОВЕД / INTRODUCTION 5 – Ненад Марковиќ 13 THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA: INTRODUCING EUROPE’S NEW POLITICAL ERA Nenad Marković АКТУЕЛНО / CURRENT Ш 21 Иван Дамјановски GEOPOLITICAL ASPECTS OF THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Ivan Damjanovski 33 Јорданка Галева THE DIPLOMACY OF THE CONGRESS VIENNA AND THE MODERN GEOPOLITICAL INTERESTS OF THE GREAT POWERS Jordanka Galeva 45 1853 – 1856 Иванка Додовска THE BALANCE OF POWER AND THE CRIMEAN WAR (1853 – 1856) Ivanka Dodovska 57 : , Љубен Тевдовски THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA: ARCHAEOLOGY, NATIONALISM AND THE VALUES OF THE MODERN WORLD Ljuben Tevdovski година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 3 63 Александар Спасеновски THE EXPERIENCES FROM THE VIENNA CONGRESS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA AS AN INDEPENDENT STATE Aleksandar Spasenovski 73 200 :Ш Анета Стојановска-Стефанова 200 YEARS OF THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA: SWITZERLAND’S WAY TO MODERN DEMOCRACY Aneta Stojanovska-Stefanova 79 Јане Трпковски SMALL COUNTRIES IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT Jane Trpkovski 91 4 ЗА АВТОРИТЕ / ABOUT THE AUTHORS политичка мисла бр. 50 // ВОВЕД ВИЕНСКИОТ КОНГРЕС – ВОВЕД ВО НОВА ПОЛИТИЧКА ЕРА НА ЕВРОПА : 341.7:911.3]94(4:497.7)„19“ автор: Ненад Марковиќ , , . „ , ѓ (....) (Berridge & James 2003, 272). 1814 1815 , ( . .) 1815 , : , , ( , „ „ 1815 , “ ѓ „ (...) , “). : „ ѝ ѓ , “( ). , “ ( ). , ќ „ ( , „ “). „ година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје “ ќ 5 // ВОВЕД ; ; ; “( ). , . , ; è , „ è, “ (Grab 2003, 110). , „ 40 (...) “( 300 ). , , , , , XIX . , , , . , ќ . ќ , . (Grab 2003, 84): „ ќ , ќ . , . . , , ќ 1814) . ( . , “. , . , , ќ 1648, . , „ , – ќ è , , , ѓ 6 политичка мисла бр. 50 , , // ВОВЕД “( , , . „ , ( . ), , ( “). ќ XIX ќ „ ( ), . , . , , , )“ ( ), „ ( )“ ( ќ ). ќ , ќ . , , , . , . ,„ ќ , , “( , , „ “). , ѓ , , . , , (Jőnsson & Hall 2005, 57-65): 1815 ѓ , , . ј , , , ќ . ; , , ; 1815 1961 ќ , година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје ќ 7 // ВОВЕД ѓ , chargés d’affaires . , , . , ѓ , , , ѓ ѓ . , , , , , . , . , , . , , . „ , ќ ќ , , , ѓ ( , „ „ “ “( ), . . „ ќ , , , , , ‘ “( ќ ’ è ќ , ќ ). ќ ,„ 8 “). „ . , политичка мисла бр. 50 , // ВОВЕД , ќ , ,ќ ќ “( ). „ , , , ќ , , ќ „ “( , , ѓ ). ,ќ ќ , , ќ . , ќ , , . . , , ќ ѓ . , ќ , , ( ) , . , , „ ( , ): „ XIX ‡ , . , . XIX , , . ѓ , “. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 9 // ВОВЕД , , , , ( ). ќ XIX , ќ , . ѝ , , ќ è . , , , , „ ѓ (...), „ “ “( „ “). „ ѓ , , “( , ). , , , , , , ќ ( ) , è . , , . ѓ „ Stråt 2014, 14), „ ѓ “ (Koskenniemi & ќ “( ). ѓ ќ ќ , . , „ , 10 политичка мисла бр. 50 “( ) ќ // ВОВЕД ѓ . *** . , ќ . , , , , , . , ( ) , , è . , , , ќ . , . , , , ѓ è ѓ , , , ќ . , ј Berridge, G.R. & James, Alan (2003). A Dictionary of Diplomacy (Second Edition). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Grab, Alexander (2003). Napoleon and the Transformation of Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Jőnsson, Christer & Hall, Alexander (2005). Essence of Diplomacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Koskenniemi, Martti & Stråt, Bo. Creating Community and Ordering the World: the European Shadow of the Past and Future of the Present. in Koskenniemi, Martti & Stråt, Bo (eds.) (2014). Europe 1815-1914: Creating Community and Ordering the World. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. , (2015). Ԕ ј Ԓ . „ “& „ . 50, “– : . година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 11 // ВОВЕД (2015). Ԡ , . 50, “– „ , М „ Ԡ , ј : Ԥ (2015). Ԙ 12 К ј ј ј “& o Ԓ . “& 1853 – 1856 ‡ (2015). Ԓ К „ (2015). М „ политичка мисла бр. 50 . 50, „ . , Ԑ . . “& : . „ ј : ј : “– . , . 50, “– : „ . . “& ј „ . 50, “– // INTRODUCTION THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA – AN INTRODUCTION INTO EUROPE’S NEW POLITICAL ERA author: Nenad Marković Napoleon Bonaparte’s era of conquests in a military sense ended with the Battle of Waterloo, but in a political sense with the Congress of Vienna. The political heritage of the long-lasting military campaign of one of the greatest conquerors in Europe was fundamentally deconstructed during the “congress of the powers, dominated by Metternich (....) which restored the international order in Europe following the protracted convulsions of the Napoleonic wars” (Berridge & James 2003, 272). The Congress of Vienna that took place between November 1814 and June 1815, had undoubtedly restored “after the defeat (Napoleon) suffered in 1815 (…) the old multipolar order, comprised of five states in mutual balance: Britain, Russia, France, Prussia, and Austria” (Dodovska, in the current edition of Political Thought). Thus Dodovska highlights that “in 1815 the four Great European Powers had met in Vienna, with a common goal: to put a final and irreversible end to Napoleon’s hegemony” (Ibid.). However, “this task was not simple for the powers, although they were firmly guided by the need to restore the honour of the dynastic heritage which was forcefully usurped and devalued by the illegitimate French emperor” (ibid.). In essence, what happened at this congress was settling the score with the Napoleonic system of rule, where the goal of the Congress was “to secure the collective safety on the continent” (Galeva, in the current edition of Political Thought). This would actually imply “denying the principles affirmed with the French Revolution and suppressing the democratic supervisions; then replacing freedom with subordination to the governments; replacing progress with subordination to the traditional; establishing legitimate monarchies and maintaining the European ballance on the grounds of territorial changes” (ibid.). година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 13 // INTRODUCTION The consequences of the Congress of Vienna were far-reaching and referred mostly to the retailoring of the territorial maps in Europe. Namely, one of the major changes was related to Germany where “the Congress of Vienna introduced certain territorial changes and altered some of the borders which Napoleon had set; all in all, it mainly confirmed the revision of the German map and the abolition of the old Reich” (Grab 2003, 110). In this regard, the congress enabled “the reduction of 300 pre-revolutionary states to less than 40 (...), elimination of the independent cities, and expansion of the southern states” (ibid.). This, of course, is an introduction to the creation of the system of national states, or better said, its acceleration, considering the fact that the very 19th century is marked by the emergence and expansion of nationalism in Europe. The enlargement of the political entities such as Germany is a precondition for the further strenghtening of the centralized character of the state, without which the national dreams of many states would have remained unfulfilled. After the collapse of the Napoleonic system, the old aristocracy saw an oportunity to regain the political stage of Europe. However, the plans for restoring the rule of the old imperialistic houses in Europe were shuttered by the inability to establish new and clear-cut borders in Europe: Most nobles and clergy favored the return of the Old Regime under the Habsburgs, hoping to restore their priviledges. They asked the Allies to let the Habsburgs return, but Metternich had already ceded Austrian claims to that region. Britain supported the idea of uniting Belgium with Holland to create a strong buffer state on the northern border of France to prevent French expansion. William I of Holand desired this unity, as did Belgian professioanls and commercial classes, who feared the possibility of the reestablishment of the Old Regime. The First Peace of Paris (May 1814) placed Belgium under the control of Holland. The Allied victory at Waterloo secured the new arrengement, which the Congress of Vienna approved. (Grab 2003, 84) Such retailoring of Europe’s map can be considered the first contribution of the Congress of Vienna, and if we take a thorough look, it is clear that it helped in roughly defining the European borders as we know them today. In addition, the Congress of Vienna simply added to the inertia of the Peace of Westphalia from 1648, making way for the modern political entities – the national states. After the Congress of Vienna, the national state increasingly becomes a symbol “that represents the public, executive and judicial powers, which enforce the legislation in order to secure social stability, autonomy and jurisdiction” (Trpkovski, in the current edition of Political Thought). This enabled the development and strengthening of the centralized bureaucratic system of the newly created states; thus the 19th century became the cradle for strengthening the state apparatus through which, in the centuries to come, the inner sovereignty of the states will be acknowledged. This implies that the “public institutions (e.g. legislative, executive and judicial powers) impose a certain manner of action through provisions (e.g. laws, court decisions, administrative regulations and executive decisions) which, in case of non- 14 политичка мисла бр. 50 // INTRODUCTION compliance, introduce sanctions (e.g. subsidies, taxes, fines and imprisonment)” (ibid.), while “a compulsory criterion for stability is a cohesive functioning of the institutions (at a local and central level)” (ibid.). The Congress of Vienna will represent an overture to such contours of the state and with its provisions will announce the new era of relations in Europe and the world, based on – until then – unseen mechanisms. Diplomacy and the Congress of Vienna One such mechanism established after the Congress of Vienna, and at the same time its second contribution following the outlining of the contours of the national states, is the emergence of the contemporary diplomacy. The necessity is not surprising, considering the complicated geo-political landscape in Europe and the mixed aspirations of the victors. Thus “from the decisions made at the Congress of Vienna we can see that, besides the prohibition for Napoleon’s lineage to come to power in any of the European capitals as well as for the restoration of the old European dynasties, the most important decision that resulted from this event is, of course, the establishing of the concert diplomacy, which is known in theory as secret diplomacy” (Dodovska, in the current edition of Political Thought). Diplomacy as a specific way of communication, cooperation and conflict resolution between states gains importance after the Peace of Westphalia, although the Congress of Vienna gives it an even higher status. The most important points that the Congress modifies in the diplomatic work, according to Hall, are the following (Jőnsson & Hall 2005, 57-65): The Congress of Vienna in 1815 drew up a convention establishing precedence among diplomatic envoys according to the date they have presented their credentials, disregarding precedence among their principals altogether. Thus, the ambassador who has served longest at a post is considered doyen or dean. As spokesperson of the diplomatic corps the doyen has certain rights and duties as well as an amount of influence. It was still generally accepted that only great powers could exchange ambassadors, whereas the diplomatic representatives sent or received by smaller powers – or “powers with limited interests”, as they were euphemistically called – should have the rank of minister. The 1815 Congress of Vienna and the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations adopted similar classifications of diplomatic agents, distinguishing between ambassadors, ministers, and chargés d’affaires as heads of mission. This diplomatic structure established by the Congress of Vienna has survived until today. The introduction of secret diplomacy, the hierarchy within the frames of the ambassadors corps, as well as the hierarchy betewen the diplomats from different states and, of course, the distinction between different diplomatic ranks, enabled better communication among the states of the international order of the time, but година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 15 // INTRODUCTION also alleviated solving and overcoming political crises, which were not in scarcity after the Congress of Vienna. In this direction, not only the territorial issues, but also the general issues related to division of spheres of influence in Europe generated further political challenges which, through this very system of diplomacy, were addressed with uncertain success. NEW ARCHAEOLOGY The movement towards establishing national states and the overall development of the national ideas in Europe during and after the Congress of Vienna brought forth new ambience in the world of the time. This had its consequences not only for the political relations, but also affected a series of scientific branches closely related to the political existence of the political entities of the time, particularly those which emerged as winners over Napoleon and were the main stakeholders at the Congress of Vienna. One of these scientific branches which overlaps with history on one hand, and is closely related to politics on the other, is archaeology which seems to have fundamentally changed its paradigm of existence and functioning. Thus “today, when the relation between archaeology and the development of nationalism is the subject matter of several contemporary studies, it seems more than interesting to pinpoint this early relation and the common emergence of the scientific and cultural, in the very traditions of the Congress of Vienna, as a keypoint of the contemporary international relations” (Tevdovski, in the current edition of Political Thought). This is mostly due to the fact that “within the very frames of the ideas of mutlilateralism and “ballance of powers”, the period of the Congress of Vienna marks the first great multilateral repatriation of the archaeological and cultural heritage in modern Europe” (ibid.), i.e. “after the fall of Napoleon’s Empire, upon the initiative of several European diplomats and archaeology lovers, significant archaeological treasures, primarily of Roman background, including fragments of the most popular ancient sculptures such as “Apollo Belvedere” and “Laocoön and his Sons”, with the help of the Alliance army were seized from the Louvre in Paris and returned to their “original” collections or their previous owners” (ibid.). Such inclination towards national archaeologies and decompression of the power of one of the most powerful scientific disciplines until then was at the expense of France as the leading unifying power of the European archaeology of the time. Namely, “the decision that the Centre of the Universal Empire, Paris, or any other European center, has no exclusive right to universal cultural heritage of the civilisation as a whole, represents a key ideological reorientation that, in the long run, would actually stir and spread the ideas of the French revolution across Europe, although it would attempt to restrain their gallop” (ibid.). In the spirit of postNapoleonism and the national awakening “of the Congress of Vienna, the long-term dominance of France, as well as the idea of the universal empire of the enlightment, freedom, knowledge, and culture, were defeated by the ideologically, politically, and culturally different alliance of great states, which legitimized its victory by creating a new mutlipolar system of international relations, which would be known as the 16 политичка мисла бр. 50 // INTRODUCTION “Concept of Europe”” (ibid.). This multipolar ambience, even in the archaeological sense, will break apart the cultural and political monolithic nature of France under Napoleon’s rule, and will awaken the interest of the great powers for their own archaeological challenges. The repatriation of certain civilisational treasures from the museums in France to the locations where they were excavated or found, will only contribute towards a new understanding of the archaeological science which, for the first time, shows aspirations for a national contextualisation of the national archaeological wealth. THE MACEDONIAN CONTEXT AND THE DISADVANTAGES OF THE CONGRESS The fundamental alteration of the geopolitical map of Europe could not but have consequences for the Balkan Peninsula, too. The influence zones of the Great Powers did not leave the Balkans out, particularly due to its transiting position towards other continents, but also due to the weakening of the Ottoman Empire and its already anticipated fading role in Europe. In this sense, the Great Powers recognised the geostrategic importance of the Balkans, showing unconcealed aspirations, whose precoursor was Britain’s wish (and its fulfillment at the Congress of Vienna) to keep under its control the islands in the Ionian Sea as a very important trading and military route. In this light, the interest in the Balkans was undoubtedly present: What was typical of the European Great Powers during the 19th century – the preservation of the principles established at the Congress of Vienna and the rapid development of industrialisation, conditioned the need for conquering new territories, which resulted in accelerated imperialistic enlargement in Africa and Asia. The geostrategic connection between the Balkans and Africa and Asia had drawn Western Europe’s interest in the region. Throughout the 19th century it influenced the relations with the Ottoman Empire and affected the development of the national movements on the Balkan Peninsula. During the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the development of the national aspirations of the Balkan peoples through their revolutionary fight to establish their own national states, the European courts followed their own geostrategic pursuits by creating their own spheres of interests on the Balkan Peninsula. (Dodovska, in the current edition of Political Thought) The acceleration of the colonial era after the Congress of Vienna and the intensifying of the political processes in Europe had its influence on the Balkans as well, where the national movements were slowly on the rise, starting with Greece, then Bulgaria and Serbia; even the contours of the Macedonian issue were outlined (particularly after the establishing of the independent Greek state and the restoration of the Bulgarian Exarchate). This will mark the 19th century as a period of riots and uprisings against the Ottoman Empire, where each national movement will seek allies among the Great Powers, which had their own interest in the Balkans. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 17 // INTRODUCTION In this regard, Macedonia did not gain anything in particular from the Congress of Vienna, still being far from any consolidated national idea. However, looking back at the principles of the Congress of Vienna, from the perspective of today’s independent Macedonian state, we can come to the conclusion that “after two hundred years, in the light of the new international agreements made in the Balkans in the previous decade (...) we can still use the same “pros and cons” that referred to the Congress of Vienna” (Spasenovski, in the current edition of Political Thought). Thus “for each of the agreements that secured the peace among the former member-states of the Yugoslav Federation, there is a corresponding criticism that they legalize the existing conditions and that the accent was put on the prevention of military conflicts against the ideas of justice and righteousness” (ibid.). Both the Vienna Agreement and the contemporary political agreements in the Balkans are not without any weaknesses, considering the fact that the Congress of Vienna, but also the Dayton Agreement, the Ohrid Framework Agreement, or the Kumanovo Agreement, aim(ed) towards conflict prevention and alleviation rather than setting certain political paradigms that would be applicable in other situations as well, primarily due to the political context and the circumstances that conditioned them. In this way, the western historians see the Congress of Vienna not only as imperfect, but also as an event that caused certain delusions among the political elites of the time. The main criticism can be directed towards the belief in “the utopian aim (for) stability and the creation of domestic social as well as international military peace through a lasting legal framework of politics”, while the hundred years of political history that followed demonstrated that the “politics and law are interrelated, not separate categories” (Koskenniemi & Stråt 2014, 14). The blind belief in the legal regulation of the international relations in a manner that disregards the basic political interests of certain powers turned out to be a great misconception, with consequences that gave rise to a series of new conflicts and agreements in the one and a half century that followed. In conclusion, the Congress of Vienna was convened “to secure stability, but instead gave birth to fragility” (ibid.), mostly due to the heated political climate in Europeat at the time; Europe found itself divided between the revolutionary spirit and the conservative reactionary spirit that was revived at the Congress. * * * The Congress of Vienna represents a turning point in the European political ambience. The defeat of Napoleon and the return of the Great Powers in the process of retailoring the map of Europe was just the initial stage in the processes that derived from it. The Congress left its mark on the diplomatic sphere as well. Besides the introduction of the secret diplomacy, for the first time a clearer structure of the diplomatic corps was established following the seniority rule. The real political power of the states was introduced, as well as the systematization of the diplomatic positions, particularly the higher ones. On the other hand, the Congress opened the 18 политичка мисла бр. 50 // INTRODUCTION door towards breaking the concept of universal archaeology by contextualizing it as a science close to the political existence of each nation, as nationally coloured and as a subject to local aspirations and efforts in discovering. but also repatriating their own archaeological heritage, primarily from Paris as the universal centre of the archaeology of the time. In addition, the Congress of Vienna opened wide the doors of the national movements in Europe, which initiated new aspirations that affected the Balkans as well. The declining power of the Ottoman Empire increased the apetite of the Great Powers to influence this part of Europe, but it also awakened the national aspirations of the Balkan people. Nevertheless, the Congress itself, regardless of its inclination towards providing solutions for certain problems in the European ambience, initiated new problems as well. This was primarily due to the blind belief in the international law and the polarization between the revolutionary and reactionary powers in Europe which reopened the national and class issues many times a century and a half later. References: Berridge, G.R. & James, Alan (2003). A Dictionary of Diplomacy (Second Edition). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Dodovska, Ivanka (2015). “The Balance of Powers and the Crimean War from 1853-1856 – Or How the Geostrategic Interests of France and England Conditions the Vienna Order”. Political Thought No.50, Skopje: Konrad Adenauer Foundation & Societas Civilis Institute for Democracy – Skopje. Galeva, Jordanka (2015). “The Diplomacy of the Congress of Vienna and the Contemporary Geopolitical Interests of the Great Powers.” Political Thought No.50, Skopje: Konrad Adenauer Foundation & Societas Civilis Institute for Democracy – Skopje. Grab, Alexander (2003). Napoleon and the Transformation of Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Jőnsson, Christer & Hall, Alexander (2005). Essence of Diplomacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Koskenniemi, Martti & Stråt, Bo. “Creating Community and Ordering the World: The European Shadow of the Past and Future of the Present”. In Koskenniemi, Martti &Stråt, Bo (eds.) (2014). Europe 1815-1914: Creating Community and Ordering the World. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Spasenovski, Aleksandar (2015). “The Experience from the Congress of Vienna and the Development of the Republic of Macedonia as an Independent State”. Political Thought No.50, Skopje: Konrad Adenauer Foundation & Societas Civilis Institute for Democracy – Skopje. Tevdovski, Ljuben (2015). “The Congress of Vienna: Archeology, Nationalism and the Values of the Modern World” . Political Thought No.50, Skopje: Konrad Adenauer Foundation & Societas Civilis Institute for Democracy – Skopje. Trpkovski, Jane (2015). “The Small States in the Global Contex”t. Political Thought No.50, Skopje: Konrad Adenauer Foundation & Societas Civilis Institute for Democracy – Skopje. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 19 // АКТУЕЛНО ГЕОПОЛИТИЧКИ АСПЕКТИ НА ПРОШИРУВАЊЕТО НА ЕВРОПСКАТА УНИЈА : 341.171.071.51(4-672EJ):911.3 автор: Иван Дамјановски ( . ) , , . è, , , . , ( ) , j . , , . . , , . година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 21 // АКТУЕЛНО ѓ ѓ . ѓ ( è 2 , . , ) .1 - , , ѓ ( , , .3 ќ , ќ , è ) . è . , , . , 1993 . .4 22 1 Moravcsik, Andrew. “The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht”. Ithaca: Cornel University Press, 1998; Moravcsik, Andrew. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics“. International Organization Vol.51. No.4, 1997, . 513–553; Moravcsik, Andrew. “Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach”. Journal of Common Market Studies Vol.31, No.4, 1993, . 473-525. 2 Putnam, Robert. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games”. International Organization, Vol. 42, No. 3, 1988, . 427-460 3 Moravcsik, Andrew. Vachudova, Milada Ana. “National Interests, State Power, and EU Enlargement“. East European Politics and Society Vol.17 No.1, 2003, . 42–57. 4 Sedelmeier, Ulrich. “Sectoral Dynamics of EU Enlargement: Advocacy, Access and Alliances in a Composite Policy”. : Schimmelfennig, Frank Sedelmeier, Ulrich. (eds.). “The Politics of European Union Enlargement: Theoretical Approaches”. London and New York: Routledge, 2005, . 238 политичка мисла бр. 50 // АКТУЕЛНО , , , ќ ќ . - , џ ,Ш . - , џ “.5 , . , ќ . - 1989 . , , 30%. - , . - , ќ ќ , . - . , . , , .6 ѓ , ќ , o 5 Schimmelfennig, Frank. “The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, . 60 6 Schimmelfennig, Frank. “The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union”. International Organization. Vol. 55. No. 1, 2001, . 47 – 80; Sedelmeier, Ulrich. “The EU’s Role as a Promoter of Human Rights and Democracy: Enlargement Policy Practice and Role Formation”. : Elgström, Ole Smith, Michael (eds.). “The European Union’s Roles in International Politics: Concepts and Analysis”. London and New York: Routledge, 2006, . 118-135 година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 23 // АКТУЕЛНО .7 , . ѓ , . , . , . ќ . , ќ : њ „ԟ ԕԣ .ԟ ќ ј ј è њ ԣ .Ԣ јќ . ј њ ј ј ј - , ј , , ќ ј o , “. 8 , . . , . . . 1974 , , . . , , 24 7 O’Brennan, John. “Bringing Geopolitics Back In: Exploring the Security Dimension of the 2004 Eastern Enlargement of the European Union“. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 19 No. 1, 2006, . 155-169 8 Harris, Geoffrey. “The Wider Europe”. : Cameron, Fraser (ed.). “The Future of Europe: Integration and Enlargement”. London and New York: Routledge, 2004, . 128 политичка мисла бр. 50 // АКТУЕЛНО .9 , , - . . , ќ - ( ), , , . . џ ( , ). ( ) , ќ , ќ , .10 : . . , „ “ , .11 , ќ . . ќ ќ , , „ ќ . 12 . „ ќ “ . , 9 Ifantis, Kostas. “State Interests, External Dependency Trajectories and ‘Europe’: Greece”. : Kaiser, Wolfram Elvert, Jurgen (eds.). “European Union Enlargement: A Comparative History”. London and New York: Routledge, 2004, . 84, 85 10 Verney, Susannah. “Justifying the Second Enlargement: Promoting Interests, Consolidating Democracy or Returning to the Roots?”. : Sjursen, Helene (ed). “Questioning EU Enlargement: Europe in Search of Identity”. London and New York: Routledge, 2006, . 23-29 11 ibid, . 31 12 ibid, . 36 година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 25 // АКТУЕЛНО , . , , , „ , “.13 ќ . ,„ , , “.14 ќ ќ ќ . ќ , ќќ , . ќ , . .15 , . , . ќ 26 . ќ ќ ќ , , 13 Bardi, Luciano . Rhodes, Martin Senior Nello, Susan. “Enlarging the European Union: Challenges to and from Central and Eastern Europe—Introduction“. International Political Science Review, Vol 23, No. 3, 2002, . 227 14 Baldwin, Richard. “The Eastern Enlargement of the European Union”. European Economic Review, Vol. 39 No. 3-4, 1995, 474-481 15 Herd, Graeme. “The Baltic States and EU Enlargement”. : Henderson, Karen. (ed.) “Back to Europe: Central and Eastern Europe and the European Union”. London: UCL Press, 1999, . 249 политичка мисла бр. 50 . // АКТУЕЛНО 1993 ќ . . ќ ,ќ ќ .16 ’ ќ , . , , 2000 „ , “.17 ќ : . ќ ќ . ќ ќ 1997 - 1999 - . 5 . ќ - 1999 . ќ . . ќ , , “ “ ќ . , ќ . , ќ „ „ „ “.18 , 16 Skålnes, Lars S. “Geopolitics and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union“. : Schimmelfennig, Frank Sedelmeier, Ulrich. (eds. ). “The Politics of European Union Enlargement: Theoretical Approaches”. London and New York: Routledge, 2005, . 219 17 O’Brennan, John. “The Eastern Enlargement of the European Union“. London and New York: Routledge, 2006, 18 . „Ԙ ј :ԓ Ԥ ј , :ԟ њ “. 15.2.2010, http://dnevnik.mk/default.asp?ItemID=D5674A3389F96F4789ACEF5C371AF9B3, 12.5.2015 година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје . 123 27 // АКТУЕЛНО ќ . ќ , , , , - .19 , , , , . , ќ ќ . ќ 1999 ќ . ќ ќ . è . , ,ќ , , . ќ ќ , .20 2001 , ., . ќ . , , : „Ԟ ԗ 28 Ԧ ԓ , њ М .ԕ ј ј 2005 ԣ ј . . њ 19 Higashino, Atsuko. “For the Sake of ‘Peace and Security’?: The Role of Security in the European Union Enlargement Eastwards“. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 39 No.4, 2004, . 348 20 Skålnes, Lars S. “Geopolitics and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union“. : Schimmelfennig, Frank Sedelmeier, Ulrich. (eds. ). “The Politics of European Union Enlargement: Theoretical Approaches”. London and New York: Routledge, 2005, . 213- 233; O’Brennan, John. “The Eastern Enlargement of the European Union“. London and New York: Routledge, 2006, . 130 политичка мисла бр. 50 // АКТУЕЛНО ԣ ќ ј ј “.21 , , , , „ “.22 . , . 23 15 ѓ , ќ , .24 , , ќ - , . 25 ќ , , . è , . . 21 , , . . , 11.7.2011 22 Hill, Christopher. “The Geographical Implications of Enlargement”. : Zielonka, Jan. (ed.) “Europe Unbound: Enlarging and Reshaping the Boundaries of the European Union”. London and New York: Routledge, 2002, . 109 23 Sjursen, Helene. “Introduction: Enlargement and the Nature of the EU Polity”. : Sjursen, Helene (ed). “Questioning EU Enlargement:Europe in Search of Identity”. London and New York: Routledge, 2006, . 12; Lundgren, Asa. ” The Case of Turkey: Are Some Candidates More ‘European’ than Others?”. : Sjursen, Helene (ed). “Questioning EU Enlargement:Europe in Search of Identity”. London and New York: Routledge, 2006, . 131 24 Friis, Lykke Murphy, Anna. “‘Turbo-charged Negotiations’: the EU and the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe” Journal of European Public Policy Vol. 7 No. 5, 2000; Gori, Luca. “L’unione Europea e i Balcani Occidentali: La Prospettiva Europea della Regione (1996-2007)“ Catanzaro: Rubbettino, 2007 25 Zielonka, Jan. “Europe as Empire: The Nature of the Enlarged European Union”. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, 171-173 година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје . 29 // АКТУЕЛНО , , ѓ , , . , . , , , , . , ќ . ј : Baldwin, Richard. “The Eastern Enlargement of the European Union”. European Economic Review, Vol. 39 No. 3-4, 1995, . 474-481 Bardi, Luciano. Rhodes, Martin Senior Nello, Susan. “Enlarging the European Union: Challenges to and from Central and Eastern Europe—Introduction“. International Political Science Review, Vol 23, No. 3, 2002, . 227-233 Friis, Lykke Murphy, Anna. “‘Turbo-charged Negotiations’: the EU and the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe” Journal of European Public Policy Vol. 7 No. 5, 2000 Gori, Luca. “L’unione Europea e i Balcani Occidentali: La Prospettiva Europea della Regione (1996-2007)“ Catanzaro: Rubbettino, 2007 Harris, Geoffrey. “The Wider Europe”. : Cameron, Fraser (ed.). “The Future of Europe: Integration and Enlargement”. London and New York: Routledge, 2004, . 98-113 Herd, Graeme. “The Baltic States and EU Enlargement”. : Henderson, Karen. (ed.) “Back to Europe: Central and Eastern Europe and the European Union”. London: UCL Press, 1999, . 247- 261 Higashino, Atsuko. “For the Sake of ‘Peace and Security’?: The Role of Security in the European Union Enlargement Eastwards“. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 39 No.4, 2004, . 347-368 Hill, Christopher. “The Geographical Implications of Enlargement”. : Zielonka, Jan. (ed.) “Europe Unbound: Enlarging and Reshaping the Boundaries of the European Union”. London and New York: Routledge, 2002, . 95-116 Ifantis, Kostas. “State Interests, External Dependency Trajectories and ‘Europe’: Greece”. : Kaiser, Wolfram Elvert, Jurgen (eds.). “European Union Enlargement: A Comparative History”. London and New York: Routledge, 2004, . 75-98 Lundgren, Asa. ”The Case of Turkey: Are Some Candidates More ‘European’ than Others?”. : Sjursen, Helene (ed). “Questioning EU Enlargement:Europe in Search of Identity”. London and New York: Routledge, 2006, . 121-141 30 политичка мисла бр. 50 // АКТУЕЛНО Moravcsik, Andrew. “Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach”. Journal of Common Market Studies Vol.31, No.4, 1993, 473-525 . Moravcsik, Andrew. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics“. International Organization Vol.51. No.4, 1997, . 513–553 Moravcsik, Andrew. “The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht”. Ithaca: Cornel University Press, 1998 Moravcsik, Andrew. Vachudova, Milada Ana. “National Interests, State Power, and EU Enlargement“. East European Politics and Society Vol.17 No.1, 2003, . 42–57 O’Brennan, John. “Bringing Geopolitics Back In: Exploring the Security Dimension of the 2004 Eastern Enlargement of the European Union“. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 19 No. 1, 2006, . 155-169 O’Brennan, John. “The Eastern Enlargement of the European Union“. London and New York: Routledge, 2006 Putnam, Robert. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games”. International Organization, Vol. 42, No. 3, 1988, . 427-460 Schimmelfennig, Frank. “The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union”. International Organization. Vol. 55. No. 1, 2001, . 47 – 80 Schimmelfennig, Frank. “The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003 Sedelmeier, Ulrich. “Sectoral Dynamics f EU Enlargement: Advocacy, Access And Alliances In A Composite Policy“. : Schimmelfennig, Frank Sedelmeier, Ulrich (eds.): “The Politics of European Union Enlargement. Theoretical Approaches“. London: Routledge, 2005, . 237-257 Sedelmeier, Ulrich. “The EU’s Role as a Promoter of Human Rights and Democracy: Enlargement Policy Practice and Role Formation”. : Elgström, Ole Smith, Michael (eds.). “The European Union’s Roles in International Politics: Concepts and Analysis”. London and New York: Routledge, 2006, . 118-135 Sjursen, Helene. “Introduction: Enlargement and the Nature of the EU Polity”. : Sjursen, Helene (ed). “Questioning EU Enlargement: Europe in Search of Identity”. London and New York: Routledge, 2006, . 1-16 Skålnes, Lars S. “Geopolitics and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union“. : Schimmelfennig, Frank Sedelmeier, Ulrich. (eds. ). “The Politics of European Union Enlargement: Theoretical Approaches”. London and New York: Routledge, 2005, . 213- 233 Verney, Susannah. “Justifying the Second Enlargement: Promoting Interests, Consolidating Democracy or Returning to the Roots?” : Sjursen, Helene (ed). “Questioning EU Enlargement: Europe in Search of Identity”. London and New York: Routledge, 2006, . 19-43 Zielonka, Jan. “Europe as Empire: The Nature of the Enlarged European Union”. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006 ԟ . “Ԙ њ ј :ԓ Ԥ ј , : “. 15.2.2010, http:// dnevnik.mk/default.asp?ItemID=D5674A3389F96F4789ACEF5C371AF9B3, 12.5.2015. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 31 // АКТУЕЛНО ABSTRACT By criticizing the rationalist assumptions of preference formation, the article sheds light on the geopolitical dimension of EU enlargement and its explanatory potential for the dynamics of the process. Through an analysis of three specific enlargement processes, i.e., the second enlargement with Greece, the eastern enlargement and the enlargement process with the western Balkan countries, the article argues the importance of the geopolitical/security aspects of the process and the prospects of strengthening European political power as determinants of the EU enlargement decision making. 32 политичка мисла бр. 50 // АКТУЕЛНО : 341.7:911.3(100-69)(091) ДИПЛОМАТИЈАТА НА ВИЕНСКИОТ КОНГРЕС И СОВРЕМЕНИТЕ ГЕОПОЛИТИЧКИ ИНТЕРЕСИ НА ГОЛЕМИТЕ СИЛИ автор: Јорданка Галева , 18. ѓ , 1789 ѓ 1792 1815 . , , ѓ , ѓ ,ќ ќ Ancien regime1. ѓ , 1814 1815 ќ , . , , ѓ ќ ѓ „ “2. , , , 1 1789 è 2 19. , . Rene Albrecht -Carrie, Storia diplomatica dell’Europa 1815-1968, Editori Laterza, 1978, година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје .5-6 33 // АКТУЕЛНО ѓ ѓ . ќ, , , ќ ќ . , , , . , , 3 18. , , , ѓ , . ѝ , , , , ѓ . , ; ; ; . , . , 4 , , , . , , , . , ќ ԑ ,ќ ѓ ԑ ќ , 19. 3 ќ ( 19. ), ѓ . , ќ . ,ќ , , , W.M.Pintner, Russia as a great power,1709-1856,Washington D.C., Kennan institute for advanced russian studies, 1978, paper 33 4 , , ; , ѝ Albrech -Carrie, op.cit., 34 ќ , ѓ ( ), , ; ѝ , ; , , .15-16 политичка мисла бр. 50 , ; . Rene // АКТУЕЛНО ќ ќ , è, . , , ќ , ќ ќ , . , ќ . . , , , . , , ќ . ѓ , ќ , , . , , , , . ќ , , , . , , , ѓ ќ . , , ќ , ѓ . , , , ѓ , . , , . 1830 . ќ - è, 1832 ќ година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 35 // АКТУЕЛНО , : , - , : , . , , . , , , , ѝ , . 1848 , , , , . , , . ќ , , . , 1864 ; 1859 , 1866 , ; , ; . 1870 , , , (1866 ), (1867 (1871 ). 5 , ќ , (1861 ), ѓ ), è , . 1876 , ). ( , - , , . . , , , . , ќ ќ , 4 36 политичка мисла бр. 50 , // АКТУЕЛНО ќ , . . 5 , , , , 1878 , , - . , , . ќ , - 1908 1913 , ,ќ ќ ќ , 1913 . ќ ќ , , , , ќ . ( , ). , , , , , , - . . , : , , ќ . , , , ѝ - . - , ( , ). , , . ѓ 5 ќ , , , , ќ 4 , ќ ѓ , , , Guido Formigoni, Storia delle relazioni internazionali: 1870-1992, Franco Angeli, Milano, 1994, , . 193 година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 37 // АКТУЕЛНО - ќ , . 1919 , , : , , , , , , . , ѓ 1919 , , , ѓ . ќ ќ , , , , , , ќ 1945 ѓ 1946 , ѓ , . : : , , , , , , . , - ќ 6 , , , ѓ . ѓ . , ќ , 1955 ќ , . , , , , , ќ , ќ . ѓ , , ѓ ( , ), ќ ќ , : , , , ќ ( , , , ‡ , ) 1956 38 : , , . – , политичка мисла бр. 50 , , , , 1975 , ѓ , , , // АКТУЕЛНО ѓ , , . ,ќ 90ќ , , , ќ , è , , , , ќ ќ , , . 6 (28 (1 , , ѓ . , ѕ , 9.11.1989 1991), , , ќ 1991). , - ќ ‡ ѓ . , , . , , , . , , ѕ ѓ , , , , , ( ) . , , è, - . , . , , , , , . 6 ѓ 1950 ѓ 1953 ѓ ; 1965-1975; ѕ 1959-61 ; 1979 1962 ; . година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 39 // АКТУЕЛНО . , , , , , , , è , . , . , , , , , . , , , , . , , . ќ , , , . . . , , , , , , , , , , , , . , , . , , . , ќ , , 40 политичка мисла бр. 50 // АКТУЕЛНО ѓ , 2013. , , 30% 15 . , , . , , , . 2009 5 , . , . , , , , , , џ ќ . , , ќ , . ,( ), ( è ), , , ,Ш , , . , ѓ . Ш , , , , 1987 - 12 . , , è , è ѓ , ѓ ѓ , , , ) . , , ѓ ( , . , , , . ѓ , ќ , è , година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 41 // АКТУЕЛНО , , , . 200 , , . , 18 ќ , 19 , , , ќ. , ѓ , , ,( ), , , , . è , , è . , , ѕ , . , , , „ è “ . ѓ 19. , , è , , . ќ , , è , . , , , è ќ , ќ , , , . : 9.020 , ј . 42 , политичка мисла бр. 50 $ ј , ‡ 1.350.695.000 , , , , 1.236.686.732 , , // АКТУЕЛНО 1.973 $. , , , , . , ќ( , ), 143.533.000 , 845.000 1.315 . ќ ѓ , , . ј : Rene Albrecht -Carrie, Storia diplomatica dell’Europa 1815-1968, Editori Laterza, 1978 Guido Formigoni, Storia delle relazioni internazionali: 1870-1992, Franco Angeli, Milano, 1994 W.M.Pintner, Russia as a Great Power,1709-1856,Washington D.C., Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies, 1978, paper 33. ABSTRACT We can define geopolitics as a field of study that depicts the political interests, natural resources and strategic dominance between nations, aimed to pursue their own or collective interests. The aim of this paper is to give a survey of the foreign policy of the great powers in the past 200 years, starting from the Vienna Congress until today. A comparison of the foreign policies of great powers clearly shows that geopolitical interests are constant and never change. While in the 19th century geopolitical interests were focused on geostrategic territories and the formation of great and powerful European empires, today, geopolitical interests have completely shifted, while big players are seeking to dominate energy resources all around the globe. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 43 // АКТУЕЛНО РАМНОТЕЖАТА НА СИЛИТЕ И КРИМСКАТА ВОЈНА 1853 – 1856 : 355.433.2:94(4)„1853/1856 ИЛИ КАКО ГЕОСТРАТЕШКИТЕ ИНТЕРЕСИ НА ФРАНЦИЈА И АНГЛИЈА ГО УСЛОВИЈА ВИЕНСКИОТ ПОРЕДОК? автор: Иванка Додовска 1776 , , , . . 1789 XVIII , . , , ќ XIX, , XX , ќ è . , , , .1 1 ѓ Vladimir, Dedijer, Interesne sfere istorija interesne sfere I tajne diplomatije uopste, a posebno Jugoslavije u Drugom svetskom ratu, Prosveta, Beograd, 1980. . 37. „ , ѓ , res nullius, . . “. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 45 // АКТУЕЛНО , ќ . ѓ :„ “– “, , ќ , „ , è è .2 ѓ , ѓ , vis a vis . . . , XX , . ќ , , . ќ XVI 21 1793 , ѓ . , 22 1792 . 1791 „ ќ è , , ќ “. , 1794 , , ќ . , ( 1799 , , ) . , 2 Naprijed, Zagreb, 1990. 46 . 541. политичка мисла бр. 50 ќ : Povijest svijeta od pocetka do danas, 2 izdanje, // АКТУЕЛНО XIX . :„ , (1799 – 1815 ) .“3 , . , .„ ќ , . 1815 ѓ , , , , , , . : „ 20 ќ , , , ѓ “.4 , 1815 , , . , , , I. , , , . , I, , , ѓ , ѓ . ќ , , . ќ 3 4 . , , 2008. Ibid. . 68. ,Ԡ њ ѓ ќ ј ј , , . 70. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 47 // АКТУЕЛНО ќ ќ , ќ ѝ , . I - , ѓ ќ ќ , ќ ќ . 26 1815 . ѓ , , ѝ , , ќ , , ( . Splendid isolation).5 , , XIX . Ќ XVIII , , . 1739 1735 , , . 5 ,Ԙ . . . ѝ ј , I, . 1948. . 245. ( , 1818 . .): „... , 1815 . , – , , , , , , . 1819 . ( „ “. 20 ( 1821 ) 1820 , , ). 1820 IV 1821 . “. политичка мисла бр. 50 , , . 48 , . 10 , , // АКТУЕЛНО ѓ , è 1756 1763 , . - , 1757 , 1759 , , . 1760 , , II . III6 ѓ III 1762 , 28 1762 . , . , ѝ III ќ , . II 7 II, , , . . . 8 , ,„ . “ , - – 1774 1768 , , . (26.6. – 7.7.1770). , , Ќ џ Ќ 6 1774 џ ѓ III , (1728 – 1762) 1761 , 7 II . ѝ , , , , I. (1729 – 1796) , , . 8 Vladimir, Dedijer, Interesne sfere... . III, . 1763 1767 ѓ . 58 – 60. „ 1745 1762 , 1769 . , ѝ , 1772 . , . 1795 , : 1793 . . , , “. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 49 // АКТУЕЛНО . , 1782 ѝ .„ , , “.9 ( ) , .„ , , , ( ) , . , ( ) , , , , , , , .10 , XVIII , , , , , , , . , II, XIX , . . . 1854 – 1856 ќ , 1815 , è , : , , - .12 XIX .13 1999. 11 Ibid. ‡ , , 9 10 , 1867 , 11 ,М . XXVIII. њ К , ,Ѓ ѓ , , . XXIX. 1871 , . 12 13 50 , ., ъ, Ԙ я я , I, я, 1941. . 433. Frank, Maloy, Anderson, Amos, Shatle, Hershey, Handbook for the diplomatic history of Europe, Asia and Africa, 1870 – 1914, Washington. 1918. p.10. политичка мисла бр. 50 // АКТУЕЛНО . XIX , , ѓ . , . : ...„ ѓ , ќ “.14 , . , . , . , , , . , XIX .15 . 1536 , , , .16 ѝ , , 1815 , .17 , , ѓ , . , .18 14 , , ... , . XXVII. , , , 15 Stavrijanos Leften - Balkan posle 1453 godine, EQUILIBRIUM, Beograd, 2005. 16 Leften, Stavrijanos,... 17 18 , ., ъ, .217 … я я ... .216. . 442. Trevor Royle, Crimea, The Great Crimean War 1854 – 1856, Little, Brown and Company, 1999. . 183. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 51 // АКТУЕЛНО 1856 ќ , . , . , .19 . , .20 , , , , . , , è . XIX , ѓ è , XX .21 , . - , , ќ , .22 . , . , 1856 , . ѓ . 1859 ѓ , 1870 , 1866 ѓ 1864 , .23 – ѓ , 19 Josepf, von Hammer, Historija turskog / osmanskog / carstva, tom 3, Zagreb, 1979. 20 Leften, Stavrijanos,... 21 22 , Ibid. .218 ,ԓ . 16 ( М ј .) „… .“ 23 52 Leften, Stavrijanos... .374 . 419-420. ... ... политичка мисла бр. 50 ԟ ј , , , 1988. . 15. ќ // АКТУЕЛНО , .24 , , , . , . ќ , , . 1875 1815 , :„ !“ , ѝ , . , , , , I, 1919 , 1815 , . , , , . 1854 , , , , ќ . ѓ , ќ , ѓ . :„ ѓ ѓ 24 Ibid. ѓ 1776 ѓ . . ќ ѓ . ѓ , , .376 година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 53 // АКТУЕЛНО . 1856 ѓ , ѓ ѓ ќ , 7 “.25 , ѓ 1815 , XIX . :Ԥ 1856 ԟ ј ,Ԓ ,ԡ Ԑ ј ,К ј , . ј . ,Ԡ , ј , њ , ,Ԙ . . . ,Ѓ џ ј ј ,ԟ . ѓ , 2008. ј , I, , , , 2009. ,М , 1999. ѓ , , њ , ,Ԣ . 1948. К , , 1999. К ј , ј , ј њ , 2009. Vladimir, Dedijer, Interesne sfere istorija interesne sfere I tajne diplomatije uopste, a posebno Jugoslavije u Drugom svetskom ratu, Prosveta, Beograd, 1980. Misha, Glenny, The Balkans 1804 – 1999; Nationalism, war and the great powers, Granata books, London, 2000. , , ., ,ԓ , 1988. М ъ, Ԙ я ј я , ԟ I, ј , , я, 1941. Frank, Maloy, Anderson, Amos, Shatle, Hershey, Handbook for the Diplomatic History of Europe, Asia and Africa, 1870 – 1914, Washington. 1918. Josepf, von Hammer, Historija turskog / osmanskog / carstva, tom 3, Zagreb, 1979. Stavrijanos Leften - Balkan posle 1453 godine, EQUILIBRIUM, Beograd, 2005. Povijest svijeta od pocetka do danas, 2 izdanje, Naprijed, Zagreb, 1990. Trevor Royle, Crimea, The Great Crimean War 1854 – 1856, Little, Brown and Company, 1999. 25 54 Vladimir, Dedijer, Interesne sfere... . 54. политичка мисла бр. 50 // АКТУЕЛНО ABSTRACT In 1815, the four major European powers met in Vienna with a single purpose: “To ensure the final and irrevocable end of the Napoleonic hegemony!” Their mission was far from simple; however, they were strongly driven by the need to restore the pride of the dynastic heritage which was violently usurped and devalued by the illegitimate French emperor. At that moment, regardless of their family connections, the representatives of England, Austria and Prussia hypocritically accepted the Russian Tsarist autocracy, embodied in the great Russian Tsar Alexander I who, in terms of the decisions that emerged from the Congress of Vienna (like Wilson in 1919), was the main protagonist and was certainly the creator of the informal union called the Holy Alliance. In terms of the foreign policy of Tsarist Russia, this entire creation signified a stable terrain and a guarantee of its foreign policy plans aimed at the Ottoman Empire, as well as further expansion of its influence in the region of Southeast Europe, where a substantial Orthodox population lived under Ottoman Sharia rule for several centuries. Given the circumstances, the Russian court was shocked to learn that, after the declaration of war against the Ottoman Empire in 1853, the Russian navy found itself standing against not only the Ottoman, but also the British and French naval forces, an unprecedented event in the autocratic era where, in wartime, Christian countries sided with a Muslim country against another Christian country. Considering the reasons listed above, this paper aims at providing a comparative analysis of the decisions made at the Vienna Congress of 1815 in terms of the changes that conditioned the established balance of power in Europe. Additionally, we intend to compare the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca of 1774 with the decisions of the Treaty of Paris of 1856, considering them the most adequate indicator of the geopolitical interests that will condition the international system throughout the 20th century. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 55 // АКТУЕЛНО : 903/904:930.85(4)„18/19“ ВИЕНСКИОТ КОНГРЕС: АРХЕОЛОГИЈАТА, НАЦИОНАЛИЗМОТ И ВРЕДНОСТИТЕ НА МОДЕРНИОТ СВЕТ автор: Љубен Тевдовски , ѓ , , ѓ .1 , ѓ , ,2 .3 ќ „ “, , ќ 1 Thomas W.Smith, History and International Relations, (Routledge, London, UK & New York, USA, 1999), .104 –122 2 ѓ , , , ќ ќ „ , 1815 , ѓ ќ Black, A History of Diplomacy, (Reaktion Books, London, UK , 2010), 3 , “ . Jeremy .46, 144 ‡146, 151 ‡179 Bill McSweeney, Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004), . 49 година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 57 // АКТУЕЛНО ѓ . , , „ “, . , ќ ќ , , , ѓ . ќ , , ѓ . , ќ , ќ , . , , , . „ , “ . , ќ , , , è „ , ќ ,4 ќ “ . „ . 5 58 ѓ , , , 4 “ 5 Stephen L. Dyson, In Pursuit of Ancient Pasts: A History of Classical Archaeology in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, (Yale University Press, New Haven, USA & London, UK, 2006), .23-26 Alexander Grab, Napoleon and the Transformation of Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, USA, 2003), .18 политичка мисла бр. 50 // АКТУЕЛНО VII6, . „ 7 “ , , , , “ „ . „ , , (Antoine Chrysostome Quatremère de Quincy), - “, ,8 (William , Richard Hamilton).9 , ѓ ќ , . , ѓ , , . „ “ , , . , „ . , , (William Richard , Hamilton), . “ , , 6 Stephen L. Dyson, In Pursuit of Ancient Pasts: A History of Classical Archaeology in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, (Yale University Press, New Haven, USA & London, UK, 2006), .25 7 Margarita Diaz-Andreu, A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology: Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Past, (Oxford University Press, New York, 2007), .48, 72 Yannis Hamilakis, The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology and National Imagination in Greece, (Oxford University Press, New York, USA, 2007), .252 8 Margarita Diaz-Andreu, A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology: Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Past, (Oxford University Press, New York, 2007), .71 Stephen L. Dyson, In Pursuit of Ancient Pasts, A History of Classical Archaeology in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, (Yale University Press, New Haven, USA & London, UK, 2006), .26 9 Donald Malcolm Reid, Whose Pharaohs? Archaeology, Museums, and Egyptian National Identity from Napoleon to World War I, (University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, USA & London, UK), .37 Stephen L. Dyson, In Pursuit of Ancient Pasts: A History of Classical Archaeology in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, (Yale University Press, New Haven, USA & London, UK, 2006), .26 година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 59 // АКТУЕЛНО , „ “ ( , , .10 ) ѓ , ѓ , , . , , , , ќ , ,ќ . ќ , , , „ , , ќ , ќ , ‡ “, ѓ ,„ “, „ “.11 , , . ќ . , , , , ,12 , ќ , ѓ ќ , „ , ( è ), 10 , , ( (Aegyptiaca) “. ) 1809, „ “. V, ќ ќ . Donald Malcolm Reid, Whose Pharaohs? Archaeology, Museums, and Egyptian National Identity from Napoleon to World War I, (University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, USA & London, UK), .37 Stephen L. Dyson, In Pursuit of Ancient Pasts, A History of Classical Archaeology in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, (Yale University Press, New Haven, USA & London, UK, 2006), .26 60 11 Margarita Diaz-Andreu, A World History of Nineteenth-Century - Archaeology: Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Past, (Oxford University Press, New York, 2007), .71 Tom Flynn The Universal Museum – a valid model for the 21st century? (Bizot Group, 2002) paper from Parthenon Marbles colloquy at the London Hellenic Centre in June 2012 12 John Hutchinson, Nations as Zones of Conflict, (SAGE Publications, London,UK & Thousand Oaks, California, USA & New Delhi, India, 2005), .38 политичка мисла бр. 50 // АКТУЕЛНО , , .13 „ , , “, , ,14 , , . , , ќ .15 : Hutchinson, J. Nations as Zones of Conflict, (2005), London& Thousand Oaks & New Delhi: SAGE Publications Reeves, J. Culture and International Relations: Narratives, natives and tourists, (2004), London & New York: Routledge Diaz-Andreu, M. A World History of Nineteenth-Century - Archaeology, Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Past, (2007), New York: Oxford University Press, Flynn, T. The Universal Museum – a valid model for the 21st century?, (2002), London: Bizot Group Hamilakis, Y. The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece, (2007), New York: Oxford University Press, Malcolm Reid, D. Whose Pharaohs? Archaeology, Museums, and Egyptian National Identity from Napoleon to World War I, (2001), Berkeley: University of California Press, 13 John Hutchinson, Nations as Zones of Conflict, (SAGE Publications, London,UK & Thousand Oaks, California, USA & New Delhi, India, 2005), .70 14 Julie Reeves, Culture and International Relations: Narratives, natives and tourists, (Routledge, London & New York, 2004), .15-22 15 John Hutchinson, Nations as Zones of Conflict, (SAGE Publications, London,UK & Thousand Oaks, California, USA & New Delhi, India, 2005), .32 година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 61 // АКТУЕЛНО ABSTRACT Generations of historians have written on the subject of the Vienna Congress and its impact on the European and the global system of balance of power. Their views have been diverse, ranging from admiration for the visionary creators of the century of peace to the critics that located the predatory nature of the modern states in the principles laid out in this period. Many international affairs scholars would agree that some aspects of the contemporary global relations still depend on the principle of balance of power established two centuries ago. Yet, while it is easy to make parallels with the contemporary relations among the nations, we are obliged to bear in mind that the Congress of Vienna did not regulate the relations among nations. On the contrary, its political decisions provided the right conditions for the very creation of the nations. The agreements of the Concert of Europe did not eliminate just the long-lasting French hegemony, it also annihilated the idea of a global empire based on the wisdom and traditions of the ancient empires. Instead, it created parallel worlds of isolated and intensively purified identities, all of them claiming different ancient roots. Therefore, the Vienna system of international affairs did not bring just a new paradigm in the international relations, it rather changed the global tendencies of self-representation, collective identities, as well as the values of and cultural insights into different societies. In the next hundred years, through the scientific breakthroughs of the new science of archaeology, Europe and the world will be broken into eternal and coherent nations, races, cultures and civilizations. In the nineteenth century, Europeans would not compete any more on who is more civilized, they will begin to live in different civilizations that try to annihilate each other in order to survive. 62 политичка мисла бр. 50 // АКТУЕЛНО : 325.83:94(497.7)„19“ ИСКУСТВАТА ОД ВИЕНСКИОТ КОНГРЕС И РАЗВОЈОТ НА РЕПУБЛИКА МАКЕДОНИЈА КАКО НЕЗАВИСНА ДРЖАВА автор: Александар Спасеновски , . , è ( ), , ѓ . , , . , [ ]„ , ”1. ѓ , , „ ѓ “ „ , “2. , ѓ , 1 2001, ,ԡ .: 13-99 , 2000, .: 31. 2 2008, .: 72-78. Ԣ ,Ш ,М ѓ М ј , „ “, , , „ , “, 92, година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје , 63 // АКТУЕЛНО , ѓ . , !3 . , , , , . . 20. , , , 4 . 20. , è . ѓ , , , . 5 ѓ , , . , ѓ , , . , ѓ , . , . ќ , , - , . , . , è, , , . . . , . ( ќ ) ѓ , ( 6 3 Michael Howard, War in European History, Oxford University Press, New York, 2009. 4 Introduction to the Holocaust, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (un.org), 5 Richard Holbrooke, To End a War, Random House Publishing Group, 1999. 6 64 ,М ѓ , op.cit., политичка мисла бр. 50 .: 37. ), 2011. // АКТУЕЛНО ѓ ќ , , ,ќ . 7 , , ѓ , , , , . , Ԓ 1648 . Ш . , Ш . ќ , . ѓ , 8 ќ , , , . , - , . ԟ ј , , , , ѓ , 1919 ( ), . 9 , . . . ѓ ѓ , 1815 , , ( , ), , ( ) . , ( ), , , ( 7 8 9 10 ) . 1945 ќ 10 ,Ш ѓ , op.cit., .: 78-83. Derek Croxton, Anuschka Tischer, Peace of Westphalia – Historical Dictionary, ABC-CLIO, 2001. Michael L. Dockrill, John Fisher, The Paris Peace Conference 1919: Peace without Victory?, Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. , History of the United Nations, (un.org), 2015. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 65 // АКТУЕЛНО ѓ . ѓ )( ( , , , , ), ԡԕ . - 1949 11 , ќ ѓ ќ è ќ ѓ ѓ ѓ , . ѓ , , , , , , , . ( ), , , 1953 ѓ , , , . ѓ , , , . , , , 1815 ќ , è 12 . , 200 ќ ѓ Ԓ ѓ . , , . , , . „ 11 12 66 ќ “ The Council of Europe in brief, (coe.int), 2015. Charles McLean Andrews, The Historical Development of Modern Europe: From the Congress of Vienna to the Present Time 1815-1897, Read Books Design, 2013, Brian E. Vick, The Congress of Vienna: Power and Politics after Napoleon, Harvard University Press, 2014 Tim Chapman, The Congress of Vienna: Origins, Processes, and Results, Psychology Press, 1998. политичка мисла бр. 50 // АКТУЕЛНО ѓ , , . , , è, , . , 200 ѓ 20. , 21. ( , ), „ “ . , ѓ , . , ќ , ќ Ш ; , 39 300 ; ; Ш , ; , , , . , • , ; , , : ; • , • , , ; • , . , , , . , ѓ ( , ѓ , ), : • ѓ , ; • , , , ; година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 67 // АКТУЕЛНО • , , , ѓ , è ќ . ќ , : • , ѓ , , , , , , ; • ѓ , , • ѓ , ѓ ; , , ( • ) ; , , , , . ( ) . , . 17 . 1991 , 13 , 14 . , : • , , , , , • ; , , , ѓ 13 ԣ Ԡ 14 ј (sobranie.mk), ; 2015. , , 68 М , ќ , , политичка мисла бр. 50 , 2013, .: 102–123. // АКТУЕЛНО • , , , , . , - , ѓ , , ѓ , , . , 1992 , ѓ , ; 1993 ; , 1995, ѓ Ԡ 2001 М ј , . , 2004 . , , , . , ѓ ; ; , 2004 . *** . , . , . , 200 , ; ; „ “, ( ) . , година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 69 // АКТУЕЛНО . , , 1648 , è 1945 ѓ ѓ , . , , . , ќ . ѓ , , , . ј : Brian E. Vick, The Congress of Vienna: Power and Politics after Napoleon, Harvard University Press, 2014. Charles McLean Andrews, The Historical Development of Modern Europe: From the Congress of Vienna to the Present Time 1815-1897, Read Books Design, 2013. Derek Croxton, Anuschka Tischer, Peace of Westphalia – Historical Dictionary, ABC-CLIO, 2001. History of the United Nations, (un.org), 2015. Introduction to the Holocaust, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (un.org), 2011. Michael Howard , War in European History, Oxford University Press, New York, 2009. Michael L. Dockrill, John Fisher, The Paris Peace Conference 1919: Peace without Victory?, Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. Richard Holbrooke, To End a War, Random House Publishing Group, 1999. The Council of Europe in brief, (coe.int), 2015. Tim Chapman, The Congress of Vienna: Origins, Processes, and Results, Psychology Press, 1998. ,Ш , 2008. , 92, , , ,М ѓ , 2001. ԣ 70 Ԡ , ,ԡ Ԣ М „ М ј ј (sobranie.mk), политичка мисла бр. 50 , , 2013. , , 2015. “, „ , 2000. “, // АКТУЕЛНО ABSTRACT The great horrors in the world always end with peace treaties. In this context, the European heritage is highly significant both in the positive and negative sense of the word. The wars fought were a warning that was as important as the great events which put these wars to an end. The Congress of Vienna should serve as an excellent reminder of the outcomes of the conflicts, the role of the great powers, the ways in which the fate of the peoples and states were decided at the “green table”, etc. Regardless of the nature of the solutions, it is indisputable that the Congress of Vienna completely altered the European political map and played a significant role in what the European states represent today on the world map. The Republic of Macedonia, as well as the major European countries in the period between the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 and the establishment of the UN in 1945, were trying to create a balance between satisfying the expectations of its citizens and the political realities at the time. The complex compromises that were made in order to realize the great goal of a final democratic stabilization and integration of the state, from the aspect of their austerity and importance, provide a clear answer concerning the extensive concessions that the great European sates of today once made. However, in the case of the Republic of Macedonia, there is a lack of a centuries-long historical distance after which it is possible to make a relevant evaluation of their justification. In any case, until such a time, the faith of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia in the realization of the main goal of a stable, democratic and integrated state remains strong. Keywords: Congress of Vienna 1815, international treaties, peace conferences, the Balkans, Macedonia година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 71 // АКТУЕЛНО 200 ГОДИНИ ОД КОНГРЕСОТ ВО ВИЕНА: ШВАЈЦАРСКИОТ ПАТ ДО МОДЕРНА ДЕМОКРАТИЈА : 321.013(4)„17“ 341.214(494) „1815“ автор: Анета Стојановска-Стефанова 1815 a ѓ , . 1814 ‡ 1815 , . 1 1814 1815 Ш , . , , . . , . . , , ,Ш . , , , , , , , „ ѓ “. „ 1 ѓ . “ , , , : , , . година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 73 // АКТУЕЛНО ѓ . 2 , ќ ,Ш , . . ѓ Ш , ќ 3 . . 20 Ш , 1815. 22 , ,Ш . Ш , . . , . ( ќ : , , 90 , 64 ). , , , . , . 4 , : , , Ш , , 200 . , , Ш . 2 : Jarrett Mark, (2014), „The Congress of Vienna and its Legacy: War and Great Power Diplomacy After Napoleon“, Publisher: I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd. 3 „ ѓ “ ѓ , , , V, 1907 ( ѓ . ѓ , . , a , ) 1856 XIII, 1907 ( ). 4 74 „ “ ќ политичка мисла бр. 50 , . „ “ // АКТУЕЛНО , Ш , , , . Ш 1815, 1648 1919, . 1648 a “cuius regio, eius religio“ („ 1815 , “). ќ , , , , 1789 ‡ 1815. , ѓ (1315), . Ш . , 2015 700 Mo ; 500- M Ш (1515), ; ќ 200 (1815), , . ќ . , , , , ќ . , , :Ш Ш . , , . 5 5 25.6.2015 ќ : Encyclopedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/place/Switzerland, година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 75 // АКТУЕЛНО , ѓ ), ( , , , , ѓ , . Ш 1874 . , . .6 Ш . ( ) .7 , : . Ш ѓ – , . Ш ќ . 8 ,Ш . Ш è . . „ , , “ ѓ , ѓ , . , 50.000 ( ) . 100 100 , , 96 , . ќ , ќ , 6 76 , (2001), ԣ 7 Ibid. 141-142. 8 Ibid. 142 политичка мисла бр. 50 , , . , .141. ќ // АКТУЕЛНО , , , Ш ќ , ( ). ќ ѓ , Ш , ѓ , . 100.000 . : Ш ѓ , ќ , , ѓ . Ш , , ѓ , 18 , , . . 1848 1874 . 90 Ш , ,Ш 9 , , , . , , , , . Ш „ ѓ , “. Ш , ѓ Ш ќ , . , ( ( ) ) ( , ) 9 , . ѓ , . Ш , ѓ Ш . , 200 Ibid.142. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 77 // АКТУЕЛНО . Ш , , ѓ Ш . ѓ , ќ , . , ѓ , , ѓ ѓ , ѓ , , , :ԕ , ј , . , ј , , ABSTRACT The Treaty of Vienna in 1815, but also the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, each in its own way brought to an end a bloody chapter in European history. The treaties signed in 1648 concluded nearly a century of religious warfare by enshrining the principle of cuius regio, eius religio (“whose realm, his religion”). The Congress of Vienna reinstated the principle of the balance of power, based on the belief that all parties shared a common interest transcending their respective ambitions, and re-established the Concept of Nations, which for two generations stopped territorial and ideological revisionism of the type seen from 1789 to 1815. After defeating Napoleon, European kings and statesmen met at the Vienna Congress in Austria in 1815 in order to arrange peace conditions. All great powers were interested in Swiss neutrality and agreed on a common declaration of guarantees for it. Winning powers were also interested in reducing French influence. The Congress of Vienna in 1815 was a landmark in the history of the European international society. It introduced a novel method of diplomacy to the conventional balance of power concept of Europe. Thus, 2015 is a multiple commemoration year for Switzerland. It has been 700 years since the battle of Morgarten (1315) in which the Confederates for the first time successfully defended their freedom and independence with weapons; 500 years since the defeat at Marignano (1515), a real milestone for the further development of the Swiss Confederation and 200 years since the Congress of Vienna (1815) when, after the victory over Napoleon I, the European powers set the future map of Europe, confirmed the borders of Switzerland’s present-day territory and its perpetual armed neutrality. Key words: Europe, history, politics, diplomacy, neutrality, freedom 78 политичка мисла бр. 50 // АКТУЕЛНО МАЛИТЕ ДРЖАВИ ВО ГЛОБАЛЕН КОНТЕКСТ : 32-027.511:342.2-022.51(4) автор: Јане Трпковски Ѓ ѓ , ( . . , ), , ( . , , ), ( . , )1. , ( ). : , , , , , , , . 2 , „ “, . Passerin D` Antrev), . 1648 .) ` , ( o (Alexander : ќ, , , , ѓ , , ( , . ) 3 – 1 Elster, Jon. Uvod u društvene znanosti: matice i vijci za objašnjenje složenih društvenih pojava. Zagreb: Naklada Jesenski i Turk. 2000. 176. 2 PavloviФ, Vukašin. Država i društvo: studija iz politiЦke sociologije. Beograd: Хigoja. 2011. 271–9. 3 , ,ԟ , : . 2009. 96. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 79 // АКТУЕЛНО ѓ , , . 4 : 5 ќ; • • ; Е • • ; , ; • . ј “, „ԓ (Malcolm Waters) ќ . , ѓ , . , 6 ќ , ќ , ќ . , , . , , , ѓ : 7 , , , , , , „ “ (1989 .), ѕ • . : , • • . , , • 4 Edgar F. Borgatta; Rhonda J. V. Montgomery, ed.. Encyclopedia of Sociology. Vol. 1. 5 vols. London: Macmillan Reference. 2000. 142. 5 PavloviФ, Vukašin. (2011). Opus Citatum. Ibidem. 6 7 .ԓ , , ј . .Ш : , . 2003. 165–6. : . 80 : (EU, UN), : 92. 2008. 72Е90. политичка мисла бр. 50 ѓ // АКТУЕЛНО • ( • NATO, OSCE), - (OECD, IMF) • ( ): – ; – ; ѓ – , . , , . , , ѓ . ќ , , , . . , ѓ 8 . , ѓ . 9 Ѓ , . ќ , ѓ . (Anthony Giddens), , , , . 10 „ԓ (David Held) ј , : “, . : , , ѓ . ѓ . . ќ , . 8 , .Ԕ ј . : . . 2012. 9 Held, Dejvid. Demokratija i globalni poredak: od moderne države ka kosmopolitskoj vladavini. Beograd: Filip VišnjiФ. 1997. 274. 10 , 2003 12. .ԗ : ј . : година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје . 81 // АКТУЕЛНО ѓ è ќ XIX . . . ќ . „ . . , , “( ) ќ ѓ . , ќ . 11 , (Michael Zurn) ѓ њ „ԣ “, , : • • • . , : • • • • . 12 . , Stateless Global Governance13. 14 : • (United Nations) ѓ • ѓ • • • 82 ѓ , , . (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) 11 Held, David et al. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Cultures. California: Stanford University Press. 1999. 10. 12 Cirn, Mihael. Upravljanje sa one strane nacionalne države: Globalizacija i denacionalizacija kao šansa. Beograd: Filip VišnjiФ. 2003. 164–73. 13 Lozina, Duško. „Globalizacija i suverenitet nacionalne države”. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu..43, 1. Split: Pravni fakultet. 2006. 14 VukadinoviФ, Radovan. NATO u meЧunarodnim odnosima. Zagreb: 2006. Fakultet politiЦkih znanosti. 19. политичка мисла бр. 50 // АКТУЕЛНО • , , , • , , • , • . „ • ԧ . 5. “( Ԕ ). (World Bank) • , • • • . (World Trade Organization) „ “ • • „ “. (International Monetary Fund) • , . , . , (David Held) њ “, ѓ ѓ „ ј „Ԕ , . ( “ . EU, NATO) : ѓ . , . . „ , “. , (Abolade Adeniyi), XXI . ( , , ѓ , , , ѓ , ). , , . 15 , ќ ќ, , ќ . 16 15 Adeniji, Abolade. „Suverenost nacionalne države u eri globalizacije”. PolitiЦka misao. Vol. 41. No 3. Zagreb: Fakultet politiЦkih nauka. 2004. 16 PusiФ, Eugen. „Može li se država još opravdati?”. PolitiЦka misao. Vol. 39. No 2. Zagreb: Fakultet politiЦkih nauka. 2002. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 83 // АКТУЕЛНО ( ) : ѓ Е , 17 • ( • ( • . , post 1815 .); . ( – . 1989 .); ). 118. „ “ ќ . . . – ќ , . – , , ќ . ѓ : – – – ќ. ѓ , ќ , . ( . ). . (М. Zurn), : 19 • ( ), ; • ( ), ѓ ( primus inter pares); • , ( 17 84 , . ). .М ѓ ., and . . 2009. 47. 18 Ш 19 Cirn, Mihael, Opus Citatum. (50–7; 260; 128–30). , .ԓ ј : политичка мисла бр. 50 : . : , . 2008. 167–9; 177. ј , . : // АКТУЕЛНО , : • ѓ ; , ќ • ќ • , . , . ѓ . , ѓ . (Francis Fukuyama), ќ (D. Held) , ќ , , „ “20 : • ; • ; • . - 21 , : • , , - , : – – ECD (Better Life Index) UNDP (Human Development Index, Multidimensional Poverty Index Gini Ratio). ѓ • – – – 20 21 . .ԓ , , њ : њ 21 . : . 2012. 127Е9. , (2012). Opus Citatum. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 85 // АКТУЕЛНО : ,„ “ 22 , . . . ѓ . , . - , , ԑ1 ( К ). , . . , 23 . 24 ќ – ( , , . ќ , – , ). (UNDP), - . , 25 . , , , ( ќ . ; . . 26 ) , ( . . ) : , , . . 22 23 24 86 Reinert, Erik S.. Globalna ekonomija: kako su bogati postali bogati i zašto siromašni postaju siromašniji. Beograd: Хigoja štampa. 2006. , .. ԓ ј ј ј ј . : . 2004. , ed. ԕ , , .Ԡ ј . 2014. ј М . 2002. ј њ 25 , , (2014). Opus Citatum. Ibidem. 26 , , (2014). Opus Citatum. Ibidem. политичка мисла бр. 50 ј :( , ј , . ). : : . // АКТУЕЛНО „ “( . ( SES Households Ranking). ( ). . . ), ѓ . Е , ( . , 25–29, ) ILO. ( ( ), . ). . , , ѓ . ј : ј. ѓ ј , , ј : Adeniji, Abolade. „Suverenost nacionalne države u eri globalizacije”. 41. No 3. Zagreb: Fakultet politiЦkih znanosti. 2004. PolitiЦka misao. Vol. Cirn, Mihael. Upravljanje sa one strane nacionalne države: globalizacija i denacionalizacija kao šansa. Beograd: Filip VišnjiФ. 2003 Edgar F. Borgatta; Rhonda J. V. Montgomery, ed.. Encyclopedia of Sociology. Vol. 1. 5 vols. London: Macmillan Reference. 2000. Elster, Jon. Uvod u društvene znanosti: matice i vijci za objašnjenje složenih društvenih pojava. Zagreb: Naklada Jesenski i Turk. 2000. Grande, Edgar. „Od nacionalne države do transnacionalnoga režima politike – državna upravljaЦka sposobnost u globalizacijskome razdoblju”. PolitiЦka misao. Vol. 39. No 2. Zagreb: Fakultet politiЦkih znanosti. 2000. Held, David et al.. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Cultures. California: Stanford University Press. 1999. ЕЕЕЕЕ. Demokratija i globalni poredak: od moderne države ka kosmopolitskoj vladavini. Beograd: Filip VišnjiФ. 1997. Lozina, Duško. „Globalizacija i suverenitet nacionalne države”. fakulteta u Splitu. 43, 1. Split: Pravni fakultet. 2006. OECD. ,( Zbornik radova Pravnog ). PavloviФ, Vukašin. Država i društvo: studija iz politiЦke sociologije. Beograd: Хigoja štampa. 2011. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 87 // АКТУЕЛНО PusiФ, Eugen. „Može li se država još opravdati?”. Fakultet politiЦkih znanosti, 2002. PolitiЦka misao. Vol. 39. No 2. Zagreb: Reinert, Erik S.. Globalna ekonomija: kako su bogati postali bogati i zašto siromašni postaju siromašniji. Beograd: Хigoja štampa. 2006. UNDP. ,( ). VukadinoviФ, Radovan. NATO u meЧunarodnim odnosima. Zagreb: Fakultet politiЦkih znanosti. 2006. , ., and : ј . ј . 2004. ј М ј .ԓ . 2012. , .ԟ , .ԓ њ : . : ј . : њ : ј : . ј . 2014. : ј ј :( . 2002. e. Ԕ . 2012. њ . , Ш ј , , .Ш , , : . 2003. , ed. ԕ , : : . 2009. : .. ԓ , ј . ј ј . .ԗ , : Ԡ : . .ԓ . 2003. , .М ѓ . ј , . , , ). : ѓ 92. 2008. . : 21 . . 2009. . : . 2008. ABSTRACT The objective of this paper is to interpret the crucial changes in the political systems of small states on the world stage in the period from the early 1990s to the present. It analyzes the mechanisms of institutional governance on the global and, in particular, central level in circumstances of limited sovereignty and autonomy of the national states. The central thesis focuses on the intensified actions undertaken by the international institutions, putting to the test the capacity of political and legislative institutions of the national states in their efforts to remain faithful to the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia. In diplomacy, through the multilateral model, the principle of the sovereignty of the national state is violated in terms of two legal aspects: as jurisdictional immunity and the immunity of the office bearers. Sociologists whose 88 политичка мисла бр. 50 // АКТУЕЛНО field of interest is political globalization agree that, despite the fact that national states are the principal entities in international relations, there is a lack of capacity for legitimate governance in state institutions and their respective domains; the terms used in the context of this phenomenon are de-etatization and small states. The final sections of this paper focus on the mechanism of the conjoining of national states which are distant in terms of their geopolitical positioning , which manifest unequal values of the indices for a sustainable economic and demographic development, and whose political and legislative systems and ideological apparatuses are different. The paper also focuses on the contact between societies which have different material and spiritual cultures and history and whose civilizational background is also different. These two aspects are related to the world policy model which influences the economic logic and global inequality. From the methodological point of view, such policy phenomena are successfully interpreted through the theoretical concepts of de-etatization, cosmopolitan governance and governance beyond the national state. година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 89 // ЗА АВТОРИТЕ 7.7.1977 , . , . , ѓ , . ќ , , , ќ , , . ѓ . ќ ќ , - . : dance.galeva@gmail.com ј „ . “ ѓ . „Societas Civilis” . Ш . - : damivan@gmail. com . - 23.4.1981 , , . 2004 - . ѓ „ 2009 “ , . „ 1934 1941 “ „ “ , 2012 . , 2013 - . : (19 – 20 , ќ . . - „ ), , ќ “– ѓ , : inadodovska@gmail.com „ . “ . (ERMA) – година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје / 91 // ЗА АВТОРИТЕ 2003. , 2010 , „ “. „ “– „ , “. , , , , : nenad.markovic@gmail.com E- . - „ “ „ “ , . . „ , : macedoniae@gmail.com “. - ј . „ ѓ ќ . . “–Ш . „ ѓ –Ш 2 Ш 1982 ѓ - . 2009 , : “ (2014), , , , , - , a. 2015 , „ “ . - . : aneta.stojanovska@gmail.com ѓ . , . , ќ , ќ . . , , . 92 политичка мисла бр. 50 „ . “ // ЗА АВТОРИТЕ , , „ “, . ѓ „ “– , ќ , . , ѓ ѓ ѓ , . - - : tevdovski@yahoo.com 1988, – , . ѓ ќ . . . ѓ . : . ; - – – ; . E-mail: trpkovskij@yahoo.com година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје – 93 // ABOUT THE AUTHORS Ivan Damjanovski is Assistant Professor at the Political Science Department at the Faculty of Law, Ss Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje and guest researcher at the Centre for Comparative and International Studies at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. He is also researcher at and the founder of the Societas Civilis Institute for Democracy in Skopje. -mail: damivan@gmail.com Ivanka Dodovska (1981) obtained her BA degree in Political Science from the Faculty of Law in 2004, when she was also elected Teaching Assistant at the Department of Legal and Historical Studies. She defended her MA thesis titled “The exchange of the minorities between the Kingdom of Greece and the Bulgarian Empire and the process of establishment of the national states in the Balkans” in 2009, and her doctoral thesis titled “The Balkan Entente from 1934 to 1941 and the Macedonian question” in 2012 at the Iustinianus Primus Faculty of Law in Skopje. In January 2013 she was elected Assistant Professor of History of Law at the Department of Political Studies and Department of Journalism where she teaches courses on contemporary European and Macedonian History (19th to 20th centuries), history of diplomacy, contemporary Balkan history and religious movements in Southeastern Europe. She has participated in a number of Macedonian and international gatherings and her scholarly papers have been published in relevant scholarly journals. -mail: inadodovska@gmail.com Jordanka Galeva (1977) obtained her BA and MA degrees in International Policy from the Faculty of Political Sciences in Forlì, University of Bologna and her MA degree in the Economics of Cooperation from the Faculty of Economics at the University of Bologna, where she also completed her multidisciplinary PhD studies in the field of international cooperation and sustainable development policies. She is currently Assistant Professor, teaching courses in geopolitics and in human and minority rights and has published several articles on topics related to multiculturalism, minority rights and geopolitics. -mail: dance.galeva@gmail.com Nenad MarkoviФ is an assistant professor at the political science department of the Law Faculty “Justinian I” - Ss. Cyril and Methodius University. He has obtained his MA degree at the European Regional Master Programme in Democracy and Human Rights in Southeast Europe (ERMA) – University of Sarajevo/University of Bologna in 2003. Professor MarkoviФ defended his PhD thesis in 2010 at his home university. The topics was “The impact of civil society organizations on the democratic transition and consolidation in the Republic of Macedonia.” He is founder and a senior researcher in the Institute for Democracy “Societas Civilis” – Skopje and a member of the editorial board of the quarterly magazine “Political thought”. His main interests are political theory, political philosophy, nationalism, civil society, political culture/myth etc. E-mail: nenad.markovic@gmail.com 94 политичка мисла бр. 50 // ABOUT THE AUTHORS Aleksandar Spasenovski is Assistant Professor at the Iustinianus Primus Faculty of Law, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje. Spasenovski’s doctoral thesis explores the constitutional and legal status of religions and freedom of religion. He has served three terms as an MP in the Macedonian parliament, and was a scholar of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. -mail: macedoniae@gmail.com Aneta Stojanovska-Stefanova (1982) holds an MA degree in Political Sciences, specializing in the fields of European and international politics and diplomacy. She is Teaching Assistant at the Goce DelЦev University in Štip where she teaches tutorials in international relations and history of diplomacy. Her papers have been published in domestic and international journals and has co-authored the study entitled European and Regional Experiences in the Transportation Sector. In 2009 she won the award for special efforts from the USAID Office in Skopje for proven leadership and continuous support in the process of the development and implementation of the automatic system for the distribution of ECMT licenses, as well as for her contribution to the growth of transparency, honesty and commitment within the USAID E-Government Project. In 2015 she was awarded the Order of Merit for her contribution in the rebuilding of the Bigorski Monastery of St. John the Baptist in the Republic of Macedonia. -mail: aneta.stojanovska@gmail.com Ambassador Ljuben Tevdovski has an extensive and diverse background in the fields of international relations and cultural policies. His professional profile is based on many years of theoretical research, teaching, as well as great experience as practitioner in these fields. Tevdovski has served as Ambassador of the Republic of Macedonian to Canada and as Advisor for Public Diplomacy to the President of the Republic of Macedonia. He is a long-standing member of the Council for Foreign Policy of the President of the Republic of Macedonia. He was also Director of the Sector for National Priorities at the Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Research Deputy Director of the Holocaust Fund of the Jews from Macedonia. Ambassador Tevdovski holds an MA in Diplomacy from the University of Malta and a PhD from the Faculty of Philosophy, Ss Cyril and Methodius University. He has taught Public and Cultural Diplomacy at the Macedonian Diplomatic Academy and has taught at the Goce DelЦev University in Štip, the second largest university in Macedonia.. He has also taught at different universities abroad. Tevdovski is one of the founding members of the Editorial Board of Crossroads, the Macedonian foreign policy journal published by the Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He has served on the Board and has been advisor for the journal for a number of years. Ambassador Tevdovski has cooperated with various intergovernmental, international and national institutions, and educational and civic organization. He has published books and toolkits, as well as articles and analyses in various Macedonian and international publications. -mail: tevdovski@yahoo.com година 13, јуни 2015, Скопје 95 // ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jane Trpkovski (1988) gained his BA and MA degrees from the Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje. He has worked as a consultant and analyst in the field of economic demography at the Department of Sociological, Political and Juridical Research and has been consulted as an expert in the domain of social changes by the national media. He has also participated in domestic and interna tional seminars. His scholarly interests include theoretical, applied and practical approaches – contemporary political changes, economic and demographic development and design methodology and statistical analysis, respectively. E-mail: trpkovskij@yahoo.com 96 политичка мисла бр. 50 Издавач: Фондација „Конрад Аденауер“, Република Македонија Publisher: Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Republic of Macedonia Основачи: д-р Ѓорге Иванов, м-р Андреас Клајн Founders: Dr. Gjorge Ivanov, Andreas Klein M.A. „Политичка мисла“ - Уредувачки одбор: Јоханес Д. Раи Politička misla - Editorial Board: „ “, Johannes D. Rey „ “, Andreas Klein „Societas Vladimir Misev Civilis“ , ќ , „ , a , „ a ќ „ “, Goce Drtkovski „ CIVIC – “, Sandra KoljaЦkova ѓ , Alexandar Burka Sara Barbieri , ќ e Ivan Damjanovski “, . , Nenad MarkoviФ “, . , , џ e a, , , , Dejan PavloviФ ѓ , José Raimundo de Araújo Carvalho Júnior Ivars Ijabs Lidia Puka Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Germany Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Germany Societas Civilis Institute for Democracy, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia Political Science Department, Faculty of Law “Iustinianus I”, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia Political Science Department, Faculty of Law “Iustinianus I”, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia “Ljubovta e pettiot element” Publishing House, Republic of Macedonia Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Republic of Macedonia CIVIC – Institute for international Education, Austria Istituto per l’Europa Centro-Orientale e Balcanica, Italy Faculty of Political Science, University of Belgrade, Republic of Serbia Faculty of Economics, Federal University of Ceará, Brasil Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Latvia, Latvia The Polish Institute of International Affairs, Poland Адреса: ФОНДАЦИЈА „КОНРАД АДЕНАУЕР“, „Ристо Равановски“ 8, МК-1000 Скопје, Тел.: 02 3217 075 ; Факс: 02 3217 076 Е-mail: Skopje@kas.de, Интернет: www.kas.de ИНСТИТУТ ЗА ДЕМОКРАТИЈА “SOCIETAS CIVILIS” СКОПЈЕ, „Крагуевачка“ 2, МК-1000 Скопје Тел./ факс: 02 30 94 760, Е-mail: contact@idscs.org.mk, Интернет: www.idscs.org.mk Е-mail: map@yahoogroups.com Address: KONRAD-ADENAUER-STIFTUNG ul. Risto Ravanovski 8 MK - 1000 Skopje Phone: 02 3217 075; Fax: 02 3217 076 ; E-mail: Skopje@kas.de; Internet: www.kas.de INSTITUTE FOR DEMOCRACY “SOCIETAS CIVILIS” SKOPJE ul. Kraguevačka 2 MK - 1000 Skopje; Phone/ Fax: 02 30 94 760; E-mail: contact@idscs.org.mk; Internet: www.idscs.org.mk E-mail: map@yahoogroups.com Печат: Винсент графика Дизајн: Дејан Кузмановски Техничка подготовка: Пепи Дамјановски Превод: Перица Сарџоски, Калина Јанева Јазична редакција на македонски: Елена Саздовска Јазична редакција на англиски: Рајна Кошка Printing: Vinsent Grafika Design: Dejan Kuzmanovski Technical preparation: Pepi Damjanovski Translation: Perica Serdzoski, Kalina Janeva Macedonian Language Editor: Elena Sazdovska English Language Editor: Rajna Koška Ставовите изнесени во списанието не се ставови на Фондацијата „Конрад Аденауер” и Институтот за демократија „Societas Civilis”, туку се лични гледања на авторите. Издавачите не одговараат за грешки направени при преводот. Списанието се издава 4 пати годишно и им се доставува на политичките субјекти, државните институции, универзитетите, странските претставништва во Република Македонија. The views expressed in the magazine are not the views of Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and the Institute for Democracy “Societas Civilis” Skopje. They are personal views of the authors. The publisher is not liable for any translation errors. The magazine is published 4 times a year and it is distributed to political subjects, state institutions, universities, and foreign representatives in the Republic of Macedonia. Година 13, број 50, јуни Скопје 2015 ISSN 1409-9853 Year 13, No 50, June Skopje 2015 ISSN 1409-9853