fes spasov publikacija

7/30/2019 FES Spasov Publikacija

1/124


2/124

, 2011


3/124

:--

-

:

:

:

:

, :

: 300

, .

.


4/124

,

. - . -

,


5/124


6/124

,

!

, ...!


7/124


8/124

9

............................................................................................................................... 11 ...................................................................................................................................................... 13

I. .. 151. ................................................................................................................................................ 152. . 24

II. - . 311. ........................................................................................................................... 312. .. 33

2.1 ................................................................... 332.2 ................................................................................................................ 362.3 - .................................................................................................. 37

3. ........................................................................................................ 403.1 ................................................................................................................................ 403.2 ................................................................................................................. 41

4. a .................................................................................................................................. 434.1 Christendom 434.2

...................................................................................................... 46

4.3 . ............ 484.4 (, , , ) 514.5 () . 534.6 1648 . .. 56

III. ......................................................................................... 611. ........................................................................................................................ 61


9/124

10

2. . 642.1 ........................................................................... 652.2 ........................................................................ 77

3. ........................................................... 863.1 ................................................................................ 863.2 ........................................................................ 873.3 , 903.4 ......................................................................................... 953.5 . 96

IV. ........................................................................................... 1011.

() 1012. - ? 106

V. ..................................................................................................................................................... 111

VI. ............................................................................................................................. 115


10/124

11

, , . , , , . -, . -. -, , . , , .-, -, -, .

- , , -, , -. , , .

-, ,, -, , .

2006 . , , , , .

, , , , .


11/124


12/124

13

, , : , , 2010 ., , : . -, , . -. -. , , , , .

, , , . ,

, , , . ,, , , .

, ,

, , , , . , . . , .

, , , . ,

, , 19 . , . , , . , , . , . ,


13/124

14

, .

, , ,

, . , , , , , . -. .

, , . , . , , .


14/124

15

I. 1.

, ,, () .

. , , , , . ,

, , :.

, (Hinsli, 2001:32). ( . ), , , , , , ( -1, ).

, , , .

, () , ,, .

, , , , , , . ,

. , , , , , , .

, (, ), , -

1/NGO -/Non-Governmental Organization


15/124

16

. , , .

,

(Habermas, 2008:38). , , , :, , , , , , .

, , , . . , , , , 18 .

, , , .

, . ,, . souvereniteit in eigen sfeer ( ) -. (Johan Althusius) 16 17 , (Guillaumme Groen van Princterer) 1852 ., (imonovi, 2005:17). , . ( ), , 17 19 . ,

, .

() , , ,, , () . . , ,


16/124

17

, , , . , , , , , , (imonovi, 2005:17).

, , . , , , -, (Fukujama, 2007:109-110). , , , : ,, . , , , . , .

1986 . (Ulrich Beck)2 , . , , . , ,, , , , , , (, 2008:29). , , ,

(Grande, 2002). , . , e conditio sine qua non , .

2(Ulrich Beck), 1944 ., (London School of Economics and Politics).

- 1986 ., , , . , , , (nthony Giddens), (David Held), (Saskia Sassen), (Edgar Grande) . : , , , , .


17/124

18

, , , .

. , , . , ?

, , ( ), . , , .

. ( ), , (/Hegel). , - , ( /Hobs, /Locke,/Holbach, /Rousseau),

, (Hans Kelsen). , , , , . (, ) , , .

(Karl Marx) (Friedrich Engels) (. ,1999:77-89).

, , (Hinsli, 2001:23). .


18/124

19

, , , . , . , , , . ... (Hinsli, 2001:19). ,, . , , (Hinsli, 2001:19)3.

, , (18-19 ) - (), (19-20 )

(Habermas, 2008:37). , 18 , , , , , ( ). . , ., , , (

, 16 -), . , ,

3, , , , . ., , , .

, , , , . , , , , , , . , . , , , . , . , , , , (Hinsli, 1999:22-5).


19/124

20

, , , , 4.

(Christendom) , ,

, . , , , , , . , 1648 ., , .., , () , , (ius ad bellum), (raison detat). 158 . , 1806 ., ,

, II, , , . , , , , , . , () , (, 2001:8).

, . , (.,

), (, ., ). , ,. , , . ( ), , ( ): ... , , , ... . , ,

, . ... , (, 2001:13-14). , ,, ,

4 17 , ., XIV.


20/124

21

, , , , , , . , (Habermas,2008:38-9).5

.

- . , , , , , (, , , , ). ,, , , , , , , .

.

, , , , , : , , , , , (, 1999:67).

, , , , : , , , , . , .. , , - , : , , , , (., 2009:115).

5 - , , , (, 2001:5)., 20 ( , , ), , , ,, , .


21/124

22

, , , , , , .,, , .

, . ( , ), , , , (Hinsli, 2001:19).

(Cirn, 2003) e , . , , , , , , , . 20, (Leon Duguit) , , . ( imperium) : , , ,, (, 1997:10).

, (), . 1789 . , (, imperium,autorite publique, Herrschergewalt). , , .

, , , , . ,

, , () , , . , ... , ,, . (, 1997:12). , ( ) . , , , , ,


22/124

23

(, 1997:14)., 20 , ( ), ( ), ( ), :governance government (, : , ). , , () (Cirn, 2003:8). ,, ,policy, ... (Colebatsch, 2008:4).

, , policy ( , , ,

), (state of welfare). - . , , , , . , , , 20 , .. ,

. 20 (1989-1991 .),

(), .

, , , , , . . (

). , ( ), . , . , , ( ), , , , , , , (. Cirn, 2003:10-15).


23/124

24

, , , , , , ,, . ? ! , , . , , (, 1997:9).

., , . 20 , . , , . (), . , ,

, , . , () , , .

(-), , . , , , . , (, 1999:53). ,

, .

2.

. , , , . , : , , ,, , , , ( , , ). ,


24/124

25

(Held, 2002:2). (, ,), . , (Hinsli, 2001: 36), , , , ().

. , .. ( ), , , () . , (

), , , (), ; ... (Held, 2002:3).

, ,, , . , ,, . , () ,

. , ( ), , . , ( ) , , . , , , , . , (),

() , , . , .

, , ,


25/124


26/124

27

, . , , de facto, , , , , , . (Beck, 2004:77)

, , . , , , 1648 ., .

, , , . , , , , .

, . , , . (Ajvaz, 2008:41), .

, .

, .

, , , , , , ,, , , , , , , governance, government,

deus ex machina (Beck, 2004:78-79).

, , : ?


27/124

28

, , , .

- ( ) , . , . , , . , !

- , , , , . , . , , , . , , .

, . .

, (XVIII-XIX ), .6 , . . , , , , , . , ,

6. . , , . . ( ) : (Beck, 2004: 64).


28/124

29

/ (Held, 2002:24).

() . , , .

, . , ( , ) . . , , ,

() .: , , , , 7 (Beck, 2004:81).

, . .-. , ,

. . , , , , -, (, 1999:61).

, , . , .

, , . , . , , , .

7.


29/124


30/124

31

II.

1. .

, () , , . , , ,

. , .

, ,. , , , . , , . , .

, , . , , , .

, . (Hinsli, 2001) (Grande and Pauly, 2005:9).

, ( ) . ,, , , , 18 19 , . ,, , , . ,


31/124

32

, , , , . , , . , , .

, , , .

, (), , , , , (Grande and Pauly, 2005:9, Krasner, 1999).

, o - . , , .

: ( ) ( ) (16), (

) 16 1648 ., , . ( ) ( ), .

, . , , , ,

.8

8 (Kurtulus, 2004 .; Minkkinen, 2007 .; Hayman and Williams, 2006 .; Nagan andHammer, 2003 .) , ( , 1576 .) (1648 .) . , 16 . , () :


32/124


33/124

34

, , . , , , ,

. , .

, , . , : , (), () : , (Hinsli, 2001:37-38). , (, , ) (, ). , , , ,

.,

(zoon politikon), (, 1999:78). (Hinsli, 2001:38). ,, () . , . , , , , - . ,

. , , , -, , , , , , , , . , , , 10 (Hinsli, 2001:38-39).

, , , . , , (), . ,

10, , () , . () (Hinsli, 2001:39).


34/124

35

. , () . , , . , , (,

, , ) (Hinsli, 2001:39-40). , , (, 1995:157).

, , . , :, , , , , , , , , ; ,

.

, , , . (, 2006:116-117).11, ,, -, ()? , , !

, , . , , . , III (, ).

, . 330 . .., ,

. , ., , ,12

11 2003 ., (, 2003:43).12, , .


35/124

36

, , (Hinsli, 2001: 41).

323 . . .. , ,

, . , , , , , .

, , .

2.2 , , ,

. , , ., , , , . , , , , ,

(Hinsli, 2001:43). , , , , .

, , , , . , . , , , , . ,

.

, (Hinsli, 2001:45). , , , , ,


36/124

37

. , , , . , , , .

2.3 ,

. , imperium . , , (),

(11-16 ) .

, . 5 . , 13 , 27 . . .. , , , , . , (Augustus), (, 1995: 378).

, , , , princeps civitatis ( ), , . , , , , . , , , . , , populus romanum (), . , . , , , , .Imperium , . (Hinsli, 2001:46-47)

1 . .., (, ) (,1995:300-302) , . , , , , . 23 . . .. imperium maius


37/124

38

(, , , ). , tribunicia potestas, (auctoritas). , (imperium) (tribuniciapotestas) . princeps, 29-28

. . .., (, 1995:379). , .

(69-76 .). , (lex de imperio Vespasiani), , , (, 1995:451). imperium proconsulare, , ,

(Hinsli, 2001:49). , , , ( ), , , .

. , . , , . , , , , ,

, (Tacit, Ann. III: 55 , 1995:451). , , (, , : civis romanus sum).

212 . ConstitutioAntoniniana, , , (, 1995:532). , , , 13. , . , , . , .

13, , . , 1995:532 .


38/124

39

imperium populi romani, imperium Romanum orbis Romanum (Hinsli, 2001:50).

3 , (Ulpian),

: Princeps legibus solutus est (, ), : Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem (). , / (, princeps civitatis, ., . .) (, ., . .) , (Hinsli,2001:51).

, ,. , , , ( , ),

, . , , (, -, ), , , , , . ( , ), , , , , , ., , , (Hinsli, 2001:52).

lex regia ( , , ., . .), , , . , , lex regia . , , (,1995:175).

(), lex regia, Corpus iuris civilis: Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem;utpote cum lege regia quae de imperio eius lata est, populus ei in eum omne sum imperium et potestatem conferat

(, lex regia, imperium, ) (. Hinsli, 2001:53).

, . (Rex Dei Gratia - ).


39/124

40

. Corpus iuris civilis , (, 1993:95).

3. 3.1

, . , . ,

(, 1993:48).

: , , , -. . , ( 4 ) (). , ( - ), () ( , ). , , , , , , .

( , , ). , imperium populi romani (

) . , , , , , (, 1993:51). , , , . , , (Hinsli, 2001:56). ,. ,


40/124


41/124

42

, . , , . ,

, . , , , , (, ).

, , , , , . , (Hinsli, 2001:59).

,

. , , . , , . , , , . 1519 .. , , , . , , , .

, . . 14 14. , . , , (), . () , ... (Hinsli, 2001:61).

17

. 20 21 (, ) ,

14 (Ibn Khaldun) 1332 ., 1406 . . : , , , . (Wikipedia, 05.08.2009 .).


42/124

43

, ( 20 , , ).

1979 ., , ,

. , . . , , ( , , : ,, .) . . , , , , , . , , ,

.,

, . , , , ,, . , failed states ().

, .

4. a

4.1 Christendom (476 .), ,,

. , - , , . , 8-9 (), .


43/124

44

, , , , , , . , ,

. , .- . , , , , . ,: , , , , , , . , ,

, , , , , (, 1995:212). , , - , , . .

, , , ( ), ( 4.2).

. . , , , , - pontifex maximus (), , , ,

, , , Christendom15

.

15 Christendom , ,., . .


44/124


45/124


46/124


47/124


48/124

49

, ,, . () : . , ,

, , , . , , .

, . (, )19.

. ,. ,

, . , , . () . (ius gentium), . , . , (. , 13.1), , o (Bigongiari, 1990:16-17). , , ( ), .

, , . , , , ., , , , (Akvinski, 1990).

, , , , (Bigongiari, 1990; Hinsli, 2001:101).

19 . , , . , , 10 , , . , ,.


49/124


50/124


51/124

52

, lex regia , , .. , (),

, , , ., ,

, . , (a sola concordatia et concencu subiectivo), (Tadi, 1983:63).

, , (),. . (),

(potestas absoluta). , , (ecclesia universalis), ( plenitudo potestas) (Fenske undand., 2004:224-225). , , , , , .

. (), () . , , . . , ( ), , . (), 1648 . , .

, , .


52/124


53/124


54/124

55

, : (), () , () (Lalovi, 2002:231-233).,

, droit gouvernement (). , , . . (; ),, , , .

? , (Macchiaveli), , . , , ( , , ), , , , raison detre, , , . , . , . , , , , , (Bodin, 2002).

. , , , , . , . , , , . , (Bodin, 2002).

, , , , , , , : , , . , , , , , , , .


55/124


56/124

57

1555 . cuius regio, eius religio (, ). () . ,

, . 17 , . , , 1648 .

, , ?

ex nihilio. , , , . , ,

( ), , , . , . , , , 1806 ., , , (Stanford Enc., 2003:5-6).

, . , , , 130 . () , . 20 ,

, ..

. , (, , , .). . , . (Weber, 1968)., , (-).


57/124


58/124

59


59/124


60/124


61/124

62

, .21, , , ( 19 , ) . , ,

. (Jessop, 2003:30) . , , , - (-) , , , .

, () .

, 18 , , ( -) , (Khan, 1992:197) . (19 , ), , , ( Rechtsstaat).

,

() .

, (Bull, 1977), , , 19

21, - () , . ,

( ., ); , ( .,), (); (). (), (), , (), , .., () (Jessop, 2003:31). , , 2001 .


62/124


63/124

64

20 , , (1914-1918), , , - (1939-1945) ( , 20 ),

, .

,, , , . , () . ().( ) , ().

( ), ( : , ,, ).

2. .

, (Carl Schmitt), (Schmitt, 1933) 20 ( 20 ). ( ) , ., , 21 .


64/124


65/124


66/124


67/124


68/124


69/124

70

, , , , : (Rousseau, 1918:45). , ,

, (Rousseau, 1918:46-47). , ,

? , ,, () (persona civitatis) . (,) , (Rousseau, 1918:54). , , , , .

, , , , ,. (Rousseau, 1918:54-55).

, , , . , , , (Hinsli, 2001:155).

, , (, ) , () , , . , , , , , (Hinsli, 2001:156). , , . ,

() . (volonte generale, , , volonte de tous, ) persona civitatis . , , .


70/124

71

, , . , , ,. () , .

, . , (Rousseau, 1918:55)., , , , (Rousseau, 1918:57). . , , .

,

1789 ., 20 19 , , ().

, (Immanuel Kant) - ( ., ), ( ), . , , :

, , . , , . , , (Cvetianin, 2008:350-351), (, 2004) . , ( ), . , , , . ,, , , , (Cvetianin, 2008:351). , , , , . , , . , , , , .


71/124


72/124


73/124


74/124

75

, - bellum omnium contra omnes, (Cvetianin, 2008:215-216).

, . , , (Schmitt,1933:11). , (Ausnahmezustand) , , . , . , . , , - . , , , , .

(Schmitt, 1933:11).

, , . , , , (,-, -), (), -. 1933 ., ,

(Schmitt, 1933:6). ,

, , in Volk, ein Reich, ein Fhrer, , Fhrersprinzip.

(Hans Kelsen), 20 . () , , , , . , , . , , , .


75/124


76/124


77/124


78/124


79/124


80/124


81/124

82

, .

, 18 19 . , . . 18 . , , , . , () ,

. 17 , 1648 . , , . , , , . , (Hinsli,2001:195-197).

. , 18 (, - ) , , . ., () , . . , ,, , . 18 , . , , 19 . , 17 18 ,

. , , . , - , , -, --, , .


82/124


83/124


84/124


85/124


86/124


87/124


88/124

89

1994 ., (. 955 1994 .), . 1 1994, 31 1994(ratione temporis),

(ratione materiae), , (ratione personae), , () , , (ratione loci)( , http://www.ictr.org/default.htm, 30.03.2010 .). , , , , -.

(

, : - , 28), , , , . - ( , , , ). -, , 29.

, - , - . ? () 1992-2000 ., ,

28 muro di gomma , , , .

, (, 2008).29 , 2007 ., 1991 . 2001 . ( http://www.pravo.org.mk/documentDetail.php?id=737, 30.03.2010 .).


89/124


90/124


91/124


92/124

93

, 30. , 1992 . : , , , , ,

(. 1 ...)( Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and LingusticsMinorities, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/minorities.htm, 31.03.2010 .).

, ( Framework Convention for the Protection ofNationalMinorities, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=157&CL=ENG, EuropeanCharter for Regional or Minority Languages, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/HTML/148.htm, 31.03.2010 .).

(), .

, , , . ,., , , , . , .

, , - , , . , - , (Held, 2002:11-12).

30

, , . , , . . . , , , ( ), (. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=157&CM=8&DF=31/03/2010&CL=ENG, 31.03.2010 .).


93/124


94/124

95

3.4

. , , ,

, .

. ( ,: , , ), 20 ( 6 ) , . , , , , , , .

, .. , . , , - . .

, , ,, , , ., , , 1986 ., . , , . , . (), . , .

- 20 . 20

, (, ) (Melkas, 2002:118). -, : , 1972 . () , , 1992 . , 1997 .


95/124

96

. , , , ,, (Melkas, 2002:119).

,

. , , 2009 ., . , , 73 CO2, (: BBCNews, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8571347.stm, 31.03.2010 .).

, . , , .

3.5

, , , . , . , ( ), , ( ) () . , : , ,

, ., , ,

, . , , ., (NeilMacCormick) (Stephen Krasner), (18-19 ) ,


96/124

97

(), , , (, .) , . , , .

, , (, ) (Cirn, 2003 .). ( ), , .

, , . , () ,

, , . , , , ,. .

, , () ., , , (), 1989-1991 . , ,. (. ), . , .. , ( ) , . , , , , 1989 .,

(Gat, 2009). ,

, , (Held, 2002:21). ,


97/124


98/124


99/124


100/124

101

IV. 1.

()

, , . . 20 21 , ( , ), 20 . , (), (,), a, , ., .

, , . (Bagvati, 2008:15).

,. , , , , :, , , (, 2008:35).

20 - 19 . . , (Sasen, 2004:56). ,

. , : , , . ,, . , ,


101/124


102/124


103/124


104/124

105

, , . , ., . , . , , , , , (Cirn, 2003:236).

, ( ). , , . , : , , , ,

. , .

, , (). , , . , . , , , .

, , . 20 : , , .

, , .


105/124

106

2. - ? ,

, . ,

, , . : , . , .

. , (Realpolitik) a , , -. , , , , , ,

, . , . , , ( ) . , . , , , .

, , . . ( ), -- ( ) (Beck,Grande, 2006:26-27).

, , ( )., ,

, . , , , . , (Beck, Grande, 2006:27). , , .


106/124


107/124

108

, . , , , (Beck, 2004:333). ( .,), .

, , , , . : , ; , ( ); , ; , ; , ; , () ,

(Held, 2002:24).

. , , , . , , . , .

. , , , /. , ,, , , (Held, 2002:28). , , , (, : ,, , ), .

, , , ,

. , . . , . , , ,


108/124

109

. , : (, ., ), (). , , (, ), . , (Beck, 1997: 221). , . , , , ,, .

, , . , , . ,

. , ,

, , . . . , . , . , ,

. , .

, , , , . ,

, . , , 2001., , , .


109/124

110


110/124

111

V.

, ,

..

, . , , , , , .

, , . , , .

, , , , ,.

, . , , .

, , , ., - , , . , (, ,

) , , . , , , .

, , , .


111/124


112/124

113

, . : , , , (), () . (),. ( ) -, , - ( - - ),.

, , , .

, , , , , .

19 , , , ..

, .

. - 20 , , . . ,

: , , .

, () ,


113/124


114/124

115

VI.

The Responsibility to Protect (2001), eport of the International Commission on Intervention and StateSovereignty, co-chaired by Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun.Vol. I. Report of the International

Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, xiii+91 pp.Vol.II.Supplementary Volume: Research,Bibliography, Background, xiv+410 pp., : http://www.iciss.ca/pdf/Commission-Report.pdf

Ajvaz S.: Od Bodena, do savremenog koncpta suvereniteta, Godinjak Pravnog fakulteta u Sarajevu,LI:2008

Akvinski T.: Drava, Zagreb:1990 : , :2006 .: (), :1998 .: , , :1999 .: , :2000 .., ..: , :1998 Bagvati J.: U odbranu globalizacije, Beograd:2008 Beck U.: Mo protiv moi u doba globalizacije, Zagreb:2004 Beck U.: Was ist globalisierung? Frankfurt am Main:2007 Beck U., Grande E.: Kozmopolitska Europa: Drutvo i politika u drugoj Moderni, Zagreb:2006 Bigongiari D.: Politiki nazori Tome Akvinskog [:] Akvinski:1990 Bodin J.: est knjiga o republici (izbor), Zagreb:2002 Bogdandy A.von: Supranationale und Staatliche Herrschaft, 5-1997, : http://www.humboldt-forum-

recht.de/deutsch/5-1997/index.html

Bull H.: The Anarchical Society, London:1977 Bujger P.: Entgrenzung und Staatserosion als Problem der modernen Staatstheorie, Zeitschrift fr

ffentliches Recht, Band 55, Wien:2000

Cassese A.: Violence and Law in the Modern Age, Cambridge:1988 Cirn M.: Upravljanje sa one strane nacionalne drave, Beograd:2003 Colebatsch H., K.: Policy kao preispitivanje procesa vladavine, Politika misao, god. 45, broj 2:

Zagreb:2008


115/124

116

Crawford J., Marks S.: The Global Democracy Deficit:An Essay on International Law and its Limits,Archibugi et al.:1998

Cryer R.: International Criminal Law vs State Sovereignty:Another Round? European Journal ofInternational Law, Vol. 16, No.5:2005

Cvetianin N.: Epoha s one strane levice i desnice, Beograd:2008 Curtulus E.N.: Theories of Sovereignty:An Interdisciplinary Approach, Global Society, Vol. 18, No.4:2004 Delbrck J.: Staatliche Souverenitt und die neue Rolle des Sicherheitsrates der Vereinten

Nationen,Verfassung und Recht in bersee-Law and Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America,Mnchen:1993

Demmke C.: Die Europisierung der ffentlichen Dienste-zwischen nationaler Souverenitt undRechtsangleichung, ZTR, 1:2005

Deudney D., Ikenbery, J.G.: The Myth of the Autocratic Revival, Foreign Affaires, January/February:2009 .: , :1997 Erhardt C.A.: Europa zwischen nationaler Souverenitt und Integration, Aussen Politik, Stuttgart-

Hohenheim:1987

Fabio U.: Das Recht offener Staaten,Tbingen:1998 Fabr-Gojar, S.: Pojam suverenosti od Bodena do Hobsa, Beograd:2008 Fenske H., Mertens, D., Reinhard, W., Rosen, K.: Geschichte der politischen Ideen, Frankfurt am

Main:2004

Ferry J.: Die EU, die postnationale Konstellation und das Problem der Souverenitt, OSTEUROPA, Heft5-6:2004

Frhlich M.: Zwischen Friedensformel und Kriegsgrund: Der Kampf um Souverenitt, OsnabrckerJahrbuch Frieden und Wissenschaft, Osnabrck:2004

Fukujama F.: Graenje drave, Beograd:2007 ..: , :2001 .., .: , :2003 .: , :1970 Gasteyger C.: Europa von der Spaltung zur Einigung, Bonn:2001 Gat A.: Democracy Victory is Not Preordained, Foreign Affaires, July/August:2009 .: , :2001 .: , :2003


116/124

117

Gilges K.: Verlust der Souverenitt, Zeitschrift fr Sozialistische Politik und Wirtschaft, Ausgabe 5:2001 Grande E., Pauly L.: Complex Sovereignty: Reconstituting Political Authority in the 21 Century,

Toronto:2005

Habermas J.: Eseji o Europi: S prilozima Dietera Grimma i Hansa Vorlndera, Zagreb:2008 Hayman P.A., Williams J.: Westphalian Sovereignty: Rights, Intervention, Meaning and Context, Global

Society, Vol. 20, No. 4:2006

Hartley T.C.: Temelji prava Europske zajednice, Rijeka:2004 Held D.: Law od states, Law of peoples: Three models of sovereignty, Legal Theory, Vol. 8, N. 1, New

Haven:2002

Hiks S.: Politiki sistem Evropske Unije, Beograd:2007 Hinsli H.F.: Suverenost, Beograd:2001 Hirsch J.: Die Internationalisierung des Staates, Das Argument-Zeitschrift fr Philosophie undSozialwissenschaften, Nr. 234-238, Hobbes T.: Leviathan, Paris:1971 Hofmann H.: Souvern ist wer ber den Ausnahmezustand entscheidet, Der Staat, Band 44, Heft 2,

Berlin:2005

Igliar A.: Sociologija prava, Ljubljana:2004 Isensee J.: Subsidiaritt und Souverenitt im neuen Europa, Sociologia Internationalis, Band 34,

Berlin:1996

., ., .: , :2002 Jessop B.: The Future of the State in the Era of Globalization, Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, No.

3, Bonn:2003

Kaiser K.: Schwarz, H.P.: Weltpolitik im neuen Jahrhundert, Bonn:2000 .: , -:1995 .: , :2004 Khan A.: The extinction of Nation-States, AM.U.J.INTL L. and POLY, Vol.7:1992 Kelzen H.: Problem suverenosti i teorija meunarodnog prava, Beograd:2003 Kissinger H.: Diplomacy, New York:1994 Klein E.: Staatliche Souverenitt in Europa der Gegenwart, WeltTrends, No. 8:1997 .: , :


117/124

118

.: -- [:] : , :2002 Krasner S.: Sovereignity: Organized Hipocrisy, Princeton:1999 Kriele M.: Einfhrung in die Staatslehre, Stuttgart, Berlin:2003 Lalovi D.: Plaidoyer za dravu u Bodinovoj science politique (pogovor) [:] Bodin, 2002 Loonc A.: Suverenitet, mo i kriza, Novi Sad:2006 ..: , :1995 MacCormick N.: Questioning Sovereignty, New York:1999 Maitland F.W.: Township and Borough, London:1898 .: , :2004 Manz T.: Allianzen und Gruppen im Global Governance System-Multilateralismus zwischen partikularen

Interessen und universellen Anforderungen, Internationale Politik und Gesselschaft/International Politicsand Society, 2, Berlin:2007

., .: , :1978 Maus I.: Aspekti narodne suverenosti, Beograd:2001 Mayer F.C.: Europisches Sprachenverfassungsrecht, Der Staat, Band 44, Heft 3, Berlin:2005 ..: , :1995 Melkas E.: Sovereignty and Equity within the Framework of the Clima Regime, Reciel, No. 11 (2):2002 Messner D.: The European Union: Protagonist in a Multilateral World or Peripheral Power in the Asia-

Pacific century? Internationale Politik und Gesselschaft/International Politics and Society, 1, Berlin:2007 Minkkinen P.: The Ethos of Sovereignty: A Critical Appraisal, Human Rights Review, January-March:2007 ., .: , :2007 Nagan W.P., Hammer C.: The Changing Character of Sovereignty in International Law and International

Relations:2003

Nohlen D.: Kleines Lexikon der Politik, Mnchen:2002 Oeter S.: Souverenitt und Legitimation staatlicher herrschaft im europischen Mehrebenensystem [:]

Siegwart K.: Epiney A., Direkte Demokratie und Europische Union/Democratie directe et Unioneuropeene, Freiburg/Fribourg:1997

.: , :1993 ..: : ,

, 10, :2007


118/124

119

Partsch K.J.: Von der Souverenitt zur Solidaritt: Wandelt sich das Vlkerrecht? Europische Zeitschrift,Kehl am Rhein/Straburg:1991

Plattner M.F.: Souverenitt und Demokratie, Merkur, Heft 657-668:2004 .: : , , :2008 .: , :2008 .: , :1998 Rousseau J.J.: Drutveni ugovor, Zagreb:1918 Sack J.: Die Staatswerdung Europas-Kaum eine Spur von Stern und Stunde, Der Staat, Band 44, Heft 1,

Berlin:2005

Sasen S.: Gubitak kontrole? Suverenitet u doba globalizacije, Beograd:2004 Schliesky U.: Souverenitt und Legitimitt von Herrschaftsgewalt, Tbingen:2004 Schmitt C.: Politische Theologie, Berlin:1933 Seidl-Hohenveldern I.: sterreichs Souverenitt und die Europische Gemeinschaft, Der Rechtsstaat in

der Krise, Wien:1991

Spanknebel B.: Carl Schmitt, Neue Gesellschaft, No. 1-2, Frankfurt am Main:2010 imonovi I.: Globalizacija, dravna suverenost i meunarodni odnosi, Zagreb:2005 Stanford Enc.: Sovereignty:2003, : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty Streinz R.: Europarecht, Heidelberg:2001 Tadi Lj.: Filozofija prava, Beograd:1996 Tadi Lj.: Nauka o politici, Beograd:1996 Thym D.: Book review, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 4, No. 1:2006 Weatherill S., Beaumont P.: EU Law, London:1999 Weber M.: Protestantska etika i duh kapitalizma, Sarajevo:1968 Weiler J.H.H.: The Constitution of Europe, Cambridge,1999 Woyke W.: Handwrterbuch Internationale Politik, Bonn:2000 Zippelius R.: Allgemeine Staatslehre, Mnchen:2003 .: , , :1995 .: : , , , :2000 ..: (), :2008


119/124

120

The State Sovereignty and the Globalization(Summary)

At the end of this research we would like once again to present the subject and the aim of the research, toexplain the specific methodology being used as well as to summarize the results.

At the very beginning we have established that sovereignty is an ambiguous term.

The sovereignty as a characteristic has been attributed to many social organizations by various intellectual

concepts throughout history. Apart from the state, this characteristic has been attributed to other organizationsstarting with the church, followed by the various guilds in the Middle Ages, ending with attempts to be attributed tovarious actors in the Modern in attempt to demonopolize and democratize the public authority.

Our initial hypothesis has been that the societies that lack state also lack sovereignty, meaning that thesovereignty is inherent to the state as most significant social organization. Therefore the attribute state sovereigntywas inserted in the title of our research, taking into consideration that only the state can be the holder of thischaracteristic.

The sovereignty is the nucleus, the substance of the concept public authority that is immanent to the state

distinguishing by this the state authority from any other social authority.Differing from many other researches on the state sovereignty in the past, we have tried to construct a

specific critical methodology in studying this term. That methodology is based on historical facts but also orientedtowards the variable present and the uncertain future the states of the Modern confront (the nation states).

Our methodology is not limited to the nation state and consequently does not consider the transformationand possibly the end of the nation state to be the end of the statehood history. The classical methodology isquestionable in the era of the globalization since it is centered exclusively to the nation state and initiates fromhistorically inaccurate assumption that with the emergence of the state of the Modern, that is the nation state, the

development of the statehood ends. Once the historically based up to date at that time, the classical methodologyconfuses the terms in the era of globalization (for example, being centered to the state with being centered to thenation state) resulting in deduction of conclusions that are not historically based and also incorrect. At the same timeit can not comprehend the changes in the rules of the movements in the social space since it disregards the globalsociety, that is a new reality in genesis.

ALEKSANDAR Lj. SPASOV


120/124

121

The critical methodology that we have suggested considers the state, and by that also the statesovereignty as historically variable categories that constantly change their content.

The critical methodology has the cosmopolitan point of view as its basis. The fundamental postulate of thecontemporary cosmopolitism is that politics must be separated from territory. The old principle based on territorialism

is being replaced by new principles in genesis that impose constant redefining of the boundaries of the politics thatnot always correspond to the state territory borders. This process of constant redefining of the boundaries of thepolitics results in self modernization of the societies and the states as well as their gradual transformation towardsthe new global reality of interdependent spaces.

Aiming to be consistent with the historical approach we have divided this entire research in three basicparts as follows: prehistory of the concept, history of the concept of the state sovereignty and the term statesovereignty in the era of the globalization.

In parallel with the explaining the intellectual concepts, we always aim to confront the idea and the social

reality, that is, the political practice in order to obtain as more clear image of the conditions in which these conceptsappeared and developed as possible.

The crucial constalation in the analysis of the prehistory of the concept and the political practice (fromancient times till the emergence of the Modern in 16-17 century A.D) is that although certain elements of the conceptcan be encountered with certain states in certain periods, still this concept as a whole (from present day perspectiveof its classical term) does not exist. This constalation however does not dispute neither the existence of certainpolitical systems that are part of every society in broadest sense of the term, nor the existence of a the state (in termsof existence of a governing organization based on territorial and not on blood relation principle as in the tribalsocieties). Nevertheless, the amalgamation of the public and the private, that is the equalization of the government

with every member of the community within the Hellenic Polis, the exclusion of whole categories of subjects freecitizens, from the system in the Roman state as well as deep segmentation within the frames of the feudal societiesfollowing the line community monarch and monarch Czar Church is negation of the term state sovereignty.Closest to this concept is Rome at the time of the Empire with the development of the imperium Romanum doctrineand the decree by Emperor Karakala by which all the subjects of the Empire are citizens of Rome.

The time period after the fall of the Western Empire and the domination of the Christian envision of theworld, contribute to the neglecting of the concept. Its re-actualization is a result of the new economic relations, moreprecisely of the development of the manufactured production and the ascent of the trade beginning from the

Renaissance era. The new economic conditions pressure the redefining of the organization of the politicalgovernment towards its centralization. The processes of centralization of the government are associated withreactions by the community inclined towards the traditional regulation of the social relations by the Church that insistson the existence of a single Christian world in Europe Christendom in which the supreme adjudicator in thereligious and secular affairs is the Church, that is the Pope and the Czar of the Holy Roman Empire (the two swordtheory).


121/124

122

The actual control over the territorial areas and the effective military power contributes to the triumph of thereligious monarchs who centralize the overall authority. The centralization includes the existence of the supreme,absolute, integral and non-hereditary government, that is, a monopoly over the enacting of the legal regulations(laws), their enforcement and utilization of physical force (compulsion) in order to protect the system. This classicalterm of the sovereignty (intellectually originated in the philosophy of Bodin and Hobs) in initial relations leads to the

creation of the state of the Modern. The concept gradually shifts from concentration of the sovereignty (publicauthority) to its possession by the individual the monarch, and further to the creation of the impersonal publicauthority, that is, public legal space (the state as public- legal body legal entity) that shall be the holder of thesovereignty.

In external (foreign) relations, the strengthening of the regional kings formally ends the fiction of theexistence of a unique Christian world in Europe in which the conflicts are solved within the doctrine of the naturalright, that is, the Christian ethics.

The wars, especially the Thirty Years War inspired by the resistance of the Catholic Church towards the

protestant reformation lead to the creation of new principles that have the independence of the state authority as theirbasis, that is, its will and consent as a unique source for creation of the rules for regulation of the relations in theinternational space.

The industrialization and the strengthening of the interdependence of the economies in the 19 th century,and especially the human tragedies in the First and the Second World War as well as the emergence of thesovereign state authority in totalitarian usurpation of the public space, have imposed the need of the redefinition ofthe concept. The redefining has emphasized the problem of the legitimacy of the government opposed to theeffective control over the territory and the population as crucial criteria in the classic views.

The democratic legitimacy was the result of that new liberal term of the state sovereignty and it was thebasis for the existence of the sovereign authority and development of a system for protection of the human rights thathas gradually acquired international character and legal protection of the human rights by institutions of supranationalcharacter.

The rise of the liberal views of the state sovereignty has introduced and accelerated the crisis of the worldof the Modern. The growing economic interdependence and the rise of the technological development in the 20 thcentury have lead to processes that had an essential influence over the humanity on local and on global level. Theseprocesses are named globalization. The globalization changes the social reality and by this imposes the need of

reexamination of the classical concepts of the statehood, the sovereignty, the nation and the identity.The emergence of the risk as a factor for integration has produced the necessity of creation of networks

and supranational (transnational) institutions for management that are responsible for the management of thetransnational processes, since the risk surpasses the territorial limitations of the nation state.

ALEKSANDAR Lj. SPASOV


122/124

123

Accordingly, the need for redefining of the state sovereignty emerges in direction of its transformation inopen, inclusive sovereignty.

The open sovereignty as a concept is separated from the element autonomy in favor of the integration. Inthis manner, the crisis of the sovereignty is transformed in strengthening of the state capacity and leads to an

increase of the effective sovereignty of the state. This state is named cosmopolitan state and the new era in thestatehood is named Second Modern.

Finally, we would like once again to elaborate the social justification of our research, especially for ourstate, Republic of Macedonia. The rather late establishment of the Macedonian state after the Second World Warwithin the Yugoslavian Federation and from the year 1991 as an independent and sovereign state, a member of theinternational community, raises the question of its future state development taking into consideration thetransformation of the world of the nation states.

Republic of Macedonia must not project its future state development in direction of the classical con cept of

the development of the 18th

and the 19th

century nation states. These concepts are historically dead and in presenttime terms are used solely by the radical populist political movements that calculate with the emotions of its targetgroups.

The fact that Republic of Macedonia, in reality has never constituted as a nation state should be viewedsolely as an advantage and not as a drawback.

The actual political interest instead of the idealism should lead Republic of Macedonia towards theregional cooperation and the European and the Euro-Atlantic integrations. Macedonia within the context of NATOand the EU has realistic chances to realize and secure its national priorities that have not been accomplished in the

19th

and the first half of the 20th

century.In that past regional and European context, Macedonia due to the multicultural nature of its society

unfortunately has failed to constitute itself as an independent state. However, this new context is very convenient forthe realization of the old priorities: multicultural society, which is considered to be an advantage and not a drawback,a society of economic and social welfare and solidarity, Republic of Macedonia as a significant political factor in theregional context, a positive political model in the European framework as well as spiritual and cultural union of theMacedonian people regardless which part of the Macedonian land they live in.


123/124

124

CIP . ,

321.011

321.011:304-027.511

, . / . : , , 2011. 119. : . ; 24

. : .111-115

ISBN 978-9989-109-56-0

a) ) COBISS.MK-ID 87243274


124/124

fes spasov publikacija

Documents