PANEVROPSKI UNIVERZITET „APEIRON“ FAKULTET POSLOVNE EKONOMIJE

BANJALUKA

Mr Jugoslav Jovičić

POLITIČKO-EKONOMSKE PRETPOSTAVKE

UKLJUČIVANJA ZEMALJA JUGOISTOČNE EVROPE U PROCESE GLOBALIZACIJE S NAGLASKOM NA

INTEGRACIJU U EVROPSKU UNIJU (Doktorska disertacija)

Mentor: Akademik prof. dr Rajko Kuzmanović

Banjaluka, 2007.

2

I. ZAKLJUČNA RAZMATRANJA

U svim fazama ovog istraživanja dominiraju kategorije «promjena», «integracija», «razvoj» i «stabilnost». Na apstraktno-teorijskom i na konkretno - istorijskom nivou, prelaz iz stanja političke destabilizacije ka stanju unutrašnjih i vanjskih integracija zasniva se na političko – ekonomskim pretpostavkama uključivanja zemalja jugoistočne Evrope u procese globalizacije s naglaskom na integraciju u Evropsku uniju.

Nauka je relativno nezavistan, zatvoren i isključiv sistem ideja,

vjerovanja i praktičnog djelovanja. Ona po svojoj suštini teži istini, što je potvrđeno i tokom ovog istraživanja, čiji se glavni zaključci mogu saopštiti u nekoliko iskaza.

Društvene promjene koje su se dogodile na prostoru prethodne Jugoslavije (u nekim zemljama na tragičan način), odnosno jugoistočne Evrope predstavljaju prelaz iz jednog sistema u drugi sistem - napuštanje socijalizma kao ideološkog načina vladanja ( jednopartijski sistem), s jedne strane, i izgradnja novog građanskog demokratskog društva, s druge strane.

Uključivanje država jugoistočne Evrope u evropske i svjetske tokove

nameće se kao neminovnost samog unutrašnjeg razvoja, a ta činjenica dovoljno motiviše građane i vlasti dotičnih zemalja da se pokrene ukupni potencijal zemlje ka integracijama u pozitivnom smjeru, putem društvene evolucije (progresa) umjesto revolucije. S obzirom da društveno kretanje ima dva moguća oblika (u pozitivnom i negativnom smjeru), istraživanjem smo utvrdili da građani država jugoistočne Evrope žele pozitivne promjene kroz integrativne mogućnosti na opšteprihvaćenim demokratskim principima, na kojima počiva i Evropska unija kao nadnacionalna institucija nastala zajedničkim dogovorom.

Našim istraživanjima potvrdili smo da je moguće iz postojećeg stanja

preći u višu fazu promjena, zadržavajući pr i tome pozitivno iz nasleđenog i postojeće društvene vrijednosti. Kreiranjem novih vrijednosti moguće je mijenjati, pa i prevazići stara i štetna shvatanja koja su u određenom periodu razvoja društva ocijenjena kao stagnacija dotičnog društva. Društvene promjene podrazumijevaju kontinuitet, uz napomenu da i najveći diskontinuitet sadrži u sebi elemente kontinuiteta. Za pozitivne društvene promjene od posebne je važnosti ukazati na kreativnost jer predstavlja najvažniji indikator promjena kvalitetne prirode, te stoga naglašavamo važnost ove faze ili segmenta kreativnosti, koja bitno utiče na promjenu s istema društvene vrijednosti.

3

U ovoj analizi smo utvrdili da je složene procese tranzicije iz jednog

sistema u drugi sistem društvenog uređenja ( iz socijalizma u građansko demokratsko društvo – kapitalizam), moguće provesti u zajednic i sa građanima koji imaju društvenu svijest o potrebi društvenih reformi, sa jedne strane, i sposobnom demokratski izabranom vlasti, sa druge strane.

Vlast mora imati sposobnost zasnovanu na znanju iz koje proizlazi

stvarni autoritet i politički senzibilitet, te da stalnim praćenjem stanja (koristeći mehanizme vlasti koje ima na raspolaganju) vodi računa o socijalno-ekonomskoj izdržljivosti građana. Vrijeme kao faktor u procesu provođenja reformi je veoma bitno. Taj odnos između vlasti i građana predstavlja ključnu tačku koju državno-političko rukovodstvo zemlje treba da ima u vidu i svojim građanima olakša prelazni period tranzicije, prije svega u socijalno-ekonomskom smislu. Istovremeno, predstavnike Evropske unije treba da uvjeri da tako izbalansirana mjera predstavlja sigurniji put ka konačnoj integraciji sa Evropskom unijom.

Polazeći od sadržajno - tematskog okvira koji čini istorijsku osnovu, a

podrazumijeva političko - ekonomski osnov Evropske unije, institucionalni oblik saradnje EU, NATO i međunarodne zajednice sa zemljama jugoistočne Evrope, kao i kulturno socijalni aspekt, može se zaključiti slijedeće: definisana pravila i standardi su obavezujući, jer samo takvi omogućavaju brže postizanje društvenog cilja u navedenim oblastima života i sigurno uključivanje u svjetske tokove, a time i multidimenzionalne efekte koji proizilaze iz definisanih pravila.

Na dobro osmišljenim teorijskim osnovama moguće je uspješno

sprovesti projekat tranzicije, Sporazum o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju i uključivanje u institucije Evropske unije kao krajnjeg c ilja – jedna ujedinjena Evropa, bez sukoba i granica. Uslov za uspješnost je, prije svega, demokratski izabrana vlast, svjesna važnosti respektovanja morala kao vrijednosnog sistema, koja svoje dužnosti obavlja odgovorno i profesionalno.

U ovom istraživanju smo dokazali organizaciono-funkcionalnu vezu

između integracija, razvoja i stabilnosti, kako na regionalnom nivou, tako i u pojedinačnim zemljama koje čine region jugoistočne Evrope. Međuzavisnost ovih kategorija odnosi se na pojedinačne (državne) i globalne (EU, SE) evro-atlantske integracije i očekivani društveno - politički i ekonomsko - socijalni efekat.

Došli smo do saznanja da je moguće uspostaviti političku jednakost

građana na vrijednostima demokratije i vladavine prava, ali i na principima

4

ekonomske, a ne samo političke demokratije. Demokratija ima svoje vrijednosti, ali instrumenti kojima se služi ne moraju biti demokratski i, kao takvi, mogu da nanesu ozbiljnu štetu građanima i direktno ugroze njihova ljudska prava i osnovne slobode ili pravo na zdravu životnu sredinu.

Uočene društveno-političke devijacije, mada se javljaju kao pojedinačne

i sporadične, treba posmatrati, analizirati i sankcionisati. Stalna obaveza nadležnih i ukupne društvene javne kritike treba biti sprečavanje svih nepotrebnih društvenih pojava. U suprotnom, mogle bi prerasti u stanje društvene patologije, kao što se to desilo u bliskoj prošlosti.

Komparativnom metodom smo utvrdili da se zemlje jugoistočne Evrope

kod dostizanja standarda Evropske unije nalaze na različitom nivou implementacije. Neophodna je međusobna inicijativa u bilateralnim i multilateralnim odnos ima, kako bi jedna drugu podržale i olakšale tranzicioni put. Jugoistočna Evropa kao region, predstavlja cjelinu u geografskom, a posebno ekonomskom i tehnološkom smis lu, koja daje šansu da se kroz balkansku integraciju stvara respektabilno tržište i prostor političke stabilnosti. Time bi ova regija postala političko-ekonomski faktor, koji pokazuje spremnost na politički dijalog, toleranciju i kompromis kao osnovnu vrijednost političke kulture. Na tako promišljen nač in bi se eliminisale dosadašnje razlike, sukobi i netrpeljivosti, kao i stereotip o ovoj regiji u međunarodnoj zajednici.

Bosna i Hercegovina može i treba biti pozitivan primjer složene državne

zajednice sastavljene od dva ravnopravna entiteta (Republike Srpske i Federacije BiH), koja prevazilazi razlike koje su bile prisutne u prošlosti i uspostavlja unutrašnju stvarnu integraciju zasnovanu na zaštiti kolektivnih i pojedinačnih prava. U bliskoj budućnosti, BiH treba da stvori liberalan demokratski sistem uređene moderne decentralizovane države sa vladavinom prava koja se primjenjuje u svakodnevnom životu.

Država kandidat koja pretenduje na članstvo u Evropskoj uniji mora

posjedovati navedene vrijednosti i razvijati funkcionalnu i tržišno orijentisanu ekonomiju koja može da izdrži konkurentski pritisak na cijelom prostoru Evropske unije.

Bosna i Hercegovina kao kandidat treba da ispuni sve kriter ijume,

odnosno preuzme sva prava i obaveze koja su regulisana kroz cjelokupno zakonodavstvo Evropske unije.

Postoji dvostrani odnos izmedju Evropske unije i države kandidata za

članstvo; razumijevanje i podrška s jedne strane, a zahtjevni pregovori s druge strane. Cjelokupni proces omogućava da država kandidat prilagodi i

5

transformiše svoj društveni, pravni, ekonomski i socijalni sistem kako bi mogla na efikasan način da inkorporira Acquis Communautaire u svoju legislativu.

Ovim istraživanjem došli smo do saznanja da se razvojni put Bosne i

Hercegovine iskazivao smjenom progresa, regresa i stagnacije. U radu smo se susretali sa svim navedenim kategorijama društvenih promjena, jer je do promjene oblika dolazilo na oba načina: postepeno ili nasilno.

Ostvarivanje progresa kao univerzalne društvene vrijednosti, bosansko –

hercegovačko društvo mora ostvariti putem jasno definisane strategije razvoja i težnje da doprinese ukupnoj evropskoj bezbjednosti. Jedan od razloga uključivanja zemalja jugoistočne Evrope u Evropsku uniju je upravo organizovan pristup borbi protiv kriminala, ilegalne emigracije i terorizma.

Potrebno je inovirati strategiju integrisanja zemalja jugoistočne Evrope u

Evropsku Uniju, koja će poći od postojećih rezultata i planova, ali uvažiti i neophodnost promjena i društvene nadgradnje kako bi se ostvarila perspektiva normalnog života u regiji.

Podrazumijeva se da zemlje i građani u tom procesu igraju ključnu

ulogu. Istovremeno sa proširenjem Evropske unije i korištenjem njenih novih potencijala i sposobnosti, ostvaruje se nova istorijska dimenzija u procesu integrisanja cjelokupne Evrope.

Bosnu i Hercegovinu treba posmatrati na specifičan način, kao zemlju

razlika. Potrebno je stvarati i afirmisati društveni ambijent u kome će se manifestovati politički i ekonomski pluralizam, jer je samo tako moguće razvijati demokratske odnose, vršiti promjene i stvarati vrednosni sistem kroz stalno prilagođavanje u različitostima.

Svaki oblik zajedništva podrazumijeva i postojanje interesa svih

partnera, koji u većoj ili manjoj mjeri u određenim fazama procesa mogu djelimično biti i divergentni. Smisao zajedničke motivisanosti i jeste u ostvarenju krajnjeg zajedničkog cilja.

Koncept evropske integracije dao je priliku BiH i svim zemljama

jugoistočne Evrope da postanu dio moderne i snažne Evrope. Pridruživanje, međutim podrazumijeva dvosmjeran odnos u kojem svaka strana očekuje korist u budućem zajedništvu. Zato su u radu posebno naglašeni najznačajniji motivacioni faktori i ključni interesi Evropske unije i BiH kao pretpostavka uspješnosti integracije.

6

Kreiranjem demokratskog i poslovnog ambijenta u svim zemljama jugoistočne Evrope koji će doprinijeti inkorporaciji ovih zemalja u ekonomske, bezbjednosne i političke strukture Evropske unije, zemlje članice Evropske unije će kvalitetno riješiti sopstvene probleme izazvane nestabilnošću ovog područja.

Ekonomski interesi Evropske unije na području jugoistočne Evrope

izraženiji su kao posljedica, nego kao motiv. Obim poslovanja i mogućnosti zemalja jugoistočne Evrope u ekonomskom smislu ne predstavlja osnov za poseban i značajan interes Evropske unije za ovo područje. Međutim, ekonomski interes zemalja jugoistočne Evrope u kontekstu pridruživanja Evropskoj uniji prestavlja snažan motivacioni faktor.

Stabilizacija i pridruživanje Evropskoj uniji uslovljana je ispunjavanjem

određenih us lova po pitanju ekonomskog i političkog unapređenja zemalja jugoistočne Evrope. Zemlje koje ispune predviđene uslove automatski izgrađuju i kredibilitet kod međunarodne javnosti i međunarodnih institucija.

Uspostavljanjem područja slobodne trgovine između zemalja jugoistočne

Evrope (BiH) i Evropske unije postiže se konkurentnost domaćih preduzeća, te jačaju investicije i raste stopa zaposlenosti. Strane investicije su snažan motiv i pokretač poslovnih aktivnosti i jačanja regionalne saradnje. Posredni i neposredni efekti integrisanja rezultovaće slobodnim, konkurentnim poslovanjem na čitavoj teritoriji proširene Evropske unije i osigurati stabilan dugoročni razvoj.

Bosna i Hercegovina ima dvosmjeran put (poruke i pouke Šumanovog

plana) u približavanju Evropskoj uniji: da put koji vodi Bosnu i Hercegovinu prema Evropskoj uniji, vodi i Evropsku uniju prema Bosni i Hercegovini. Taj dvosmjerni put ujedno predstavlja i najveću garanciju evropeizacije Bosne i Hercegovine spolja i iznutra. Takvo društveno kretanje koje podrazumjeva promjene, razvoj, modernizac iju i transformaciju jeste poželjni društveni pravac u smislu stvaranja opšteg dobra.

Naprijed navedeno možemo sintetizovati u nekoliko osnovnih tačaka: 1. Evropska unija kao nadnacionalna institucija predstavlja nesumnjivo

specifičnu asocijaciju koja egzistira na osnovu prenosa nadležnosti dijela suvereniteta država članica u zajedničkim institucijama, koje ne predstavlja samo njihove nacionalne interese već i njihov kolektivni interes, a što je potom definisano Ustavom i zakonima Evropske unije. To je rezultat zajedničkog dogovora članica u stvaranju nadnacionalne interesne institucije bez granica i sukoba, kao skupa sistema vrijednosti zasnovanog na kulturno - civilizacijskom

7

dostignuću samih članica i nagradnji kroz afirmaciju opštih vrijednosti, kao što su demokratija, slobodno tržište i otvoreno društvo.

2. Evropska unija je od 1948. godine pa sve do 2004. godine prošla kroz više faza sopstvenog razvoja,od kojih su najvažnije:

• Haški kongres održan 1948. godine, imao je više od hiljadu delegata iz oko 20 evropskih zemalja koji izglasavaju uspostavu „Evropske Skupštine“.

• Kao rezultat Haškog kongresa 1949. godine, uspostavljeno je Vijeće

Evrope.

• U Parizu 1951. godine, šest zemalja uspostavljaju Evropsku zajednicu za ugalj i čelik (ECSC).

• U Rimu 1957. godine, šest zemalja uspostavljaju Evropsku ekonomsku

zajednicu (ECC) i Evropsku zajednicu za atomsku energiju (Euratom).

• Štokholmska konvencija 1960. godine uspostavlja Evropsku asocijaciju za slobodnu trgovinu (EFTA), koju čini jedan broj evropskih zemalja koje nisu članice (EEC).

• Ugovor o evropskoj Uniji je 1992. godine potpisan u Mastrihtu.

• Početak treće faze EMU: 1999. godine valute jedanaest zemalja

Evropske unije su zamjenjene evrom.

• Evropska Unija se 2004. godine proširuje za deset novih članica.

3. Članice Evropske unije su na osnovu zajedničkog sporazuma imale ograničenu ulogu. Navedeni period je u početku obilježen određenim sumnjama nekih država i predstavljao je period oklijevanja.

4. U periodu od 1948. pa do 2004. godine, dolazi do više faze interesovanja i pristupanja članstvu Evropske unije. To je bio siguran nagovještaj širenja Evropske unije i shvatanja da, u perspektivi, Evropa može i treba adekvatno konkurisati u odnosu na druge u smislu ujedinjenog tržišta (kretanje ljudi, kapitala, roba, usluga), univerzalnog obrazovanja, naučno-kulturne razmjene i drugih vrijednosti. Opredjeljenje članica je da kroz društveno-političko-ekonomsko-socijalne razlike krenu u smjeru progresa na organizovan i promišljen način.

8

5. Sumirajući rezultate istraživanja o Evropskoj uniji u navedenom

periodu, jasno se pokazalo:

a) da je dokazana osnovna hipoteza po kojoj su političko-ekonomske pretpostavke uključivanja zemalja jugoistočne Evrope u procese globalizacije sa naglaskom na integraciju u Evropsku uniju opravdale svoju svrhu i dovele do snažnog integrativnog procesa u Evropi.

b) da je Evropska unija imala specifičan, krivudav put razvoja koji se ispoljavao nekad isključivo ekonomski, a nekad isključivo politički, da bi na kraju zajedno stvorili snažan sinergetski efekat koji je doveo do ujedinjenja u politici, ekonomiji i podizanju društvene svijesti.

c) da je interes demokratskih snaga u zemljama koje nisu članice Evropske unije, pa i Bosne i Hercegovine da se pridruže Evropskoj uniji kroz Sporazum o stabilizac iji i pridruživanju, do sticanja punopravnog članstva.

d) da je stvoren novi kvalitet u ljudskoj istoriji dobrovoljnog udruživanja, a time i novi socijalni fenomen sa sopstvenim fazama evolucije, čije je istorijsko preživljavanje moguće zahvaljujući različitostima udruženih činioca, njihovoj međuzavisnosti i društvenoj zrelosti.

Posebno treba naglasiti da su u ovom radu objašnjena i istražena samo neka bitna pitanja funkcionisanja i suštine kompleksnog sistema Evropske unije.

Istovremeno, ostaje otvorena mogućnost, ali i potreba daljeg istraživanja ovog složenog procesa.

9

II. SUMMARY In all stages of this research, categories like “changes”,

“integrations”, “development” and “stability” dominate. On abstract-theoretical and on concrete historical level, transition from the state of political destabilization to the state of internal and external integrations is based on the political-economic assumptions of including the South-eastern countries into processes of globalisation with the emphas is on integration into the European Union.

Science is relatively independent, closed and exclusive system of

ideas, beliefs and practical work. It by its essence strives towards truth, which is confirmed within this research, whose main conclusion could be presented in several statements.

Social changes which occurred in the area of former Yugoslavia

(in some countries in tragic way) and in the area of South-eastern Europe, represent transition from one system into another – leaving socialism as an ideological way of ruling (single-party system) on one hand and building of new civil democratic society, on the other hand.

Inclusion of the Southeastern European countries into European

and world trends is imposes as a necessity of their internal development. This fact sufficiently motivates citizens and authorities of those countries to set in motion the entire potential of the country towards the integration leading to positive direction, towards the social evolution (progress) not revolution. Considering the fact that social motion has two possible forms (moving in positive or negative direction), we came to a conclusion, by researching, that citizens of South-eastern European countries want positive changes through integrative possibilities based on generally accepted democratic principles. The EU itself is based on these principles, as institution created above nations, based on mutual agreement.

Within this research, we confirmed that it is possible to pass from

the existing state to the higher phase of changes, while keeping at the same time positive inherited experience and existing social values. By creating new values, it is possible to change, even exceed old and harmful ideas, which were, in the certain period of developing of a society, judged as stagnation of that society.

10

Social changes mean continuity, with the remark that even the longest discontinuity contains elements of continuity. For positive social changes it is extremely important to point to creativity. Creativity represents the most important indicator of changes of high-grade nature. Because of that, we emphasize the importance of this phase or creativity segment which strongly influence on changing the social values system.

In our analyses we came to a conclusion that complex processes of transition from one system into another system of social structure (from socialism to civil and democratic society – capitalism) are possible in a community which has citizens who have social awareness about necessity for social reforms, on one hand, and capable democratically elected authorities, on the other hand.

Authority must have capability, based on knowledge, from which

real authority and political sensibility originates. Moreover, the authorities must, by constantly monitoring the state (using the available authority mechanisms), take care of social-economic endurance of citizens.

Time, as a factor in the process of implementation of reforms, is

extremely important. The relationship between the authorities and citizens represents the key point which has to be taken into consideration by the social-political leaders of the country. They have to facilitate the transitional period to their citizens, first of all in social-economic sense. At the same time, it has to convince the EU representatives that such a balanced measurement represents safer way to final integration with the EU.

Starting from the thematic/content framework that creates historic

basis and meaning of political and economic basis of European Union, institutional way of cooperation between EU, NATO and international community with countries of SEE, as well as cultural and social aspect, we can conclude following: rules and standards defined are obligatory, as only as such they enable faster reaching of social goals in various areas of life and certain inclusion within world-wide trends, and with this, multi dimensional effects that are formed by defined rules.

With well designed theoretical foundations it is possible to

implement successfully project of transition, to implement the SAA and to enter the institutions of EU with the final goal – united Europe without conflicts and borders. The condition for success is, first of all, democratically elected government, which is aware of the importance of

11

respecting the moral as valuable system and which performs its duties responsibly and professionally.

In this research we proved the organizational and functional

relation between integrations, development and stability, at regional level as well as in individual countries within the region of South-eastern Europe. Inter-dependence of these categories relates to: individual (state integrations) and global (EU, SE) Euro-Atlantic integrations and to expected state-political and economic-social effect.

We realised that it is possible to set the political equality of

citizens based on democracy values and rule of law, as well as on principles of economic democracy, not only political democracy. Democracy has its values, but instruments, which are used, do not have to be democratic so they can cause the serious harm to citizens and directly endanger their human rights, basic freedoms and right on healthy life environment.

Social-political deviations that were noticed (although they appear

as individual and sporadic) should be monitored, analysed and sanctioned. The constant duty of the authorized organs and social public critics should be preventing all unnecessary social occurrences. Otherwise, they could grow into the condition of the state pathology, as it happened in the recent past.

Using the comparative method we concluded that countries of

South-eastern Europe are at different levels of implementation when we speak about reaching the EU standards. It is necessary to have mutual initiative in bilateral and multilateral relations so they can support each other and make the transition easier. South-eastern Europe, as a region, represents entirety in geographical and especially in economic and technical sense which gives a chance for creating the respectable market and area of political stability through Balkans integration. In this way, this region would become political-economic factor showing readiness for political dialogue, tolerance and compromise (which is the basic value of political culture). Acting in such a thought-out way, former differences, conflicts and intolerances would be eliminated as well as the stereotype about this region that exists within the international community.

Bosnia and Herzegovina can and should be the pos itive example

of complex state community, composed of two equal entities (Republic of Srpska and Federation of BiH), which exceeds differences existed in

12

the past and establishes internal real integration based on protection of collective and individual rights. In the near future, BiH should create liberal, democratic system of organized, modern, de-centralised state with vladavinom prava, which is applied in everyday life.

The candidate state, aspiring to membership in the EU must posses

the stated values and market-oriented economy capable to endure competing pressure throughout the whole EU area.

BiH, as a candidate, should fulf il all criter ia and take on all r ights

and duties which are regulated by entire EU legislation. There is a two-way relation between EU and candidate countries –

understanding and support on one hand and demanding negotiations, on the other hand. The entire process allows the candidate state to adjust and transform its state, legal, economic and social system so it can successfully incorporate Acquis Communautaire into its legislation.

Through this research we found out that the developing way of

BiH consisted of changes of progress, regress and stagnation. Through our work, we met all the above stated categories of state changes, because the change of shapes happened in both ways - gradually or violently.

BiH society must accomplish achieving the progress, as an

universal state value, through clearly defined development strategy and aspiration to contribute to total European security. One of the reasons for including the SEE countries into EU is organised approach in fighting the crime, illegal immigration and terrorism.

It is necessary to innovate the strategy of integrating the South-

eastern European countries into EU. The strategy should start with existing results and plans but, at the same time, it should consider the necessity for changes and social superstructure in order to achieve the perspective for normal life in the region.

It is understood that citizens play the key role in that process. With

expanding of EU and with using of new potentials and capabilities, a new historical dimension is achieving in the process of integrating the whole Europe.

Bosnia and Herzegovina should be observed in a specific way, as a

country of differences. It is necessary to create and affirm the social

13

ambient in which political and economic pluralism will be manifested. This is the only possible way for developing of democratic relations, conveying the changes and creating the value system through constant adjustment in differences.

Every form of unity means also existence of interests of all

partners, which to a higher or lesser degree can within certain phases, could be partially diverging. The meaning of joint motivation is in accomplishing joint mutual goal.

Concept of European integration has given a chance to BiH and all

countries of SEE to become part of modern and powerful Europe. Accession, however, means two-way relation in which every side expects benefit from future partnership. This is why our study especially emphasize most significant motivation factors and key interests of European Union and BiH that stipulates successful integration.

By creation of democratic and business environment in all

countries of SEE that will contribute incorporation of these countries into economic, security and political structure of EU, EC member countries will solve their own problems created by instability of this region.

Economic interests of EU in the SEE area were more emphas ized

as a consequence than the motive. Economic potential and volume of SEE countries does not represent basis for special or significant interest of EU countries for this area. However, economic inters of SEE countries, within the contest of accession to EU, represents significant motivation factor.

Stabilization and accession to EU is stipulated by fulf illing of

certain conditions in regards to economic and political enhancement of SEE countries. Countries that will fulfill conditions foreseen will automatically build credibility with international public and institutions.

By establishing area of free trade between countries of SEE (BiH)

and EU, higher competitiveness of domestic producers is achieved, while at the same time investments and employment rate are growing. Foreign investments are powerful motive and dynamo for increase in business activities and empowering regional cooperation. Direct and indirect effects of integration process will result in free, competitive business climate within the entire territory of enlarged European Union and will ensure stable long-term development.

14

Bosnia and Herzegovina has two-way route (Shuman’s plan message and moral) in approaching the EU: the road which leads BiH towards the EU should lead the EU towards BiH. That two-way road at the same time represents the greatest guarantee to Europeanization of BiH, from inside and outside. That kind of social movement, which includes changes, development, modernization and transformation, is a desirable social movement in the sense of creating the common good.

All the above stated can be synthesized in several basic points: 1. EU, as an supranational institution, represents a specific

association which exists on transmitting the competence of one part of member counties sovereignty into joint institutions, representing not only their national interests but their collective interests, which is further defined by the Constitution and lows of EU. It is the result of mutual agreement of member countries in creating the supranational interest institution without borders and conflicts as a set of system of values based on both: cultural- civilizing achievement of members themselves and superstructure through affirmation of common values like democracy, free market and open society.

2. EU (in the period from 1948 to 2004) went through many

phases of its own development. The most important phases are as follows:

· The Hague congress was held in 1948. More than one

thousand delegates from about 20 European countries participated and they elected the establishment of „European Assembly“.

· As a result of the Hague Congress, the European Council

was established in 1949. · Six countries established European Association for coal and

steel (ECSC) in Paris in 1951. · Six countries established European Economic Association

(ECC) and European Association for atomic energy (Euratom) in Rome in 1957.

· Stockholm Convention in 1960 established European

Association for free trade (EFTA) comprised of certain numbers of countries, which are not members of EEC.

15

· European Union contract was signed in Masstricht in 1992. · Beginning of the third phase: in 1999 currencies of eleven

European counties were replaced with euro. · In 2004, European Union was enlarged with ten new

members. 3. Members of European Union had restricted role according to the

mutual agreement. This period was, at the beginning, marked with certain doubts of some countries and it represented the period of hesitation.

4. In the period from 1948 to 2004, the interest for entering the

membership of European Union was growing. That was a reliable indication of EU broadening and understanding that, in perspective, Europe can and should adequately contest in relation to others in the sense of united market (movement of people, capital, goods, services), universal education, scientific-cultural exchange and other values. Members’ decision is to move towards progress, through state-political-economic-social differences, in an organised and thought-out way

5. Trough summing up the results of the research on EU in the

stated period, the following was clearly stated: a) The basic hypothesis was proved that political-economic

assumptions of including South-eastern European countries into processes of globalisation, with emphasis on integration into EU, proved their purpose and lead to powerful integrative process in Europe.

b) EU had specific, winding road of development, which was

sometimes seen as exclusively economic and sometimes as exclusively political. At the end, they together created strong synergetic effect, which leads to uniting in politics, economy and increasing of social awareness.

c) There is an interest of democratic forces in countries, which are

not members of EU, and in BiH as well, to join EU through Agreement of stabilization and joining, until gaining the full right membership.

d) A new quality in the history of human voluntary joining is

created as well as a new social, with its own evolution phases. Its historical survival is possible due to differences of joined members, their mutual dependence and social maturity.

16

It has to be emphasized that this document explains and researches

only some important questions of functioning and essence of the complex EU system. At the same time, the possibility and the need for researching of this complex process still remain free.

17

III. LITERATURA

1. Abramowitz, M., Hurlburt, H. (2002) Can the EU Hack the Balkans, in Foreign Affairs Magazine, Sep-OCT 2002, p. 2-7

2. Agh, A. (1998) Emerging Democracies in East Central Europe and the Balkans, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar

3. Amato, G., Batt, J. (1999) The Long -Term Implications of EU Enlargement: The Nature of the New Border, Florence: European University Institute with The Forward Studies Unit European Commission

4. Anastasov R: Politika zapošljavanja i prelaz na tržišnu ekonomiju – primer Bugarske FZR, Paris -Beograd, 1996

5. Anderson, M (2000) Border regimes and Security in an Enlarged European Community: Implication of the Entry into Force of the Amsterdam Treaty, Florence: RS CAS, European University Institute

6. Alchian, A. and H. Demsetz (1972), “Production information costs and economic organisation”, American Economic Jorunal, vol. 38, n. 6.

7. Ali, T. (ed.)(2000) Master of the Universe? NATO’s Balkan Crusade, London; New York: Verso

8. Anderson, M (2000) Border regimes and Security in an Enlarged European Community: Implication of the Entry into Force of the Amsterdam Treaty, Florence: RS CAS, European University Institute

9. Anderson, R. 1995, “Large Loss Making Enterprises in the Transition Economies”, World Bank, EMTPS, March 18, mimeo.

10. Artis, M., Lee, N. (1997) The Economics of the European Union New York: Oxford University Press

11. Atkinson, Tony, L. Raiwater et Tim Smeeding (1994), “Income distribution in OECD countries: The Evidence from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS)”, mimeo, 18 mai.

12. Augustinos, G. (1991) Diverse Paths to Modernity in Southeastern Europe- Essays in National Development, Westport: Greenwood Press

13. Avery, G., Cameron, (1998) F. The Enlargement of the European Union, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press

18

14. Avramov, R. and V. Antonov eds, 1994, Economic Transition in Bulgaria, Agency for Economic Coordination and Development, Sofia.

15. Avramov, R., 1993., “ The Limits of Macroeconomic Stabilization of an Economy in Transition: The Case of Bulgaria”, Moct-Most, No. 1, 63-87.

16. Avramovic, D., “Reconstruction of the Monetarry System and Economic Recevery of Yugoslavia, 1994, Analytical Framework, Results and Problems” WIIW Research Report, 216 (1995).

17. Babić S: Održivost programa stabilizacije, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

18. Bajec J:Sankcije i privredni sistem kao ograničavajući faktori razvoja SR Jugoslavije FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

19. Balkan Forum (2002) Integrating the Balkans: Regional Ownership and European Responsibilities

20. Balzer-Madžar, M., (2000) Ekonomska interacija na teritoriji bivše Jugoslavije - na putu ka evropskoj integraciji”, Beograd: Ekonomski institut

21. Bašota G: (Ne)razumevanje tržišne ekonomije i privatizacije – osvrt na Kosovo, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

22. Balceriwicz, L. and A. Gelb, 1994. “Macropolicies in Transition to a Market Economy: A Three-Year Perspective”, Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics, April 28-29.

23. Bartlett, W., J. Prasnikar, “Smail Firms Economic Transformation in Slovenia”, Communist Economies & Economic Transformation, vol. 7., No. 1, 1995, pp. 83-103.

24. Berberović, Š., Stavrić B., Anđelković R.: „Ekonomika preduzeća“, Kiz Centar Beograd, 1994.

25. Berberović, Š., Jelić M.: „Menadžment malih i srednjih preduzeća“, Ekonomski fakultet Banjaluka, 2005.

26. Bertelsmann Foundation and Centre for Applied Policy Research (2001) thinking Enlarged-The Accession Countries and the Future of the European Union, Gutersloh

27. Bigo, D. (2000) Border Regimes and Security in an Enlarged European Community Police Cooperation with CEECs: Between Trust and

19

Obligation, Florence: RS CAS, European University Institute

28. Bird, R., 1992. Tax Policy & Economic Development, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

29. Bicaric, I., “The Economic Causes of New State Formation During Transition”, East European Politics and Societies, 9 (1995) 2-21.

30. Bjankini S: Izgradnja ekonomije, kulture i demokratije, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

31. Bogetić Ž: Osvrt na ekonomsku tranziciju u Bugarskoj FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996., FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

32. Bogoev K: Stabilizacioni, socijalni i strukturni problemi zemalja u tranziciji, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

33. Bogetić, Ž., 1993. “The Role of Empoloyee Ownership in Privatisation of State Enterprises in Eastern and Central Europe”, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 45. No. 3, 436-481.

34. Bogetić, Ž. and M. conte, 1993, “Privatizing Eastern European Economies: A Critical Review and Proposal”, Europe and Central Asia internal discussion paper, No. 109, January 1993; presented at Allied Social Sciences Association Meetings in Anaheim, CA, January 4-7.

35. Bogetić, Ž. and A.L. Hillman, 1994. “The Tax Base in the Transition”, Communist Economies and Economic Transformation, 6, 267-282.

36. Bogetić, Ž. and J. Wilton, 1992. “Bulgaria′s Market Reform: Beating the Odds”, Transition, The World Bank, Policy Research Depertment, Transtional Economies Division, June.

37. Borensztein,, E., D. G. Demekas, J. D. Ostry, 1993. “An Empirical Analyisis of the Output Declines in Three Eastern European Countries”, IMF Staff Papers, vol. 40, No. 1 (March) 1-31.

38. Bogetic, Z. et al., Anatomy of Hyperinflation and the Beginning of Stabiliyation in Yugoslavia 1992 ─ 1994. paper prepared for The World Bank, revised version September 1994.

39. Bogetić, Ž. (1991), “The role of employee ownership in privatization of state enterprises in Eastern and Central Europe”, Washington, The World Bank, Internal Discussion Paper, Europe, Middle East and North Africa

20

Region.

40. Bolton, P., G. Roland, The Break-Up of Courtines, A Political Economy Analys is, Unpublished paper (1994).

41. Bonin, J., L. Putterman, Economics of Cooperation and the Labor-Managend Economy, Brown University, Working paper, No. 864, 1986, p. 86.

42. Botsas, N.E. (2002) Southeastern Europe in Transition, from New Balkans : Disintegration and Reconstruction, Boulder: East European Monographs

43. Brabant van, J.M. (1995) The Transformation of Eastern Europe – Joining the European Integration Movement, New York: Nova Science Publishers

44. Brenton, P. Trade and Investment in Europe: The Impact of the Next Enlargement, Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies

45. Bruno, M., 1992. “Stabilization and Reform in Eastern Europe: A Preliminary Evaluation”, IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 39, No. 4, December, 741-777.

46. Bruno, M. and W. Easterly, 1994. “Inflation Crises and Long-Run Growth”, Vorld Bank, mimeo.

47. Bruno, M., 1994, “Stabilisation And Reform In Eastern Europe - A Preliminary Evaluation”, IMF Staff Papers, No. 4, Washington, D.C.

48. Bruno, Michael (1993), “Stabilisation and Reform in Eastern Europe: Preliminary Evaluation” in Blejer, Mario et. al., Eastern Europe in Transition: From Recession to Growth, World Bank Discussion Paper No. 196, World Bank: Washington D.C, pp. 12-37.

49. Buchanan, J. M., 1993. “How Can constitutions Be Designed So That Politicians Who Seek to Serve Public Interest Can Survive?”, Constitutional Political Economy, vol. 4, 1-6.

50. Bulmer, M., Rees, A.M (1996) Citizenship Today-The Contemporary Relevance of T.H.Marshall, London: UCL Press

51. Calic, M-J (2003) The EU and the Balkans: From Association to Membership SWP Comments 7, Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik

52. Calleya, S. C. (ed.) (2000) Regionalism in the Post-Cold War World,

21

Aldershote: Ashgate.

53. Calvo, G. A. and F. Coricelli, 1993. “Output Collapse in Eastern Europe”, IMF Staff Papers, vol. 40, No. 1 (March), 32-52.

54. Cascio, W. F.: “Downsizing: What Do We Know? What Have We Learned? Academy of Management Executive, 1993, vol, 7/1, pp. 95-104.

55. Cerović B: Ttranzicija i vlasništvo, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

56. Center for International Economics, 1992, Bulgaria: Trade Policy Study, Canberra, Australia, August 1992.

57. Center for International Economics, 1992, Bulgaria: Trade Policy Study, Canberra, Australia, August 1992.

58. Central European Quarterly (different years) Facts and Figures on Central and Eastern Europe, Vienna: Creditanstalt

59. Chandler, D. (1999) Bosnia: Faking Democracy After Dayton, London: Pluto Press

60. Cini Michelle, European Union Politics, Oxford press 2003

61. Clément, S. (1998) Sub-Regional Cooperation in the Balkans’ in The Southeast European Yearbook 1997-98, Veremis, & Triantaphyllou (eds.), Athens : ELIAMEP, pp. 217-226.

62. Club of 3, (2000) The Balkans and New European Responsibilities; The Three and the Balkans, Brussels: Bertelsmann Schiftung.

63. Cohen, L.J. (1999) Civic Republic or Ethnic Democracies: Party and Elite Development in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1990-1999), on Conference: “Bosnia and the Balkans: Conflict and Reconstruction”, Williamsburg: College of Wiliam&Mary

64. Commission of the European Communities (2002) The Stabilization and Association Process for South East Europe; First Annual Report, COM (2002) 163, Brussels, 4.4.2002

65. Commission of the European Communities, (1997) Report from the Commission to the Council on Regional Cooperation in Europe, COM (97) 659 final, Brussels 1.12.1997.

66. Commission of the European Communities, (1999) Communication to the Council and EP on the Stabilization and Association Process for Countries

22

of South Eastern Europe, COM (99) 235, Brussels, 26.5.99

67. Commission of the European Communities, (2001) CARDS Assistance Programme to the Western Balkans: Regional Strategy Paper 2002-2006, External Relations Directorate General.

68. Council for Foreign Relations (2000) Promoting Sustainable Economies in the Balkans, New York: Task Force Report

69. Coricelli, F. and R. Rocha, 1991. “Stabilization Programs in Eastern Europe: Lessons from the Polish and the Yugoslav Programs of 1990”, The World, Washington D. C., processed, 1991.

70. Crnobrnja M: Evropska unija i zemlje bivše SFRJ, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

71. Cviic, C. (1995) Remaking the Balkans, London: Pinter Publishers.

72. Dabrowski, Marek, 1994. “Ukrainian Way to Hyperinflation”, Center for Social and Economic Research, Warsaw, January.

73. Daianu, D. (2002) Is Catching Up Possible n Europe, Warsaw: Tiger

74. Dehaene, J-L., Paszkowska (2002) The Political Dimens ion of EU Enlargement: Looking Towards Post-Accession, Florence: European University Institute with The Group of Policy Advisors of European Commission

75. Dervis, K. and T. Condon, 1992. “Hungary: An Emerging Gradualist Success Story?”, Paper presented at the Conference on Transition in Eastern Europe, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, February 26-29.

76. Đelić Božidar (2006), “Kada će nam biti bolje”, Službeni glasnik B92, Beograd

77. Dornbusch, R. (1992), “Lessons from Experience with High Inflation”, The World Bank Economic Review, vol. 6, No. 1.

78. Dornbusch, R., 1991. “The Monetary Overhang in 1940g”, NBER discussion paper.

79. Dornbusch, R. and S. Fischer, 1993. “Moderate Inflation”, World Bank Economic Reviev, January.

80. Diaz, J.D.R. (2001) The Stability Pact in Old Frontiers- New Frontiers- The

23

Challenge of Kosovo and its Implications for the European Union, Bern: Peter Lang

81. Dobrinsky, R. (2000) Multi-speed Transition and Multi-speed Integration in Europe: Recent Economic Developments in the Balkans, in The Development of the Balkan Region, Petrakos & Totev (eds.), London: Ashgate, pp. 75-112.

82. Dodgeson, M., And Rothwell, R., 1992, “European Technology Policy Evolution”, Technovoation, 12 (4).

83. Dr Jovan Dušanić (2001): Tranzicija – velika šansa, ali i opasna zamka

84. East West Institute and European Stability Initiative (2001) Democracy, Security and the Future of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe.

85. EBRD (2002) Transition Report 2002, London (www.ebrd.com)

86. ECE, 1993-4, Economic Survey Of Europe, Economic Commision For Europe, United Nations, New York.

87. Economic Commission for Europe (2000) Economic Survey of Europe (1,2-3) New York and Geneva: United Nations

88. Emerson, M., Whyte, N. (2001), The Future of the Stability Pact in Europe South-East Monitor, Brussels: CEPS.

89. Emerson, Michael (2001), About Forming and Reforming the Stability Pact; From Balkans to Caucasus, Brussels: CEPS.

90. European Stability Initiative (2003) The Road to Thessaloniki: Cohesion and the Western Balkans, Brussels: www.esiweb.org

91. European Stability Initiative, (1999) The Stability Pact and Lessons from a Decade of Regional Initiatives, Brussels, www.esiweb.org.

92. European Stability Initiative, (2000) Stability, Institutions and European Integration, Brussels, www.esiweb.org.

93. Fischer, T., Schley, N. (2000) Organizing a Federal Structure for Europe-An EU Catalogue of Competencies, Gutersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers

94. Fiti T: Privatizacija u Makedoniji, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

95. Fontaine Pascal Brošura Europska unija, (2004) Brisel

24

96. Forum Evrope (2002) SouthEast Europe’s New Era- Regional Capacities and Business Opportunities, Brussels: Stability Pact’s Investment Compact, European Commission.

97. Gavrilov, V., “Energy Crisis Looming”, 1992. Report on Eastern Europe, August 24, 1990. OECD, “Bulgaria: An Economic Assessment”, OECD Center for Cooperarion with European Economies in Transition, Paris.

98. Gelazis, N.M. (2000) The Effects of EU Conditionality on Citizenship Policies and Protection of National Minorities in the Baltic States, Florence, RS CAS, European University Institute.

99. German, L (1999) The Balkans: Nationalism and Imperialism, London: Bookmarks.

100. Gligorov, V., Kaldor, M. & Tsoukalis, L. (1999) Balkan Reconstruction and European Integration. London: The Hellenic Observatory, The Centre for the Study of Global Governance & the Vienna Institute of International Economics.

101. Gligorov V: Strepnje i strasti: perspektive bivše Jugoslavije, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

102. Hartley, T.C. (1998).: Osnovi prava Evropske Zajednice. Otvoreno društvo BiH, Sarajevo,

103. Hayden, R.M., (1999) Blueprints for a House Divided: the Constitutional Logic of the Yugoslav conflicts, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press

104. Georg V.F. Hegel (1963): Osnovne crte filozofije prava, Sarajevo

105. Henriot, A. Inotai, A. (1998) What Europe have to do for the Integration of the European Union and the Central and East European Countries, from “Uniting the European Economy”, A Brie/Kreiski Forum, Berkley: University of California

106. Hirshleifer, J. (1987), Economic Behaviour in Adversity, Harvester Press, Brighton.

107. Hinds, M. 1992. “Policy Effectiveness in Reforming Socialist Economies”, chapet one in A. L. Hillman and B. Mianovic eds. The Transition from Socialism in Eastern Europe: Domestic Restructuring and Foreign Trade, World Bank Regional and Sectoral Study. The World Bank, Washington

108. Hillman, A. L., 1991. “Liberalization Dilemmas” in A. L. Hillman, Ed., Markets and Politic ians: Politicized Economic Shoice, Boston and

25

Dordrecht: Kluwer.

109. Hinds, M., Issues in the Introduction of Market Forces in Eastern European Socialist Economies. The World Bank, 1990, EMTTF, 54 pp.

110. Horvat B: Privatizacija naspram deetatizacije, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

111. Hollander, Paul (1991), “Politics and Social Problems” in Jones, Anthony, Walter D. Connor and David E. Powell, Soviet Social Problems, The John M. Olin Critical Issues Series, Harvard University Russian Research Center, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

112. Hrvatski fond za privatizaciju (1995), “Izvješće o toku i rezultatima pretvorbe društvenih preduzeća”, Zagreb, januar.

113. Hughes, G., 1991. “Foreign Exshange and Economic Activity in bulgaria,” World Bank, March, processed, 1.

114. Huntington, P. S. (1991) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

115. Injova, R., “Privatization in Bulgaria”, 1992. Agency for Economic Programming and Development - AECD, Sofia, July.

116. Instituto Jacques Maritain (1997) L altra Europa-L Europa centrale e I Balcani verso unione Europea, Trieste.

117. Ivanov, E., Kouneva, M. (eds.) (2000) Investment Guide for Southeast Europe, Sofia: Bulgarian Economic Forum.

118. Jackson, M. (2001) Intra-Balkan Trade and Economic Cooperation: Past Lessons for the Future, in The Development of the Balkan Region, Petrakos & Totev (eds.), London: Ashgate, pp. 31-66.

119. Jeffries, I (2002) The Former Yugoslavia at the Turn of the Twenty-first Century- A guide to the economies in transition, London and New York: Routledge.

120. Jones, D. C., 1991. “The Bulgarian Labor Market in Transition”, International Labor Review, vol. 130, 2; 211-226.

121. Kaufman, J.P. (2002) NATO and the Former Yugoslavia- Crisis, Conflict, and the Atlantic Alliance, Lanham: Rowman&Littlef ield Publishers.

122. Kempe,I. (2001) Beyond EU Enlargement, Gutersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers.

26

123. Kiernan, M.: “The new strategic architecture, learning to compete in the vwenty-first century”, Academy of Management Executive, vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 245-255.

124. Kok, W. (2003) Enlarging the European Union: Achievement and Challenges, Florence: European University Institute.

125. Kotios, A., (2002) European Policies for the Reconstruction and Development of the Balkans, in The Development of the Balkan Region, Petrakos, Totev (eds.), London: Ashgate, pp. 235-280

126. Kozul Ž: Razvoj preduzeća i katalitička industrijska politika u ekonomskoj tranziciji: Primer Hrvatske, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

127. Kourvetaris, G.A., Roudemetof, V., Koutsoukis, K, Kourvetaris, A.G. (2002) The New Balkans: Disintegration and Reconstruction, New York: Columbia University Press

128. Kovacs, P (2002): The Challenge and its Balkan Dimens ions, Policy brief No. 17, Brussels: CEPS.

129. Koves, A., 1994, From “Great Leaps Forward To Normality: Some Issues In Transitional Policies In Eastern Europe,”, In UNCTAD Review, United Nation Conference On Trade And Development, Geneva.

130. Kovač, B., “Upravljanje z novo lastninsko strukturo slovenskih podjetil v poprivatizacijskem obdobju”, Zbornik 3. letnega srečanja Zveze ekonomistov Slovenije, Ekonomska revija, 1995, pp. 32-48.

131. Krenzler, H.G. (2001) EU Justice and Home Affairs in the Context of Enlargement, Florence: RS CAS, European University Institute.

132. Krenzler, H.G., Vachudova, M.A. (2001) The European Defense and Security Policy and EU Enlargement to Eastern Europe, Florence, European University Institute.

133. Kumar A: Liberalizacija trgovine u Europskoj uniji, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

134. Kugiel, M. i Liviatan, N. (1992), “When do Heterodox Stablization Programs Work?”, The World Bank Research Observer, vol.7, No.1.

135. Kuzmin, F.: “Problematika nezaposlenosti v Sloveniji”. Naše gospodarsvo, vol. 40, št. 6, pp. 627-633.

136. Kuzmanović R.: “Eseji o ustavnosti i državnosti“, Pravni fakultet Banjaluka

27

2004.

137. Kuzmanović R.: “Ustavno pravo“, Pravni fakultet Banjaluka 2002.

138. Kuzmanović R.: “Ustavnost BiH u svjetlu novog svjetskog poretka i tranzicije“, časopis „Arhiv“, broj 3-4, Beograd 2004.

139. Kuzmanović R.: “Reformama do evroatlantskih integracija“, časopis „Zbornik“, 3-40/03 Banjaluka 2003.

140. Labus M: Uticaj makroekonomske stabilizacije na ekonomsku tranziciju u Jugoslaviji, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

141. Lang, R. “Privatization Market Structure and Competition: Progress Report on Croatia”, Bankarski pregled, 45 /1994); 766-784.

142. Landesmann, M., 1995. And Syekely, I., (Eds), 1995., Industrial Restructuring And Trade Orientation In Eastern Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

143. Leurdijk. D. Zandee, D. (2001) Kosovo: From Crisis to Crisis, Aldershot: Ashgate.

144. Linz, J. & Stephan, A. (1996) Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation; Southern Europe, South America and Post-Communist Europe, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

145. Levitan, Sar A. (1990), Programs in Aid of the Poor, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

146. Lindert, Peter H. “How Welfare Spending Evolves”, Agricultural History Center University of California, Davis, Working paper Series No. 66, July 1991.

147. Lipton, D., J. Sachs, Creating a Market Economy in Eastern Europe: The Case of Poland, 1991, pp. 75-145.

148. Lopandic, D. (2001) Regional Initiatives in South Eastern Europe, Belgrade: European Movement Serbia.

149. Lucarelli, S. (2000) Europe and the Breakup of Yugoslavia, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

150. Dr Radomir Lukić (1995): Metodologija prava,Sabrana dela, Beograd

151. Lundvall, B.A., 1988, “Institutional Learning And National Systems Of

28

Innovation”, Paper Presented And Conference In Rosklide University.

152. Madžar Lj: Dva scenarija vlasničke transformacije u SFRJ – interesantne determinante razlika i obrta u strategiji prestrukturiranja, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

153. Madžar, Lj. “Da li je program uspeo?”, Ekonomska politika, 44 (February and March, 1995.).

154. Madžar, Lj. (ed) (1995), Projekat privatizacije u Srbiji - Osnov moderne tržišne privrede, Beograd, Unija poslodavaca Srbije.

155. Mahncke, D (ED.)(2001) Old Frontiers- New Frontiers- The Challenge of Kosovo and its Implications for the European Union, Bern: Peter Lang.

156. MAP, Mesečne analize i prognoze, Institut ekonomskih nauka, Beograd

157. Mazower, M. (2000) The Balkans: A Short History, London: Modern Library Chronicles.

158. Mencinger J: Ekonomija dezintegracije, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

159. Mencinger, J. “Slovensko-nemska trgovinska menjava”, Gospodarska gibanja, No. 250 (May 1994.): 21-35.

160. Mencinger, J., “Makroekeonomske dileme republike Slovenije”, Gospodarska gibanja, 5, 1991, pp. 25-34.

161. Meurs, W. (ed.) (2001) Beyond EU Enlargement-The Agenda of Stabilization for Southeastern Europe, Gutersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers.

162. Meurs, W., Weis, S. (2003) The Next Europe: Southeastern Europe after Thessaloniki Bertelsman, Munich: Centrum for angewandte Politikforschung.

163. Milanović B: Siromaštvo i nejednakost ekonomije u tranziciji: šta se zaista dogodilo? FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

164. Novak Milošević (2001): Osnovi metodologije bezbjednosnih nauka, Beograd, str. 165

165. Mincozi Lj: Ekonomsko otvaranje prema svetu, značajan faktor razvoja (slučaj Albanije), FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

166. Milovanović M: Privatizacija monopolističkog preduzeća: izazovi

29

gradualizma, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

167. Minić J: Procesi integracije na Balkanu, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

168. Milanovic, Branko (1994), “Cash Social Transfers, Direct Taxes, and Income Distribution in Late Socialism”, Journal of comparative economics, 18:2, pp. 175-179.

169. Mitchell, Deborah (1991), income Transfers in Ten Wellfare States, Aldershot, Brookfield USA: Avebery.

170. Mitchell, D. (1982), “Gain-sharing. An anti-inflation reform”, Challenge, vol. 25, no. 3.

171. Mlococh, L., 1994, “Political Economy Of The Transition”, Reform Round Table Working Group, No. Ệ, Prague, Institute Of Economic Studies, Charles University.

172. Molle, W. (1997) The Economics of European Integration – Theory, Practice, Policy, Aldershot: Ashgate.

173. Momirska Marjanović M: Relacije između razvijenih i nerazvijenih regiona u bivšoj Jugoslaviji, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

174. Monks, K.: “Model of Pesonnel Magement: A Means of Understanding the Diversity of Personnel Practices”. Human Resource Management Journal, 1993 3/2, str. 29-41, 1992, str. 20-37.

175. Moussis, N. (1999) Access to European Union-law, Economics, Policies, Brussels: European Study Service.

176. Murard, Numa (1993), La protection sociale, Editions de la découverte, Paris.

177. Nello, S.S., Smith, K.E. (1998) The European Union and Central and Eastern Europe – The Implications of Enlargement in Stages, Aldershot: Ashgate.

178. Nenova, M., 1992. “The 1991 Budget and Some Policy Implications in 1992,” AECD Working Paper, Sofia, March.

179. Nelson, R., 1983, “Government Support For Technical Progress: Lessons From History”, Journal Of Policy_Analysis And Policy, vol.2, No. 4:499-514.

180. Nelson, R., 1993, National Innovation Systems, Oxford University Press.

30

181. Nikic, G. “Koliki je drustveni proizvod Hrvatske?”, Privredna kretanja i ekonomska politika. Narodna banka Hrvatske, No.34 (October 1994.).

182. Nuti, D.M. (1994), “Mass-privatisations:costs and benefits of instant capitalism”, London, CISME-LBS Working Papers no. 9.

183. Nuti, D.M. (1995), “Employeeism: Corporate governance and employee share owership in transitional economies”, Conference paper, Reggio Emilia, May 5.

184. O’Neill, M (2001) Integration Without Identity: the Elusive Quest for a “Peoples Europe” from “L’identita Europeaa alla fine del XX Secolo, Firenze: Rivista di Studi Politici Internazionali.

185. Papic, Z. ed. (2001) International Support Policies to South-East European Countries; Lessons (Not) Learned in B-H, Sarajevo: Muller.

186. Papić Ž: Privatizacija između apologije i odbijanja, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

187. Pavković, A. (2000) The Fragmentation of Yugoslavia, Nationalism and War in the Balkans, London: Macmillan Press.

188. PER (2000): Albanians as Majorities and Minorities: A Regional Dialogue, Athens : Project on Ethnic Relations.

189. Petkoviski M: Problemi platnog bilansa u zemljama u tranziciji, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

190. Petrakos. G. (2000) Fragmentation or Integration in the Balkans? Strategies of Development in the 21st century, in The Development of the Balkan Region, Petrakos & Totev (eds.), London: Ashgate, pp. 221-237.

191. Phinnemore, D & Siani-Davies, P (eds.)(2002) South Eastern Europe, the Stability Pact and EU Enlargement, Cluj: European Studies Foundation Publishing House.

192. Petrović P: Održivost ekonomske stabilizacije u SR Jugoslaviji i značaj obnavljanja međunarodne razmene, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

193. Petkova B: Privatizacija banaka u Bugarskoj: uporedna studija u odnosu na Mađarsku i Poljsku, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

194. Perry, D., 1990. “Democracy in Bulgaria: An Uneasy Peace”, Report on Eastern Europe, September 21.

31

195. Pierce, A.J. (1999) De-Balkanizing the Balkans : Security and Stability in Southeastern Europe, Washington: United States Institute for Peace.

196. Poulton, H., Taji-Farouki, S. (eds.) (1997) Muslim Identity and the Balkan State, New York: New York University Press.

197. Pošarac A: Socijalne posledice odbijanja tranzicije, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

198. Popović D: Reforma fiskalnog sistema i privatizacija u Srbiji, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

199. Popović T: Europska opcija Jugoslavije, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

200. Popović G.: „Evropska unija osnovni pojmovi“, Besjeda Banjaluka, Ars Libri Beograd 2005

201. Pošarac, A., Bjeloglav, D. 1994. Materijalni položaj porodica sa decom u Jugoslaviji. Ekonomski trend, Beograd.

202. Prlić, J. Fuga dalla storia, (The Escape from History), Bologna: CLUEBS, Bologna University. 2000.

203. Prlić, J. Nezavršena partija (Unfinished Game), Tuzla: Promo International, Edition: “Perspectives”. 2002.

204. Prlić, J. Return to Europe- Foreign Policy in Post-Conflict Period», Sarajevo: «Forum 2000- European Movement» and Centre for Interdisciplinary and Postgraduate Studies of the University in Sarajevo. 2002.

205. Prlić J. „Globalno i lokalno“, OKO Sarajevo, 2004.

206. Prlić J. „Europska unija – isočni Jadran“, South - East Institute Sarajevo, 2005.

207. Prodi, R. 2002 Moja Europa, Beograd: BMG.

208. Pošarac, A. 1995. Povratak u pedesete godine. Vreme novca, 37-38, Beograd

209. Pošarac, A. Economic and Social Consequences of the Breakup of Yugoslavia, War, Sanctions of the International Community and Rejection of Transition: the Case of Serbia, Sussex University, Brighton, u pripremi.

210. Prašnikar J i Zupan N: Upravljanje ljudskim resursima u firmama u

32

tranziciji: primer Slovenije, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

211. Prašnikar J., “Predstavitev knjige dr. I. Ribnikarja: Prehod v tržno gospodarstvo po slovensko”, Bančni vestnik, XLIV, 1995, 4, pp. 51-53.

212. Pućko, D., “Strateško preoblikovanje podjetij: slovenske izkušnje”, Slovenska ekonomska revija, 46, 1995, pp. 16-31.

213. Radosevic, S., 1994. “Strategic Technology Policy For Eastern Europe”, Economic Systems, vol. 18, No. 2, June, Pp. 87-116.

214. Radosevic, S., 1994. “The Generic Problem Of Competitiveness At Company Level In The Former Socialist Economies: The Case Croatia”, Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 46, No. 3, Pp. 489-503.

215. Raguz, V.M. (2001) Now There’s Another Reason to Seek Peace in the Balkans, The Wall Street Journal Europe, July 27.

216. Remington, R.A. (1991) Self-Management and Development Strategies in Socialist Yugoslavia, in Diverse Paths to Modernity in Southeastern Europe- Essays in National Development, Westport: Greenwood Press.

217. Ribnikar, I., Participation of Transition Economies in the World Trade and Financial System, Conference on Participation of Transition Economies in the World Trade and Financial System. UNU/WIDER, Helsinki, May 26-27, 1995, 57 pp.

218. Ribnikar, I., Prehod v tržno gospodarstvo po slovensko , CISEF, Ljubljana, 1992, 318 pp.

219. Ricketts, M., Economics of Business Enterprise, Harvaster Wheatsheaf, 1994, New York.

220. Rieff, D. (1995): Schlachthaus-Bosnien und das Versagen des Westens, Munich: Luchterhand.

221. Rizopoulos, Y. (2001) Foreign Direct Investment and Western Firm’s Internationalization Strategies in the Balkan Countries, in The Development of the Balkan Region, Petrakos & Totev (eds.), London: Ashgate, pp. 75-112.

222. Rohatinski Ž: Program stabilizacije u Hrvatskoj – između juče i sutra, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

223. Rock, C., 1993. “Privatization, Employee Ownership and Enterprise Behavior”, paper presented at the Allied Social Science Association

33

meetings in Anaheim, California, January 4-7.

224. Rop, A., Privatization in Slovenia: General Framework for Privatization in Slovenia, CEEPN Academy 1995, 38 pp. Williamson, O., The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relations Contracting, The Free Press, 1985. New York.

225. Rosati, D.K. (1998) Economic Disparities in Central and Eastern Europe and the Impact of EU Enlargement, Geneva: UN ECE

226. Roudometof.V. (2002) National Minorities, Nation-states, and External National Homelands in Southeastern Europe, from New Balkans: Disintegration and Reconstruction, Boulder: East European Monographs.

227. Sachs, J. (1994), Russias Struggle with Stablization: Conceptual Issues and Evidence, The World Bank Annual Conference on Development Econimics.

228. Sachs, J. i Larrain, F. (1993), Macroeconomics In The global Economy, Prentice-Hall, London.

229. Samary, C. (1995) Yugoslavia Dismembered, New York: Montly Review Press

230. Savin, D. (1994a), “Kurs dinara i monetarna politika”, MAP, vol.2, No.2.

231. Dr Midhat Šamić (1972): Kako nastaje naučno djelo, Sarajevo

232. Savin, D. (1994b), “Kurs dinara i budžetska potrošnja”, MAP, vol.2, No.3-4.

233. Sachs, J., 1995. “Post-communist Parties and the Polities of Entitlement”, Transition (The World Bank Newsletter Divis ion, vol. 6, No. 3, March, 1-4.

234. Schmid, C.L. (1981) Conflict and Consensus in Switzerland, Berkeley: University of California Press.

235. Schopflin, G. (2000), Nations, Identity, Power; The New Politics of Europe, London: Hurst & Co.

236. Schrenk, M., 1992. “The CMEA System of Trade and Payments”, chapter nine in A. L. Hillman and B. Milanovic eds. The Transition from Socialism en Eastern Europe: Domestic Restructuring and Foreign Trade , World Bank Regional and Sectoral Study, The World Bank, Washington D.C.

237. Sipos, Sandor (1992), “Poverty Measurement In Central And Eastern Europe Before Transition To Market Economies”, UNICEF, Innocenti

34

Occasional Papers, EPS 29, July

238. Solimano, A., 1993. “After Socialism and Dirigisme - Which Way?”, World Bank Policy Research Paper No. 981, World Bank, Washington D.C.

239. Skayannis.P. (2001) Infrastructure Comparisons in Transition Countries: A New North-South Divide in Europe, in The Development of the Balkan Region, Petrakos & Totev (eds.), London: Ashgate, pp. 175-217

240. Smith, K. (1997) The Use of Political Conditionality in the EU's Relations with Third Countries: How Effective? Working Papers. SPS No 97/7, European University Institute.

241. Special Coordinator of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe (2001) 21/2 of Stability Pact: Lessons and Policy Recommendations, www.stabilitypact.org

242. Spencer, M. (2000) The Lessons of Yugoslavia, Amsterdam: JAI Am Imprint of Elsevies Science.

243. Spinant, D. (2001) Implications for the Enlargement Process, in Old Frontiers-New Frontiers, Bern: Peter Lang. p. 249-268

244. J.S.S. Schreiber, (1967) Defi american, Paris, Presse universitaire

245. Stanković F: Privatizac ija i/ili aktivna industrijska politika – osnovni pristupi Tranzicije, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

246. Stavrić B., Babić M.: „Organizacija preduzeća“, Kiz Centar Beograd, 1996.

247. Stojanov D: Neka neriješena makroekonomska pitanja procesa tranzicije u bivšim Socijalističkim zemljama, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

248. Stojanova V: Pogrešna terapija: uticaj privatizacije i stvaranju ekonomije i restruktuiranju proizvodnje i upravljanja preduzeća, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

249. Swann, D. The Economics of Europe – From Common Market to European Union, Penguin Books, London, 2000.

250. Szapiro, M. (2001) Will the Kosovo Crisis Rejuvenate CFSP and European Defense? in Old Frontiers- New Frontiers- The Challenge of Kosovo and its Implications for the European Union, Bern: Peter Lang, p.203-247

251. Šešić Bogdan (1974): Opšta metodologija, Naučna knjiga, Beograd

35

252. Šolaja M.: „Balkan u transatlantskoj pukotini“ , CIR Banjaluka, 2006

253. Štiblar F: Bankarske operacije kao baza ekonomske saradnje u manje razvijenoj Evropi, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

254. Šuvar S: Demografski bilans druge Jugoslavije (1945-1992): demografski aspekti Budućeg razvoja država – nasljednica, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

255. Talka M: Ključni problem ekonomske reforme za vreme perioda tranzicije u Albaniji, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

256. Tanzi, V., Davoodi, H. (1998) Roads to Nowhere: How Corruption in Public Investment Hurts Growth, Washington: International Monetary Fund.

257. Tatalović, S. (2001) Ethnic aspects of security and stability in the South Eastern Evrope Zagreb: Centre for International Studies.

258. Thomas, R.G.C. (2002) The Idea of Self-determination: Lessons from the Former Yugoslavia, from New Balkans: Disintegration and Reconstruction, Boulder: East European Monographs.

259. Thorne, A., 1992. “Issues in Reforming Financial Systems in Eastern Europe: The Case of Bulgaria”, World Bank Policy Research Working paper, No. 882, April.

260. Todorova, M. (1997) Imagining the Balkans. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.

261. Todorovic, L. “Refugees from the Former Yougoslav Republic in the Federal Republic Yougoslavia”, Yougoslav Survey 35, No.2 (1994): 110-118.

262. Triantaphyllou, D. (2000) The Albanian Facto Athens: Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy, Athens.

263. Tritle, L.A. (ED.)(1998) Balkan Currents- Studies in the History, Culture and Society of a Divided Land, Los Angeles : Loyola Marymount University.

264. Udovički K: Tržišne snage i ekonomska integracija: pouke iz Jugoslavije od 1970. do 1987., FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

265. United States Institute of peace (2000) Bosnia’s next Five Years: Dayton and Beyond, Washington (www.usip.org).

266. United States Institute of Peace (2001) Serbia and Montenegro:

36

Reintegration, Divorce, or Something Else, Washington.

267. Usher, J.A. (2000) The State of the European Union, Harlow: Longman

268. Uvalic, M. (2000) Regional Cooperation in SEE, ESRC Working Paper 17/01.

269. Uvalić M: Finansijska participacija radnika – relevantnost zapadnog iskustva za istočnu Europu, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

270. Uvalić, M. (1994), “Privatization in disintegrating East European States: The case of former Yugoslavia”, Florence, European University Institute Working Paper RSC no. 94/11.

271. Uvalić, M. (1995b), “Insiders' privatization in East Europe”, fortchoming.

272. Vaughan-Whitehead, D. (2000) Economic and Social Gaps, New Hidden Borders in the Enlarged Europe, Florence: RS CAS European University Institute.

273. Vanek, J. (1965), “Workers' profit participation, unemployment and the Keynesian equillibrium”, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, vol. 94.

274. Vaughan-Whitehead, D. (1994), “Privatiyation through workers' share-ownership: the case of Ukraine”, Paper presented at the Seventh Conference of the International Association for the Economics of Participation, Portoroz, June.

275. Veremis, T, Kofos, E. (eds.) (1998) Kosovo: Avoiding Another Balkan War, Athens : Eliamep, University of Athens.

276. Veremis, T. Daianu, D. (eds.) (2001) Balkan Reconstruction. London: Frank Cass.

277. Veselinov D: Privatizacije poljoprivrede u Srbiji, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

278. Végh, C. and R. Sahay, 1995. “Inflation and Stabilization in Transition Economies: A Comparison with Market Economies”, IMF Working Paper 95/8 (Research Department), January.

279. Vukotić V: Ekonomija, haos i novi način razmišljanja, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

280. Vujačić I: Prekinuta privatizacija: primer Srbije, FZR, Paris-Beograd, 1996.

281. Wagener, H.J. (2001) The Welfare State in Transition Economies and

37

Accession to the EU, Florence: RS CAS, European University Institute.

282. Weitzman, M. (1984), The Share Economy, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

283. Whitehead, L., (2002) Emerging Market Democracies-East Asia and Latin America, Baltimore, London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

284. Weitzman, M. (1995), “Incentive effects of profit-sharing”, Conference paper, Reggio Emilia, May 5.

285. Woodward, S. (1995) Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution after the Cold War, Washington DC, Brookings Institution.

286. World Bank, 1994. World Development Report 1994. Washington D.C.

287. World Bank & International Monetary Fund, (2001) Building Peace in South East Europe: Macroeconomic Policies and Structural Reforms Since the Kosovo Conflict, Paper for the Second Regional Conference for South East Europe, Bucharest.

288. World Bank, (2000) The Road to Stability and Prosperity in SEE: A Regional Strategy Paper.

289. Zdunic, S. “Central Europe and Croatia Foreign Trade Policy”, Croatian Economic Survey. Zagreb: Institute of Economics and National Bank of Croatia. (1994.)

290. Zupan, N. “Način povečanja učinkovitosti in uspešnosti zaposlenih”, Slovenska ekonomska revija, 1994, pp. 96-102.

291. Zec, M., Mijatović, B., Đuričin, D., i Savić, N. (eds) (1994), Privatizacija, Beograd, Jugoslovenska knjiga i Ekonomski institut.

38

A) Relevantne web-stranice, dokumenti, deklaracije i drugo Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: www.ceip.org Central European Initiative: www.crinet.org Council for Foreign Relations: www.cfr.org

CEPS, European Southeast Information Centre: www.ceps.be/Research/SEE/SEEHub.php East West Institute: www.iews.org European Stability Initiative: www.esiweb.org European University Institute: www.iue.org International Crisis Group: www.crisisweb.org International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA): www.idea.int/balkans Office of the World Bank and the EU Commission: www.seerecon.org Office of the High Representative: www.ohr.int

Royaumont Process: www.royaumont.lrf.gr South East Cooperation Initiative: www.unece.org/seci South East European Cooperation Process: www.seecp.gov.mk Stabilization and Association Process: www.Europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/see Stability Pact: www.Stabilitypact.org United Institute of Peace: www.usip.org USAID: www.usaid.gov/regions/Europe_euroasia

39

B) Ostali izvori: Međunarodni izvori kao što su izvještaji o tranziciji iz 2003. Evropske banke za rekonstrukciju i razvoj (EBRD), izvještaj o investiranju iz 2003. konferencije UN-a o trgovini i razvoju (UNCTAD), te publikacije Organizacije za ekonomsku saradnju i razvoj (OECD).