по
Конфликтология / nota bene
12+
Меню журнала
> Архив номеров > Рубрики > О журнале > Авторы > Требования к статьям > Порядок рецензирования статей > Ретракция статей > Этические принципы > Политика открытого доступа > Оплата за публикации в открытом доступе > Online First Pre-Publication > Политика авторских прав и лицензий > Политика цифрового хранения публикации > Политика идентификации статей > Политика проверки на плагиат
Журналы индексируются
Реквизиты журнала
ГЛАВНАЯ > Вернуться к содержанию
Статьи автора Байректаревич Анис
Международные отношения, 2014-3
Байректаревич А. - Europe of Sarajevo 100 years later: 9/11 or 11/9? (the EU of Genocide and Unification)

DOI:
10.7256/2454-0641.2014.3.10747

Аннотация: Some 20 years ago the genocide of worst kind was taking place just one hour flight from Brussels. That time, assassination of different kind from the one of 1914 has enveloped Sarajevo. While massive European ignorance turned Bosnia (and the Union of different peoples – Yugoslavia) into a years-long slaughterhouse, the Maastricht dream was unifying the Westphalian world of the Old continent. Today, two decades later, Atlantic Europe is a political powerhouse (with two of three European nuclear powers, and two of five permanent members of the UN Security Council, P-5), Central Europe is an economic powerhouse, Russophone Europe is an energy powerhouse, Scandinavian Europe is a bit of all that, and Eastern Europe is none of it. No wonder that as soon as serious external or inner security challenges emerge, the compounding parts of the true, historic Europe are resurfacing again. Formerly in Iraq (with the exception of France) and now with Libya, Sudan, Mali and Syria; Central Europe is hesitant to act, Atlantic Europe is eager, Scandinavian Europe is absent, Eastern Europe is bandwagoning, and Russophone Europe is opposing. Did Europe change (after its own 11/9), or it only became more itself?
Международные отношения, 2014-2
Байректаревич А. - Multiculturalism is D(r)ead in Europe

DOI:
10.7256/2454-0641.2014.2.11313

Аннотация: There is a claim currently circulating the European Union (EU), both cynical and misleading: ‘multiculturalism is dead in Europe’. No wonder, as the conglomerate of nation-states/EU has silently handed over one of its most important debates – that of European identity – to the left and right wing parties, recently followed by several selective and contra-productive foreign policy actions. Europe’s domestic cohesion, its fundamental realignment, as well as the overall public standing and credibility within its strategic neighborhood, lies in the reinvigoration of its everything but institutions transformative powers – stipulated in the Barcelona process of the European Neighborhood Policy as well as in the Euro-Med partnership (OSCE). There is a claim currently circulating around the European Union (EU), both cynical and misleading: ‘multiculturalism is dead in Europe’. No wonder, as the conglomerate of nation-states/EU has silently handed over one of its most important debates – that of European identity – to the left and right wing parties, recently followed by the several selective and counter-productive foreign policy actions.
Конфликтология / nota bene, 2014-1
Байректаревич А. - Why is (the Korean peninsula and East) Asia unable to capitalize (on) its successes: Asia needs ASEAN-ization not Pakistanization of its continent

DOI:
10.7256/2454-0617.2014.1.13520

Аннотация: Speculations over the alleged bipolar world of tomorrow (the so-called G-2, China vs. the US), should not be an Asian dilemma. It is primarily a concern of the West that, after all, overheated China in the first place with its (outsourced business) investments. Hence, despite a distortive noise about the possible future G-2 world, the central security problem of Asia remains the same: an absence of any pan-continental multilateral setting on the world’s largest continent. The Korean peninsula like no other Asian theater pays a huge prize because of it.Why is it so? Asia’s success story? Well, it might be easier than it seems: Neither Europe nor Asia has any alternative. The difference is that Europe well knows there is no alternative – and therefore is multilateral. Asia thinks it has an alternative – and therefore is strikingly bilateral, while stubbornly residing enveloped in economic egoisms. No wonder that Europe is/will be able to manage its decline, while Asia is (still) unable to capitalize its successes. Asia – and particularly its economically most (but not yet politico-militarily) advanced region, East Asia – clearly does not accept any more the lead of the post-industrial and post-Christian Europe, but is not ready for the post-West world. How to draw the line between the recent and still unsettled EU/EURO crisis and By contrasting and comparing genesis of multilateral security structures in Europe with those currently existing in Asia, we can easily remark the following: Prevailing security structures in Asia are bilateral and mostly asymmetric, while Europe enjoys multilateral, balanced and symmetric setups (American and African continents too). These partial settings are more instruments of containment than of engagement. Containment will never result in the integration through cooperation. On contrary, it will trigger a confrontation which feeds the antagonisms and preserves alienation on the stage. Therefore, irrespective to the impressive economic growth, no Asian century will emerge with deeply entrenched divisions on the continent, where the socio-political currents of the Korean peninsula are powerful daily reminder that the creation of such a pan-Asian institution is an urgent must.
Мировая политика, 2013-4
Байректаревич А. - Future of Europe (of Lisbon and generational interval) c. 16-26

DOI:
10.7256/2306-4226.2013.4.9399

Аннотация: The EU of social welfare or of generational warfare, the continent of debt-bound economies or of knowledge-based community? Is the predatory generation in power? Why the only organized counter-narrative comes as a lukewarm Mouse Mickey – between Anonymous and Pirate party, from the Wiki-leaky to Snowden-picky.Europe’s redemption lies in the re-affirmation of the Lisbon Strategy of 2000 (and of Göteborg 2001), a ten-year development plan that focused on innovation, mobility and education, social, economic and environmental renewal. Otherwise a generational warfare will join class and ethnic conflicts as a major dividing line of the EU society in decline.Back in the good old days of the Lisbon Strategy (when the Union was proclaimed to be the most competitive, knowledge-based economy of the world), the Prodi and Barroso Commissions have been both repeatedly stressing that: “at present, some of our world trading partners compete with primary resources, which we in the EU/Europe do not have. Some compete with cheap labor, which we do not want. Some compete on the back of their environment, which we cannot accept…” What has happened in the meantime?
Другие сайты издательства:
Официальный сайт издательства NotaBene / Aurora Group s.r.o.
Сайт исторического журнала "History Illustrated"