Literatura científica selecionada sobre o tema "Foreign relations: Bulgaria, 1913"
Crie uma referência precisa em APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, e outros estilos
Índice
Consulte a lista de atuais artigos, livros, teses, anais de congressos e outras fontes científicas relevantes para o tema "Foreign relations: Bulgaria, 1913".
Ao lado de cada fonte na lista de referências, há um botão "Adicionar à bibliografia". Clique e geraremos automaticamente a citação bibliográfica do trabalho escolhido no estilo de citação de que você precisa: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
Você também pode baixar o texto completo da publicação científica em formato .pdf e ler o resumo do trabalho online se estiver presente nos metadados.
Artigos de revistas sobre o assunto "Foreign relations: Bulgaria, 1913"
1
Tertychna, Anna. "The Bulgarian National Minority in Ukraine in Bulgaria-Ukraine Relations: The Impact on Ukraine’s Image in Bulgaria". Diplomatic Ukraine, n.º XX (2019): 520–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.37837/2707-7683-2019-32.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The article deals with the issues of observance of the rights of the Bulgarian national minority in Ukraine as an element of forming a positive image of Ukraine in Bulgaria. The issue of the rights and freedoms of ethnic Bulgarians in Bessarabia first arose in the bilateral relations between the Ukrainian people’s Republic and the Kingdom of Bulgaria after the establishment of diplomatic relations in accordance with the Ukraine-Bulgaria Supplementary Treaty of 12 February 1918. The informational explanation of the UNR’s open policy on national minorities immediately became an integral part of the activities of the first Ukrainian diplomatic mission in Sofia. Ethnic Bulgarians won the right to revive the study of their native language, history, and identity only after the restoration of Ukraine’s independence in 1991. In particular, the non-governmental sector has played a significant role in shaping Bulgaria’s state policy towards foreign Bulgarians. The article analyses the existing Ukraine-Bulgaria agreements that regulate relations between Ukraine and Bulgaria in the issue of the rights of Bulgarian and Ukrainian citizens of Ukrainian origin, as well as the legislative framework of Bulgaria in the field of state policy towards foreign Bulgarians. Despite the sensitivity of the Bulgarian society to the topic of foreign Bulgarians in Ukraine, which was and still is their largest and oldest historical Diaspora, the guarantee of the rights of ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious identity of persons of Bulgarian nationality and Ukrainian nationality is enshrined in the Ukrainian-Bulgarian international treaties. The article highlights the impact of the issue of the Bulgarian national minority on the political dialogue between Ukraine and Bulgaria. Special attention is paid to the issues of ensuring the language rights of Ukrainian ethnic Bulgarians in the context of recent changes in Ukrainian legislation. Keywords: Ukraine, Bulgaria, Ukraine-Bulgaria relations, rights of the national Bulgarian minority, positive image of Ukraine.
2
Mironova, Elena Mihaylovna. "Representation of the Council of ambassadors of the Russian diaspora in Bulgaria (1919–1940)". Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana 33, n.º 1 (2023): 119–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2023.110.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The article is based on materials previously not used in the scientific circulation and highlights the dramatic history of the creation, activities, and closure of the Russian non-bolshevik representation in Bulgaria. The Russian Foreign Diplomatic Corps was the only remnant of the old state apparatus that survived the October Revolution in Russia (1917). The embassy in Sofia became a part of it at the end of 1919, after Bulgaria’s withdrawal from World War I. The article clarifies the circumstances and personal composition of the Representation. The embassy played an important role in the formation of the Russian refugee colony and was closed at the very beginning of 1923. The article identifies the causes of the crisis in relations between the Bulgarian authorities and the embassy, its development, assesses its collapse and shows the hard work that was aimed at preserving the informal non-bolshevik representation. The new representative of the Council of Russian Ambassadors in Bulgaria was B. S. Serafimov. Over two decades he defended the interests of the Russian colony there.
3
Bogomolova, Daria Konstantinovna. "Serbian-Montenegrin relations and the prospect of the creation of the Balkan Union in 1904-1905". Исторический журнал: научные исследования, n.º 3 (março de 2024): 70–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.7256/2454-0609.2024.3.70835.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The article is devoted to the analysis of the prospects for the creation of the Balkan Union in 1904-1905, the idea of which arose under the influence of the aggravation of the international political situation in connection with the Eastern question, as well as due to the beginning of the Ilinden uprising in Macedonia. This was the first attempt in the twentieth century by young Slavic states to unite and coordinate joint foreign policy goals in the fight against the Ottoman Empire. The main sources of research are the diplomatic documents of the Balkan countries, as well as reports from Russian diplomats, the analysis of which led to the conclusion that the agreements reached during the negotiations between Serbia, Bulgaria and Montenegro, although they did not lead to the final formation of the alliance, still played a major role in the future and formed the basis of the Balkan Union of 1912-1913. They also stressed the role of the Russian Empire as an arbitrator in inter-Balkan relations. The main focus of the article is on analyzing the Serbian-Montenegrin negotiations aimed at concluding a union treaty between the countries and strengthening bilateral relations, which became possible after the change of the ruling dynasty in Serbia. Despite the fact that at first Serbian and Montenegrin politicians highly appreciated the importance of possible agreements, later negotiations failed due to serious disagreements between the parties on the issue of future territorial delimitation in the event of victory over the Ottoman Empire and the inability to work out a compromise text of the treaty. The conducted research made it possible to significantly complement and expand the picture of the Serbian-Montenegrin and inter-Balkan negotiations of 1904-1905 and to conclude that during this period conditions had not yet developed for rapprochement and coordination of foreign policy goals between the Slavic countries of the Balkan peninsula, and the beginning of negotiations on the formation of the Balkan Union was dictated to a greater extent by the temporary aggravation of the situation in connection with the uprising in Macedonia.
4
Piskova, Mariyana. "TRACING THE ARCHIVAL SOURCES OF THE FRENCH FEATURE FILM “ANDRANIK” ABOUT THE ARMENIANS IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR(1928)". History and Archives, n.º 2 (2021): 128–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.28995/2658-6541-2021-2-126-140.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The first and still the only film about Andranik Ozanian (1865– 1927) was shot during the summer of 1928 in Bulgaria. Who financed and created the movie, why did the director Archavir Chakhatouny (1882–1957) choose Bulgaria for the scenes in the open, why wasn’t the film shown in Soviet Armenia and how did it get to Yerevan – those are part of the questions the paper will try to answer. To that end the author searched for the archival documents in the archives and museums of Armenia and Bulgaria. The richest source is the personal fund of the Armenian emigrant in Paris Arshavir Shakhatuni (1882–1957). After his death, the documents were transferred to the Yeghishe Charents Museum of Literature and Arts in Yerevan. Among them, a special place is occupied by biographical documents, documents about theatrical roles and roles in cinema, which he performed, materials about early cinema and the history of the creation of the film “Andranik”. The National Archives of Armenia keeps the documents which detail the participation of Chakhatouny in the First World War and in the government of the First Armenian Republic (1918–1920) as the commandant and chief of police of Yerevan. The most valuable source is the film “Andranik” which was received by the State Archives of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (ASSR) in 1972. During the period, the name of Andranik was banned until the end of the 80s of the 20th century. There was censorship and contradicting assessments of Andranik by Armenians and Azerbaijanis (“hero” or “enemy”) were “concealed”. For this reason, the film might have got into Armenia through the Armenian Society for Friendship and Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries, founded by the resolution of the Communist Party of the ASSR. The official activity of the Society was related to the cultural events abroad but in fact it was used to gather information about the political emigrants. In the Bulgarian archives one may find the archive “traces” of Chakhatouny’s performances on the Bulgarian theatrical scenes and also his correspondence with the actor Georgi Stamatov (1893–1965), that documents contain the valuable data on the history of the film creation. Thanks to the archives, the film ‘Andranik’ can be seen and the story of its creation and distribution in the past century can be reproduced.
5
Vlasenko, V. M. "TO EPISTOLARY BY KOST’ MATSIYEVYCH AND ANDRIY NIKOVSKY IN 1920-1921". Sums'ka Starovyna (Ancient Sumy Land), n.º 60 (2022): 5–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.21272/starovyna.2022.60.1.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
In the published documents (18 letters and 3 telegrams), which are kept in the fund 3696 «The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Ukrainian People's Republic, 1918-1924» in the Central state archive of highest authorities and management of Ukraine, the information is provided about the activities of Ukrainian diplomats Kost’ Matsiyevych and Andriy Nikovsky. At that time the first one headed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Ukrainian People's Republic, the latter was the head of the UPR extraordinary diplomatic mission in Romania. The documents cover the period from April 7, 1920 to November 21, 1921. The sender of 13 letters and 2 telegrams is Kost’ Matsiyevych while the author of 5 letters and 1 telegram is Andriy Nikovsky. The documents concern a wide range of foreign policy issues on the eve and during the first year of the UPR government’s immigration. The most important problems mentioned there include the following items: financing the activities of the UPR government, the Ukrainian delegation at the Prague Peace Conference, the Ukrainian embassy in Turkey, the UPR extraordinary diplomatic mission in Romania, the UPR military mission in Romania; the return of prisoners of war, World War I disabled persons and refugees; negotiations about the joint actions of the UPR army and Wrangel’s “Russian army” against the Bolsheviks; the imposition of the UPR embassy in Bulgaria governor’s duties on Kost’ Matsiyevych; the development of relations with Bulgaria, Poland and Romania, the review of the political and social-economic situation in those countries; the issue of the UPR’s joining the League of Nations, discussing the Ukrainian issue in the League of Nations; the supply of arms and ammunition to Ukraine; the implementation of the cultural diplomacy; ensuring the tour of the Ukrainian republican choir’s headed by O. Koshits; providing the organizational and financial support for the Bessarabian group during the second winter military campaign of the UPR army; termination of the UPR diplomatic mission in Romania activities and its functions transfer to the Civilian assistance of Ukrainian immigration committee.
6
Zakharchenko, Petro. "Russia's sanctions policy in the context of the First World War". Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law, n.º 68 (24 de março de 2022): 9–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2021.68.1.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The article is devoted to the analysis of the sanctions policy of the Russian Empire towards the countries that were its opponents in the First World War. Such states included Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey, which joined forces in the military bloc of the Central Powers to fight the Allies.
The victories of the member states of the Entente bloc were forged not only on the fronts, but also achieved through the partial or complete abolition of trade, financial and economic relations with the countries of the Fourth Bloc. The aim of this paper is to study and comprehend the experience of imposing sanctions by the Russian Empire against states that participated in the war against it during the war of 1914-1918. , which is waging a long-running hybrid war with Ukraine. The article demonstrates an example of an adequate response of state institutions to encroachment on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country. It has been proved that immediately after the start of hostilities, measures were taken against the subjects of the states fighting against Russia to limit their legal capacity and legal capacity. They could be deported both outside the country and outside its individual localities.
These people were allowed to enter Russia only with the permission of the relevant authorities. Merchant ships of countries fighting against Russia, seized in Russian ports, were detained. Merchant ships built for foreign countries were confiscated and converted for military purposes.
Investment policy has also been revised. This is confirmed by the approval by the Russian emperor in 1915 of the Regulations on the Liquidation of Trade Enterprises Belonging to Enemy Citizens, which referred to the liquidation of enterprises and joint-stock companies that co-owned with Russian nationals. It is noteworthy that only those enterprises that operated at the expense of German, Austrian, Hungarian or Turkish investments were subject to liquidation. Other normative legal acts abolished the right of ownership of land of the same group of foreign citizens.
The result of the scientific article was the conclusion that by applying the emergency legislation, the Russian government did everything possible to prevent national security from financing the citizens of those countries that were at war with it.
7
Zarković, Vesna. "Diplomatic activities and meetings between Petar I Karadjordjević and Nikolai II Romanov on the eve of the Balkan wars". Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta u Pristini 51, n.º 4 (2021): 235–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/zrffp51-35362.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The May coup and the change of dynasties in the Kingdom of Serbia brought the state into an unenviable position. The aggressive Austro-Hungarian policy, which endangered Serbian interests, came to the fore. The annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the mood that was present in the diplomatic circles of Austria-Hungary forced the Kingdom of Serbia to become active in the foreign policy field and get closer to Russia. Although there was a need and initiative of politicians in Serbia to organize a meeting between King Petar I Karadjordjević and Russian Tsar Nikolai II Alexandrovich Romanov, this idea did not materialize. Russia was busy in the war with Japan, but after resolving the issue in the East, it became more actively involved in the events in the Balkans. At that time, Russian plans related to San Stefano Bulgaria were an obstacle in the rapprochement between the Kingdom of Serbia and Russia. The ruler of Bulgaria Ferdinand pursued a changing policy that could very easily lead to rapprochement with AustriaHungary. In contrast, relations between Serbia and Austria-Hungary had strained, prompting Serbian diplomats to ask the Russian side for a meeting between the two rulers. The Government of the Kingdom of Serbia received great support from Nikola Hartving, the Russian ambassador to Belgrade who was appointed to this post in 1909. His understanding of Balkan issues coincided with Serbian interests. Thanks to the engagement of the Russian ambassador, but also thanks to Serbian diplomacy, for the first time in 1910, King Petar I Karadjordjević and Tsar Nikolai II met in Petrograd. Along with numerous politicians, the King was accompanied on that trip by Nikola Pašić and Milovan Milovanović, who asked the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Alexandar Petrovich Izvolsky, for support in concluding the Balkan Alliance. At that moment, Izvolsky stated for the first time that injustice had been done to Serbia by the San Stefano Treaty and expressed the need to change it. Such an attitude of Russian diplomacy paved the way for Serbia's reliance on Russia, which represented its support for the creation of a Balkan alliance.
8
Zarković, Vesna. "Visit of King Peter I Karađorđević to Constantinople in 1910". Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta u Pristini 53, n.º 1 (2023): 167–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/zrffp53-41161.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The visit of King Petar I Karađorđević to the Turkish sultan is one of the eight visits in modern Serbian history. Seven meetings of Serbian rulers with sultans took place in Constantinople, except for one that took place in Bulgaria. In the visits made before 1878, the Serbian rulers went as vassals. The meeting between the Serbian king and Sultan Mehmed V Rešad in 1910 was the third in a row since Serbia became an independent state. King Petar I Karađorđević spent the second half of March and the first half of April 1910 travelling. First, he visited Russia, then Constantinople, Mount Athos, and finally Thessaloniki. The trip lasted a little over 24 days, six of which he spent in Constantinople. The Serbian delegation led by the king was warmly received by the sultan, the common people, and the Christian population living in the Turkish capital. Upon their return, the members of the delegation were convinced that Turkey would remain on the path of improving Serbian-Turkish relations, friendly agreement, and strengthening of economic relations. This intention was highlighted in the official statement of the Porte published on the occasion of the visit of the Serbian king. In the announcement, it was expressly emphasized that a complete agreement was reached at the conferences of the foreign ministers of the two countries and that the Turkish side will grant Serbian wishes for strengthening economic and trade relations. It was of great importance for the Kingdom of Serbia to remove the obstacles that existed until that time regarding the construction of the Adriatic railway. In addition, practical results were achieved because Turkish officials expressed their readiness for the greatest possible benefits that would contribute to the export of Serbian goods through Thessaloniki. The visit to Constantinople brought success in the issues regarding religion as well, because after four years of resistance, the Patriarchate and the Synod, just before the king's arrival, accepted the election of the Serb Varnava Rosić as bishop of the Veles-Debar eparchy. The meeting of the two rulers received great attention in the diplomatic circles of European countries, especially Austria-Hungary. The relations between Serbia and the Ottoman Empire, apart from the economic aspect, soon fell into the shadows due to the Albanian riots and rebellions that engulfed the entire Kosovo vilayet. In that case too, the Serbian state tried not to interfere in Turkey's internal affairs.
9
Milchev, Volodymyr, e Viktor Filas. "Ivan Shterev’s memoirs as a source for studying the self-identification of the population living north of the Azov Sea in the 1920s–1930s under conditions of multiculturalism". JOURNAL OF ETHNOLOGY AND CULTUROLOGY 31 (2022): 75–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.52603/rec.2022.31.08.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The article is devoted to the study of the informational content of the records of Ivan Shterev (1910–1989), a native of the Bulgarian village of Inzovka, located in the Northern Azov Sea (Tavria) – “The Shterev family. Autobiographical Memoirs”. Their text shows the main trends in the mutual influences of the main ethnic groups of the region. It makes it possible to study specific manifestations of an antagonistic and complementary nature in interethnic relations and the role of the Sovietization factor of the Bulgarian village in southern Ukraine in the interpenetration of cultures. The influence of the education factor on the formation of foreign and supranational identities among the Bulgarian youth of the region is established. Based on broad empirical material, the penetration of the so-called "new socialist way of life" into the traditional Bulgarian peasant environment is studied: the assimilation of national clothes, forms of leisure, a shift in the emphasis of life strategies. Particular attention is paid to the perception of "strangers" (non-Bulgarians) – the author himself, his relatives and the closest circle. The death of xenophobia and the spread of the ideas of internationalism among the Sovietized youth of the Bulgarian village are shown.
10
Ambartsumyan, Karine, e Lyudmila Velichko. "“...The Time Has Come to Put an End to the Armenian Issue Once and for All”: The Problem of the Armenian Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire in the International Agenda in 1894–1912". Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Serija 4. Istorija. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija, n.º 5 (novembro de 2023): 127–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2023.5.10.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Introduction. The interest in the “Armenian issue” is linked to the current international agenda and the impact of significant historical events on it, such as the genocide of 1915. Methods and materials. The interdisciplinary principle determines the use of traditional historical approaches (historical-genetic and historical-comparative) and international relations theories (defensive realism) simultaneously. The sources contain the published documents and publicism, as well as the archival documents of the Archives of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire and the State Archives of the Russian Federation. Analysis. Starting with the signing of the Berlin Treaty and the introduction of an article into it obliging Ottoman Porte to reform the management of the Armenian population, the inclusion of the “Armenian issue” in the foreign policy agenda of European states began. At the same time, the responsibility for the reforms carried out by the Ottomans was collective, and the leadership of Russia in this matter was considered impossible. Collectivity was the reason for the erosion of responsibility; the Sultan was not actually made to reform. With the beginning of the “Hamid pogroms” in 1894, the “Armenian issue” threatened the balanced position of the powers in relation to the Ottoman Empire and actualized the issue of the Ottoman Porte’s responsibility for reforms in the Armenian vilayets. Obviously, Russia could be the most effective. France, Germany, and Italy initially did not plunge into this problem; in Asian Turkey, the main actors were still Great Britain and Russia. Results. Neither England nor Russia dared to act decisively, but they did not want to give in to each other either. For the British, control of the straits and the dominance of Russia in the Middle East were unacceptable. On the other hand, Russia was afraid to create a “second Bulgaria” near the Caucasian border. Therefore, the “Armenian issue”, complicated by rivalry, went through a cycle on the international agenda, as a result of which Russia returned to dominance in its solution after 1908. The contribution of the authors to the writing of the article is related to the research by L.N. Velichko on European and Ottoman Porte’s policy in resolving the “Armenian issue”, K.R. Ambartsumyan has dealt with the evolution of Russia’s position and explored the factors that influenced its change.
Teses / dissertações sobre o assunto "Foreign relations: Bulgaria, 1913"
1
Zienius, Charles Raymond. "The secret mission of Noel Buxton to Bulgaria, September, 1914-January, 1915 /". Thesis, McGill University, 1997. http://digitool.Library.McGill.CA:80/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=20486.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
This thesis is devoted to an unsuccessful mission to Sofia undertaken in the fall of 1914 by Noel Buxton, a Liberal British M.P., who aimed to win Bulgaria over to the side of the Triple Entente. Although referred to on occasion in works having to do with the conduct of British foreign policy during the First World War, the affair has never before been described in full. Through a close examination of hitherto unexploited material from Buxton's own archive, it has been possible to reconstruct the evolution of the mission, analyze its contemporary significance, and suggest its relevance to current trends towards the moralization and democratization of diplomacy.
2
Nicollet, Charlotte. "Ferdinand Ier de Bulgarie : politique étrangère et diplomatie (1887-1918)". Thesis, Paris 4, 2016. http://www.theses.fr/2016PA040114.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Fondée en 1878 par le traité de San Stefano, mutilée par celui de Berlin, la principauté autonome de Bulgarie voit ses destinées confiées en 1887 à Ferdinand de Saxe-Cobourg et Gotha. Le nouveau knyaz est contraint dès son avènement à imposer sa personne et les ambitions de son pays dans l’arène internationale. Après une lutte de longue haleine pour obtenir la reconnaissance de son titre par le concert européen, il s’évertue à mener les Bulgares vers la réalisation de leurs idéaux nationaux. Il se heurte aux blocages dus aux liens unissant Sofia à Constantinople, à la rivalité des États environnants et aux politiques balkaniques contradictoires des puissances. Le prince aiguise au fil des ans son sens de la diplomatie et déploie une politique extérieure visant à tirer profit à la fois de la position stratégique de son pays et des rivalités des forces en présence, tout en exploitant à bon escient les circonstances successives. Sa politique de bascule aux ressorts progressivement définis est mise en œuvre, et à l’épreuve, au cours des secousses qui rythment les deux premières décennies du XXe siècle. Si elle permet à la Bulgarie d’accéder à l’indépendance, et au statut de royaume, dans le sillage de la crise bosniaque de 1908, ses revers sont patents pendant les Guerres balkaniques et le premier conflit mondial. Pourtant, force est de constater que ses échecs ne sont pas imputables au seul Ferdinand dont l’examen des faits tend à atténuer les responsabilités dans les « Catastrophes nationales », les deux défaites vécues par les Bulgares en 1913 et 1918, conséquences d’un écheveau de causes d’une grande complexitéThe boundaries of an autonomous Bulgarian principality established by the provision of the San Stefano Treaty in 1878 were substantially reduced by the Great Powers at Berlin. Many unresolved problems between Sofia and Saint-Petersburg led to suspension of the bilateral relations and the abdication of Alexander of Battenberg. Ferdinand of Saxe-Cobourg and Gotha was elected Prince in 1887. After a “controversial” accession to the Bulgarian throne, the young knyaz was committed to impose himself and his country’s national interests to the international scene. After a long-term efforts aimed at recognition of his title of king amongst European chancelleries, he tried hard to realise Bulgarian national ideas. However, it undermined relationship between Sofia and Constantinople but also contributed to the rivalry between surrounding States and the Great Powers in the Balkans. Due to his diplomatic experience, Ferdinand opted for a new foreign policy strategy designed to benefit both from the Bulgaria’s strategic position and the rivalry between powers. Thus, the first two decades of the 20th century were marked by the tumult of Balkan politics. However, it allowed Bulgaria to gain independence, the status of the Kingdom in the wake of the Bosnian crisis in 1908, and the defeats during the Balkan Wars and the First World War. The defeats are not attributable entirely to Ferdinand who was the most responsible for the “National Catastrophes” in 1913 and 1918. This research has shown that fact-based analysis provides a more nuanced picture of Ferdinand’s reign which was effected by a complexity of contributing factors that inevitably plunged the country into international isolation and defeat in the Great War
3
Nicollet, Charlotte. "Ferdinand Ier de Bulgarie : politique étrangère et diplomatie (1887-1918)". Electronic Thesis or Diss., Paris 4, 2016. http://www.theses.fr/2016PA040114.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Fondée en 1878 par le traité de San Stefano, mutilée par celui de Berlin, la principauté autonome de Bulgarie voit ses destinées confiées en 1887 à Ferdinand de Saxe-Cobourg et Gotha. Le nouveau knyaz est contraint dès son avènement à imposer sa personne et les ambitions de son pays dans l’arène internationale. Après une lutte de longue haleine pour obtenir la reconnaissance de son titre par le concert européen, il s’évertue à mener les Bulgares vers la réalisation de leurs idéaux nationaux. Il se heurte aux blocages dus aux liens unissant Sofia à Constantinople, à la rivalité des États environnants et aux politiques balkaniques contradictoires des puissances. Le prince aiguise au fil des ans son sens de la diplomatie et déploie une politique extérieure visant à tirer profit à la fois de la position stratégique de son pays et des rivalités des forces en présence, tout en exploitant à bon escient les circonstances successives. Sa politique de bascule aux ressorts progressivement définis est mise en œuvre, et à l’épreuve, au cours des secousses qui rythment les deux premières décennies du XXe siècle. Si elle permet à la Bulgarie d’accéder à l’indépendance, et au statut de royaume, dans le sillage de la crise bosniaque de 1908, ses revers sont patents pendant les Guerres balkaniques et le premier conflit mondial. Pourtant, force est de constater que ses échecs ne sont pas imputables au seul Ferdinand dont l’examen des faits tend à atténuer les responsabilités dans les « Catastrophes nationales », les deux défaites vécues par les Bulgares en 1913 et 1918, conséquences d’un écheveau de causes d’une grande complexitéThe boundaries of an autonomous Bulgarian principality established by the provision of the San Stefano Treaty in 1878 were substantially reduced by the Great Powers at Berlin. Many unresolved problems between Sofia and Saint-Petersburg led to suspension of the bilateral relations and the abdication of Alexander of Battenberg. Ferdinand of Saxe-Cobourg and Gotha was elected Prince in 1887. After a “controversial” accession to the Bulgarian throne, the young knyaz was committed to impose himself and his country’s national interests to the international scene. After a long-term efforts aimed at recognition of his title of king amongst European chancelleries, he tried hard to realise Bulgarian national ideas. However, it undermined relationship between Sofia and Constantinople but also contributed to the rivalry between surrounding States and the Great Powers in the Balkans. Due to his diplomatic experience, Ferdinand opted for a new foreign policy strategy designed to benefit both from the Bulgaria’s strategic position and the rivalry between powers. Thus, the first two decades of the 20th century were marked by the tumult of Balkan politics. However, it allowed Bulgaria to gain independence, the status of the Kingdom in the wake of the Bosnian crisis in 1908, and the defeats during the Balkan Wars and the First World War. The defeats are not attributable entirely to Ferdinand who was the most responsible for the “National Catastrophes” in 1913 and 1918. This research has shown that fact-based analysis provides a more nuanced picture of Ferdinand’s reign which was effected by a complexity of contributing factors that inevitably plunged the country into international isolation and defeat in the Great War
4
Hall, Richard Cooper. "The crisis in Bulgarian foreign policy 1911-1913 /". The Ohio State University, 1986. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1487266011222511.
Texto completo da fonte
5
Marinov, Marin kandidat na i︠u︡ridicheskite nauki. "Foreign direct investment in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary : a comparative study of the current legislation". Thesis, McGill University, 1994. http://digitool.Library.McGill.CA:80/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=26212.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The author's goal is to illuminate the current business legislation in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) through a comparison of three countries from the region, namely, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary.The present study is divided into four parts. The first part states the thesis itself, the goals, and the structure of the discussion.
The second part provides the basic premises of the analysis, with emphasis on the current data on foreign investment in the three countries.
The third part presents the core of the comparative study and deals with the following issues: basic foreign investment laws, including corporate laws, property rights of foreign persons, currency regimes. Among other important aspects, attention is paid to the following subjects: general treatment of FDI, foreign investment in corporate capital, branches of transnational corporations, forms of FDI, special procedures for banking and insurance, closed sectors for FDI, financing of investment, incentives of FDI, domestic and international guarantees for FDI etc. The set of criteria used to assess the compared legislation focuses primarily on the essential features of that legislation. This narrow approach is expedient in terms of the huge area that relates to foreign investment.
The final part uses the findings of the comparative study of the relevant legislation in order to determine the reasons for the lagging interest of foreign investors in Bulgaria. These reasons are found not to be due to any deep-seated differences in the pertinent legislation, but rather to some other factors, such as historical, socio-cultural, and geopolitical.
The law in the present work is stated as of 1 January 1994. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
6
Mounts, Lauren. "To Intervene or Not to Intervene: An Analysis of American Foreign Policy in Modern Humanitarian Crises". Scholarship @ Claremont, 2018. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/1913.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
This thesis seeks to identify the factors necessary to drive the United States to intervene in a humanitarian crisis. While some scholars have argued that humanitarianism in and of itself is a sufficient reason for an armed military intervention – I challenge this assumption and argue that while the United States can exhibit humanitarian impulses at times, that there are very observable limitations to these impulses. I argue that while humanitarianism can be a factor in the decision to intervene, that ultimately either national interest or another domestic political channel must also fervently push for intervention in order for action to occur. In testing my hypothesis, I examine American foreign policy in four modern humanitarian crises – Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Syria.
7
Filipova, Rumena Valentinova. "The differential Europeanisation of Central and Eastern Europe, 1989-2000 : a constructivist study of the foreign policy identities of Poland, Bulgaria and Russia". Thesis, University of Oxford, 2018. http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:430c07fc-8979-4ce0-9340-f20ac9c3c30a.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The thesis addresses the puzzle of the differential integration of former communist states in the Euro-Atlantic community of nations between 1989 and 2000. Notwithstanding the predominant universalist-rationalist assumption that the adoption of an institutional-administrative blueprint for reform could lead to convergence between East and West, countries such as Poland, Bulgaria and Russia did not converge similarly (or at all) on the West European normative model and framework of international relations. To account for this divergence, the thesis examines the impact of the culturally-historically informed, Polish, Bulgarian and Russian identities and conceptions of 'Europe' (as opposed to the formal-institutional transition from one system to another) on the process of foreign policy transformation. The doctoral research employs Constructivism, Social Psychological insights and an interpretivist methodology, drawing on 75 elite interviews. The main argument states that differential Europeanisation can be understood on the basis of differentiated levels of inclusion and establishment of relations of mutual recognition and belongingness - substantiated by a differentiated extent of ideational affinity (i.e., normative compatibility), which are (re)enacted in the interactive, mutually constitutive process of identification between Self and Other (i.e., between Poland, Bulgaria and Russia and (Western) Europe). Three propositions of 'thick', 'ambivalent' and 'thin' Europeanisation are derived from the argument (whereby the comparative benchmark of Europeanisation is an ideal-typical model of European-ness). Key contributions focus on the development of a refined Constructivist theory and a systematic empirical comparison of Polish, Bulgarian and Russian foreign policy identities. Also, the study's conclusions reinvigorate and reconfirm the importance of the continuity (rather than just constant flux) of culturally-historically shaped patterns of group self-understandings and sub-regional identifications as well as Constructivism's greater plausibility in accounting for the research puzzle than (Neoclassical) Realism through the stipulation of a mutually constitutive relationship between international and domestic factors and between ideational and interest-based considerations.
8
Rowlands, David T. (David Thomas). "Democracy, American nationalism and Woodrow Wilson's search for identity". Thesis, Department of History, 1999. http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5790.
Texto completo da fonte
9
WIEN, Markus. "Markt und Modernisierung : deutsch-bulgarische Wirtschaftsbeziehungen 1918-1944 in ihren konzeptionellen Grundlagen". Doctoral thesis, 2005. http://hdl.handle.net/1814/6016.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Defence date: 29 April 2005Examining Board: Prof. Dr. Peter Bartl, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München ; Prof. Dr. Peter Becker, European University Institute ; Prof. Dr. Georgi Markov, Bălgarska Akademia na Naukite, Sofia ; Prof. Alan S. Milward, Cabinet Office London (Supervisor)
First made available online 7 December 2016
10
Tassev, Valentin Valentinov. "The domestic political implications of Bulgaria's membership of the European Union (EU) with special reference to citizenship, identity and future relations with the EU". Thesis, 2011. http://hdl.handle.net/10210/3839.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
M.A.The aim of this dissertation is to illuminate critically the political implications of Bulgaria’s membership of the European Union (EU) from a domestic perspective. In particular, this research paper will focus on the political implications of Bulgaria’s EU membership with regard to citizenship, identity and the development of Bulgaria’s future relationship with the EU. This research paper will be explained by the theoretical tradition of the multi-level governance approach, which assumes the involvement of multiple levels of governance (supra-national, national and sub-national) in the process of European integration.
Livros sobre o assunto "Foreign relations: Bulgaria, 1913"
1
Toshkova, Vitka. SAShT i Bulgarii︠a︡ 1919-1989: Politicheski otnoshenii︠a︡ = USA and Bulgaria 1919-1989 : political relations. Sofii︠a︡: IK "Sineva", 2007.
Encontre o texto completo da fonte
2
Rubacha, Jaroslaw. Bulgarski sen o Bizancjum: Polityka zagraniczna Bulgarii w latach 1878-1913. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo "Neriton", 2004.
Encontre o texto completo da fonte
3
Vŭlo, Ivanov. Zashtitata na Velikata oktomvriĭska sot͡s︡ialisticheska revoli͡u︡t͡s︡ii͡a︡ v Narodnoto sŭbranie, 1917-1944 g. Sofii͡a︡: Izd-vo na Otechestvenii͡a︡ front, 1987.
Encontre o texto completo da fonte
4
Friedrich, Wolfgang-Uwe. Bulgarien und die Mächte 1913-1915: Ein Beitrag zur Weltkriegs- und Imperialismusgeschichte. Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden, 1985.
Encontre o texto completo da fonte
5
Basciani, Alberto. Un conflitto balcanico: La contesa fra Bulgaria e Romania in Dobrugia del Sud, 1918-1940. Cosenza: Periferia, 2001.
Encontre o texto completo da fonte
6
Basciani, Alberto. Un conflitto balcanico: La contesa fra Bulgaria e Romania in Dobrugia del Sud, 1918-1940. Cosenza: Periferia, 2001.
Encontre o texto completo da fonte
7
Petkov, Petko M. The United States and Bulgaria in World War I. Boulder: East European Monographs, 1991.
Encontre o texto completo da fonte
8
Yılmaz, Ayçe Feride. A mouthpiece for the Ottoman Empire: The Balkan Gazette in Bulgaria, 1910-1911. İstanbul: Libra Kitap, 2020.
Encontre o texto completo da fonte
9
Grozev, Kostadin. 100 godini diplomaticheski otnoshenii︠a︡ mezhdu Bŭlgarii︠a︡ i Sŭedinenite Shtati: 1903-2003 = 100 years of diplomatic relations between Bulgaria and the United States. Sofii︠a︡: Posolstvo na SASht v Bŭlgarii︠a︡, 2003.
Encontre o texto completo da fonte
10
Wien, Markus. Markt und Modernisierung: Deutsch-bulgarische Wirtschaftsbeziehungen 1918-1944 in ihren konzeptionellen Grundlagen. München: R. Oldenbourg, 2007.
Encontre o texto completo da fonteCapítulos de livros sobre o assunto "Foreign relations: Bulgaria, 1913"
1
Danchenko, Svetlana. "Excerpts on the history of international scientific cooperation of the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. How fundamental publications of documents were created". In Slavs and Russia: Historical Slavic Studies and Balkanistics. To the 75th anniversary of the foundation of the Institute of Slavic Studies, 199–238. Institute of Slavic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.31168/2618-8570.2023.10.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The author devoted her research to an important stage in the history of the Institute of Slavic Studies - the emergence and development of international scientific cooperation in the 1950s and 1980s, in which not only domestic scientists were interested, but also their foreign colleagues, that is fellow historians of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The result of their many years of joint activity during the period under review were reflected in fundamental academic works, namely publications of documents: “Osvobozhdenie Bolgarii ot tureczkogo iga” (T. I-III. M., 1961-1967) ( Liberation of Bulgaria from the Turkish yoke ), “Zarubezhny`e slavyane i Rossiya. Dokumenty` arxiva M.F. Raevskogo. 40-80 gody` XIX veka” (M., 1975) ( Foreign Slavs and Russia. Dokuments from the archive of M.F. Rayevsky, 1840s-1880s ), “Jugosloveni i Rusija. Dokumenti iz arxiva M.F. Rajevskog. 40-80. godine XIX veka” (Beograd, 1989) ( South Slavs and Russia, documents of the archive of M.F. Rayevsky, 1840s-1880s ), “Pervoe serbskoe vosstanie 1804-1813 gg. i Rossiya” (Kn. 1-2. M., 1980-1983) ( The First Serbian Uprising, 1804-1813, and Russia ). They have not lost their scientific significance even decades after their publication. The study highlights the great merits of the authors' collectives of Slavic studies historians led by Professor S.A. Nikitin and employees of the national archives in the preparation and publication of the abovementioned works, which deserved to be highly appreciated by the scientific community in the USSR and abroad. The author emphasises that new generations of Slavists and Balkanists who study Russian-Balkan relations in the 19th century are constantly turning to them, and apply invaluable experience of the participants in these projects in their scientific publishing activities.
2
Lewis, Robert. "Foreign economic relations". In The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union, 1913–1945, 198–215. Cambridge University Press, 1993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139170680.012.
Texto completo da fonte
3
"Conclusion: The 1865–1913 Era Restated". In The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations, 234–39. Cambridge University Press, 1993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/chol9780521381857.012.
Texto completo da fonte
4
"The 1865–1913 Era Restated". In The New Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations, 223–28. Cambridge University Press, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139015677.013.
Texto completo da fonte
5
Dawson, William Harbutt. "(1906–1913) Foreign Relations—(iii) The Triple Entente". In The German Empire 1867–1914, 431–79. Routledge, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351059916-11.
Texto completo da fonte
6
Dawson, William Harbutt. "(1913–1914) Foreign Relations—(iv) The Latter Days". In The German Empire 1867–1914, 480–502. Routledge, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351059916-12.
Texto completo da fonte
7
"Constitutional Law and the Policy of Foreign Relations (1860)". In T.M.C. Asser (1838-1913) (2 vols.), 275–320. Brill | Nijhoff, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004397972_012.
Texto completo da fonte
8
Noam, Eli. "Turkey". In Telecommunications in Europe, 267–69. Oxford University PressNew York, NY, 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195070521.003.0025.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Abstract Telephone service began in Turkey in 1881 with lines connecting various post offices, government buildings, and banking branches. In 1909, a more complete network was created in Istanbul. In 1913, three government exchanges were established, followed by an exchange operated by a foreign company. International telephony was established during World War I, with service to Germany, Turkey’s ally. After the war, international service was interrupted until 1931, when service to Sofia, Bulgaria, was reopened.
9
Gusev, Nikita. "Russian volunteers in Bulgaria during the Balkan Wars of 1912–1913: the main categories, features of behavior and perception by contemporaries". In Topics of the history of the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe in the 19th–21st centuries, 77–94. Institute of Slavic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.31168/7576-0495-4.04.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
In 1912, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Montenegro opposed the Ottoman Empire. This stirred up Russian society, which felt overwhelming sympathy for the southern Slavs. This was demonstrated, among others, by sending Russian volunteers to the Balkans and Bulgaria, in particular. This article analyzes the staff composition of Russian volunteers. Among them were career officers, most of whom were then awarded state awards. Pilots, whose relations with colleagues were difficult, were detached from the other groups and one of them was captured. Most of all, of course, there were civilians of various professions, including out-spoken adventurers and high school students. Russian (GARF, RGVIA) and Bulgarian (CDA) archives, memoirs of contemporaries and press publications are used in an attempt to outline the features of the Russian volunteer movement in Bulgaria during the Balkan Wars, provide information about the behaviour of Russian volunteers, their bravery, as well as rare cases of their unscrupulous behaviour.
10
Piffer, Tommaso. "Civil War and Liberation in the Balkans". In The Big Three Allies and the European Resistance, 167–93. Oxford University PressOxford, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826347.003.0008.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Abstract In 1944 the Balkans remained a fraught arena for politics and diplomacy. For Moscow, the new situations presented risks which were as great as the related opportunities. The aggressive stance adopted by the Communist Party of Greece might potentially cause a clash with the Western Allies. In Yugoslavia, the Soviets had scored an important point when Churchill shifted British support from Mihailović to Tito, but there too the game was far from over. On the one hand, Molotov and Stalin were determined that Tito’s increasing hold over the country did not appear to be orchestrated by Moscow. On the other, they had to adapt to the reality of a new communist state in the making. Relations and directives to the Bulgarian and Albanian communist parties needed to be reshaped accordingly. The British were in a complicated situation as well. SOE and the Foreign Office had successfully thwarted the US attempt to impose their presence upon the theatre. Starting from September 1943, OSS agents were infiltrated into Yugoslavia, Greece, and Albania, but remained subordinated to their British colleagues. In Yugoslavia, the Western Allies badly miscalculated Tito’s intentions and there, as well as in Albania, the communists established regimes that would last for decades to come. Mihailović was captured by the communists and executed as a collaborator in 1946. In Greece, the British were able to bring back the legitimate government only at the price of a bloody civil war that had grave consequences for the life of the country.
Trabalhos de conferências sobre o assunto "Foreign relations: Bulgaria, 1913"
1
Ungureanu, George Daniel. "Romania, Bulgaria and the Dobrujan issue in the first year of the Great War". In 8th International e-Conference on Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences. Center for Open Access in Science, Belgrade, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.32591/coas.e-conf.08.08105u.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
The problem of the Dobrujan land frontier between the Bulgarian and Romanian national states, which officially came up after the San Stefano and Berlin (1878) peace treaties and was aggravated by the Peace of Bucharest (1913), dominated the bilateral relations for a few decades. The hereby study focuses on the period August 1914 – September 1915, when both South-Eastern European states were neutral towards the Great War. This context led to various proposals, projects and scenarios concerning the Romanian-Bulgarian relations and implicitly related to the fate of Dobruja. Our effort deals with three levels: the positions of the Great Powers, their relations with Bucharest and Sofia, and the direct relations between the two South-Eastern European states. Chronologically, this period is divided into several stages, marked by the Ottoman Empire’s entry in the war (1 November 1914), the deadlock of the negotiations between Bulgaria and the Entente (March 1915), Italy’s option to renounce neutrality (23 May 1915) and the onset of the final talks concerning Bulgaria’s option to join the Central Powers (July 1915). Among the most relevant sources, we need to mention the Romanian Military Archives from Piteşti and the works of synthesis written by the Bulgarian historians Georgi Markov, Ivan Ilčev and Žeko Popov, dealing with the period 1913-1919.
2
Ardıl, Cemal. "Turkey - Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization: Foreign Trade Relations during the 1996-2012 Period". In International Conference on Eurasian Economies. Eurasian Economists Association, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.36880/c04.00661.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
This paper presents the regional economic relations between Turkey and Black See Economic Cooperation Organization (BSEC). The Heads of State and Government of eleven countries: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine signed the Summit Declaration and the Bosphorus Statement giving birth to the Black Sea Economic Cooperation on 25 June 1992, in Istanbul. On 5 June 1998, the Heads of State or Government signed the BSEC Charter, came into force on 1 May 1999 BSEC has evolved into an international regional organization for economic cooperation. The organization has 12 members since Serbia joining the organization in 2004. It came into existence as a unique and promising model of multilateral political and economic initiative aimed at fostering interaction and harmony among the Member States, as well as to ensure peace, stability and prosperity encouraging friendly and good-neighbourly relations in the Black Sea region. Countries bordering the Black Sea, Balkan and Caucasus formed the BSEC countries cover an area of approximately 20 million square kilometer and represent more than 350 million people. The region with the foreign trade volume of U.S. $ 300 billion per year draws attention to the rich natural resources; and is the main European energy and transport corridor transfer. The Black Sea region is a contested neighbourhood and the subject of intense debates and conflicts in the globe. Also, this reflects the changing dynamics of the Black Sea region, its complex realities, the interests of outsiders and the region’s relations with the rest of the globe. Moreover, its strategic position, linking north to south and east to west, as well as its oil, gas, transport and trade routes are all important reasons for its increasing relevance. Turkey's foreign trade volume with BSEC member countries is steadily increasing as per the findings over the period of 1996-2012.
3
Georgieva, Teodora. "THE HISTORY OF THE DUBROVNIK AND BRASOV TRADING ON BULGARIAN LANDS, ACCORDING TO THE CYRILLIC SOURCES (13TH–14TH C.)". In THE PATH OF CYRIL AND METHODIUS – SPATIAL AND CULTURAL HISTORICAL DIMENSIONS. Cyrillo-Methodian Research Centre – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.59076/2815-3855.2023.33.20.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
From the end of 12th c. and the first half of 13th century, the Dubrovnik merchants steadily directed their economic interests to the inland of the Balkan Peninsula and purposefully developed overland trade. With the Dubrovnik charter (1230), the agricultural relations between the Bulgarian State and Ragusa were officially granted regulation. The relationship between Bulgarian and Dubrovnik had grown even in the 352 50s of the 13th century, under the reign of Michael II Asen. Trade-Economical and political contacts found their way into the newly written official document on the 15th of June 1253. This act established the release of paying kommerkion, which income to the fisc would be considered high. This way rights of the Bulgarian representatives were regulated, realizing trading on the land of Ragusa. Shown bilateral relations between Bulgaria and Dubrovnik reflect political and economic processes occurring in the Balkans during the first half of the 13th century. The amplified participation of foreign merchants, firstly the people from Dubrovnik then continued with people from Venice and Genoa, allowed the Bulgarian country to join in on the international trade. The said liveliness in the trade gave decent economic growth for the country and generated said financial resources. The relationship between the two countries continued for a hundred more years, especially with the Vidin kingdom of Joan Stratsimir. Vidin acted as a bridge linking Ragusa with Wallachia, which enabled them to participate in international trade. Mentioning the Vidin kingdom and the activity of the trading, this inevitably points to the Brasov charter, issued by Joan Stratsimir. This document represents a reporting message to the notables of Brasov city (Kronstadt), informing the citizens to roam and trade freely in the lands ruled by Joan Stratsimir. The review of these Cyrillic sources, like the Dobrovnik charter, the contract from 1253 and the document in favour of the citizens of Brasov, indicates that the Bulgarian lands actively participated in the trading. The more foreign representatives there were, it required regulations on the exchange. From the available documents, we know that legal relations were realized with the people from Dubrovnik, Venice and Genoa and citizens of Brasov. Considering the documents, they serve as facts of the entry of the exchange in the legal frameworks of the Bulgarian country, also the relations with foreign countries and the economic development during the 13th–14th c. period.
4
Karluk, S. Rıdvan. "EU Enlargement to the Balkans: Membership Perspective to the Balkan Countries". In International Conference on Eurasian Economies. Eurasian Economists Association, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.36880/c05.01163.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
After the dispersion of the Soviet Union, the European Union embarked upon an intense relationship with the Central and Eastern European Countries. The transition into capital market and democratization of these countries had been supported by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs at the beginning of 1989 before the collapse of the Soviet Union System. The European Agreements were signed between the EU and Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia on December 16th, 1991. 10 Central and Eastern Europe Countries became the members of the EU on May 1st, 2004. With the accession of Bulgaria and Romania into the EU on January 1st, 2007, the number of the EU member countries reached up to 27, and finally extending to 28 with the membership of Croatia to the EU on July 1st, 2013. Removing the Western Balkan States, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, and Bosnia and Herzegovina from the scope of external relations, the EU included these countries in the enlargement process in 2005.The European Commission has determined 2014 enlargement policy priorities as dealing with the fundamentals on preferential basis. In this context, the developments in the Balkans will be closely monitored within the scope of a new approach giving priority to the superiority of law. The enlargement process of the EU towards the Balkans and whether or not the Western Balkan States will join the Union will be analyzed.
Relatórios de organizações sobre o assunto "Foreign relations: Bulgaria, 1913"
1
Cvijić, Srdjan, Nikola Dimitrov, Leposava Ognjanoska Stavrovska e Ivana Ranković. Bilateral Disputes and EU enlargement: A Consensual Divorce. Belgrade Centre for Security Policy, maio de 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.55042/xubk6023.
Texto completo da fonteResumo:
Bilateral disputes between European Union member states and candidate countries are one of the key obstacles to EU enlargement. They have been plaguing the EU accession process ever since the breakup of Yugoslavia and the subsequent border dispute between EU member Slovenia and candidate country Croatia which then ensued. More recently we have the case of North Macedonia. It became a candidate country in 2005 but ever since, its accession negotiations have been bogged down by endless bilateral disputes. While the case of North Macedonia and its decades long conflicts with Greece and Bulgaria are the most well-known of such cases, they are not the only ones. In a seminal 2018 publication the Balkans in Europe Policy Advisory Group (BIEPAG) outlined the most prominent “open” or “latent” disputes between EU member states and candidate countries in the Western Balkans. Ranging from border to territorial disputes, or ones concerning the status of national minorities, four out of five candidate countries in the region – Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia or Serbia, has a bilateral dispute with one or more EU member states. If you look at new candidates Ukraine and Moldova and potential candidate Georgia however, the list of active or potential bilateral disputes is even longer. Even when a candidate country meets the criteria to progress in EU accession talks, bilateral disputes can delay it for years or even decades as in the case of North Macedonia. In this way such disputes present a serious challenge to the credibility of the EU enlargement process. In the context of the war in Ukraine, as we have seen with regard to the policies of Viktor Orbán’s Hungary towards Ukraine, invoking bilateral disputes can seriously challenge the geopolitical orientation and the security of the entire Union. On the legal side, since most of these issues fall outside the scope of the EU law and are not covered by the accession criteria, there is a need to think of an institutional mechanism to deal with bilateral disputes. Enlargement policy does not offer an appropriate platform for settlement of bilateral disputes, especially for those that fall outside the EU law. Hence, these issues should be addressed via the international legal dispute resolution toolbox and thus be subjects of separate processes. The EU’s role however cannot be passive. It should invest efforts in these processes in order for them to be mutually reinforcing and so that the accession process has a mollifying rather than tension amplifying effect on the issue. In its policy brief, published at the end of 2023, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) proposed updating the Copenhagen criteria such that they should include a stipulation to resolve bilateral issues between member states and candidate countries through external dispute resolution mechanisms: Territorial disputes should be referred to arbitration or the International Court of Justice, while those on minority rights should be dealt with by the European Court of Human Rights and other appropriate dispute settlement mechanisms. In this policy brief we suggest ways how to operationalise this proposal. First, we describe different types of vertical bilateral disputes (the ones that include asymmetrical relations) between EU members and Western Balkan candidate countries, then we outline international mechanisms to resolve them, and finally we propose an institutional architecture to remove bilateral disputes that fall outside of the scope of the Copenhagen criteria and the EU acquis from the purview of EU accession talks.