-
Democratization Through Convergence: External Factors in Political Transition in Eastern Europe
Issue:
Volume 2, Issue 2, June 2019
Pages:
32-38
Received:
17 April 2019
Accepted:
3 June 2019
Published:
9 July 2019
Abstract: The ways post-communist countries develop are fundamentally different. The democratic transition that began in these countries almost simultaneously resulted in the formation of various political regimes in the post-communist space after more than 25 years of transformation - from consolidated democracies in Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltics, to openly autocratic political regimes in Asian republics, Belarus and Russia. Some authors believe that it is the "distance to Brussels" that determines the level of democracy development in post-communist countries. But the "distance to Moscow" determines political transition too. That is, the depth of integration with Brussels, on the one hand, and Moscow, on the other, determines the quality of a political regime. All this gives grounds for the hypothesis that convergence can both stimulate democratization processes and cause their regression. So, my research sought to addresses such questions: What impact did external factors in their politics? Why convergence processes are so important for democratic transition post-communist countries of East Europe? What factors explain patterns and differences? The author pays attention to the nature of exogenous influences in the East Europe countries, which are located between two centers of power - big geopolitical players - the EU and Russia. Also, author analyzes the impact of convergence process on political transition in Ukraine as very specific case of political transition.
Abstract: The ways post-communist countries develop are fundamentally different. The democratic transition that began in these countries almost simultaneously resulted in the formation of various political regimes in the post-communist space after more than 25 years of transformation - from consolidated democracies in Central and Eastern Europe and the Balti...
Show More
-
A Better Place to Be: Republicanism and the Liberal Democracy Index
Issue:
Volume 2, Issue 2, June 2019
Pages:
39-49
Received:
2 March 2019
Accepted:
11 April 2019
Published:
15 July 2019
Abstract: There are no indices of democracy that explicitly are based upon the concept of liberal democracy. Moreover, the political-theoretical concept of republicanism has never been incorporated into any indices of democracy. As a result, there is a disconnect between comparative Politics and Political theory when it comes to the empirical study of democracies. In this article, I discuss the creation of a liberal democracy index, which incorporates both the concept of liberal democracy and that of republicanism into evaluating and categorizing modern political regimes. I look at all sovereign states, both democracies and non-democracies and ultimately categorize all modern political regimes into seven categories, the highest of which is liberal democracy. There are some surprises in the findings in this study. For one thing, France is not a liberal democracy. On the other hand, Nicaragua is not a dictatorship. Only 49 sovereign states are dictatorships. Many states are democracies or republics but not both. The Liberal Democratic Index has the advantage of other indices in explicitly using liberal democracy and republicanism as its conceptual anchors. Instead of using a ranking system, which tends to subjective, this index uses a more objective categorical classification system. This index is much more in keeping with traditional political theory than are the other indices.
Abstract: There are no indices of democracy that explicitly are based upon the concept of liberal democracy. Moreover, the political-theoretical concept of republicanism has never been incorporated into any indices of democracy. As a result, there is a disconnect between comparative Politics and Political theory when it comes to the empirical study of democr...
Show More
-
Legality of the Prespa Agreement Between Macedonia and Greece
Issue:
Volume 2, Issue 2, June 2019
Pages:
50-59
Received:
14 July 2019
Accepted:
21 August 2019
Published:
5 September 2019
Abstract: In the present article we examine the legality of the Prespa Agreement, concluded on June 17, 2018, between Macedonia and Greece aiming at resolving their difference over the name of Macedonia. The analysis of the legal validity of Prespa Agreement is carried out by examining the legal basis of United Nations Security Council Resolution 817 (1993) recommending the admission of Macedonia to UN membership but imposing on the applicant a provisional name (pending the settlement of difference over the applicant’s name), its legal consistence with the provisions of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) and legality with the general jus cogens norms of International Law enshrined in the UN Charter. It is demonstrated that the UN SC Res.817 (1993) is by itself an ultra vires act and cannot serve as a legal basis for the Prespa Agreement (ex injuria jus not oritur), that the Prespa Agreement violates the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) and the peremptory norms of International Law, particularly the principle of self-determination and enters into legal matters that belong stricto sensu to the domain of domestic jurisdiction of Macedonia. For these reasons the Prespa Agreement cannot be considered a legally valid treaty and, consequently, it is null and void.
Abstract: In the present article we examine the legality of the Prespa Agreement, concluded on June 17, 2018, between Macedonia and Greece aiming at resolving their difference over the name of Macedonia. The analysis of the legal validity of Prespa Agreement is carried out by examining the legal basis of United Nations Security Council Resolution 817 (1993) ...
Show More
