Translate this page:
Nota Bene. Books, journals, publishing technologies.
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate ☒
Library
 Your profile
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Back to contents

Law and Politics
Reference:

Kalinin, E.A. Foreign political approaches of the US and the EU to the post-Soviet states within the context of international law.

Abstract: The article is devoted to the key methods and means of lobbying of national and state interests of the states of the Western civilization type, namely the USA and the EU, as applied to the post-Soviet states. The author analyzes the priority foreign policy approaches of the EU and the US from the point of view of their consistency with the basic norms of international law. The author pays attention to the lower role of the UN, as well as to the formation of the NATO – centric system, which might be able to provide a more fl exible approach to protection of foreign political and strategic interests of these states. Study of such approaches shall allow Russia to improve its own foreign policy in order to make it more just and symmetrical to the global architecture.

Keywords:

jurisprudence, NATO, international law, the EU, the UN, Colored Revolutions, Humanitarian interventions, post-Soviet states, the USA, foreign policy.

This article is unavailable for unregistered users. Click to login or register

References
1. A Secure Europe in a Better World. European Security Strategy. Adopted at the European Council meeting in Brussels,
2. December 12, 2003. P. 1, 7. (http://ue.eu.int/solana/docs/031208ESSIIEN.pdf).
3. Bacevich A.J. New Rome, New Jerusalem // The Imperial Tense. Prospects and problems of American Empire. Chicago.
4. 2003. R. 94.
5. Darnton J. Union, but Not Unanimity, as Europe’s East Joins West // The New York Times. March 11. 2004.
6. Dobbins J. Friends again? // Friends again? EU-US relations after the crisis / Ed. by M. Zaborowski. Paris. 2006. P.
7. 26-27.
8. Indstrom G. EU-US burdensharing: who does what? // Chaillot Papers. 2005. ¹ 82.
9. Kagan R. America’s Crisis of Legitimacy // Foreign Affairs. March/April 2004.
10. Kagan R. Power and Weakness // Policy Review. June/July 2002. ¹ 113.
11. Lindley-French J. The ties that bind // NATO Review. Autumn 2003. ht tp://www.nato.
12. int/docu/review/2003/issue3/english/art2_pr.html.
13. Marks S. Empire’s law // Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. 2003. Vol. 10. ¹ 5.
14. Mattei U. A theory of imperial law: a study on U.S. hegemony and the Latin resistance // Indiana Journal of Global
15. Legal Studies. 2003. Vol. 10. ¹ 5.
16. Patten Ch. The European Union and the World // Europe in the New Century, Visions of an Emerging Superpower /
17. Ed. by R. Guttman. London. 2001.
18. Rice C. Promoting the national interest // Foreign Affairs, 2000, v. 79, ¹ 1, January/February
19. The National security strategy of the United States of America. The White House. Washington. September. 2002;
20. The National security strategy of the United States of America. The White House. Washington. March. 2006.
21. Bzhezinskii Z. Velikaya shakhmatnaya doska. Gospodstvo Ameriki i ego geostrategicheskie imperativy. M.
22. Mezhdunar. otnosheniya, 1998.
23. Bzhezinskii Z. Velikaya shakhmatnaya doska. Gospodstvo Ameriki i ego geostrategicheskie imperativy. M. 1999.
24. Butorina O.V. Mezhdunarodnye valyuty: integratsiya i konkurentsiya. M. Delovaya literatura. 2003.
25. Deklaratsiya OON ot 18 noyabrya 1987 g. «Ob usilenii effektivnosti printsipa otkaza ot ugrozy siloi ili ee
26. primeneniya v mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniyakh». Deistvuyushchee mezhdunarodnoe pravo.
27. Deklaratsiya o sovershenstvovanii sotrudnichestva mezhdu Organizatsiei Ob''edinennykh Natsii i regional'nymi
28. soglasheniyami ili organami v oblasti podderzhaniya mezhdunarodnogo mira i bezopasnosti (Prinyata 9 dekabrya
29. 1994 g. Rezolyutsiei 49/57 na 49-oi sessii General'noi Assamblei OON). Deistvuyushchee mezhdunarodnoe pravo.
30. T. 2. M. Moskovskii nezavisimyi institut mezhdunarodnogo prava. 1997.
31. ES i SSh A dogovari va yu tsya ob i m por te «gormona l 'noi» govya d i n y http://www.wto.r u/ru/press.
32. asp?msg_id=24556.
33. Kara-Murza S.G. Eksport revolyutsii. Yushchenko, Saakashvili... M. Algoritm. 2005.
34. Kissindzher G. Nuzhna li Amerike vneshnyaya politika. K diplomatii XXI veka. M. 2002.
35. Lukashuk I.I. Otvetstvennost' odnogo sub''ekta mezhdunarodnogo prava v svyazi s deyaniem drugogo // International
36. Lawyer - Yurist-mezhdunarodnik. 2003. ¹ 1.
37. Lukashuk I.I. Pravo mezhdunarodnoi otvetstvennosti // Mezhdunarodnoe publichnoe i chastnoe pravo. 2002. ¹ 2.
38. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo: Uchebnik // Otv. red. Yu.M. Kolosov, E.S. Krivchikova. M. Mezhdunar. otnosheniya. 2000.
39. Nosov M.G. Global'nye aspekty transatlanticheskikh otnoshenii // Sovremennaya Evropa. 2006, ¹ 2.
40. Rar A. Oranzhevaya revolyutsiya // Oranzhevaya revolyutsiya. Ukrainskaya versiya: Sb. // Sost. M. Pogrebinskii. M.
41. Evropa. 2005.
42. Rezolyutsiya 36/103 XXXVI sessii GA OON // Deistvuyushchee mezhdunarodnoe pravo. T. 1. M. 1996.
43. Samatov O.Zh. O voennykh bazakh SShA na territoriyakh SNG i sovremennoe mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Mezhdunarodnoe
44. publichnoe i chastnoe pravo. 2005. ¹ 2.
45. Chernyak E.B. Vekovye konflikty. M. Mezhdunar. otnosheniya, 1988.
46. Shironin V. KGB-TsRU. Sekretnye pruzhiny perestroiki. M. 1997.
Nota Bene
 
For authors
 
Other
 
Our sites
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.