Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 items :

  • Foreign Policy x
  • Political Economics x
Clear All
Stability, Ambiguity and Change in the Discourses of NATO allies in the Black Sea region: The Cases of Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey

). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania, 2017. Romania-NATO. [online] Available at: (Accessed February 2017). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, 2017. Turkey’s relations with NATO. [online] Available at: (Accessed March 2017). Mitrovici, E. and Diac, M., 2016. The Bulgarian Prime Minister opposes to the Black Sea flotilla. President Iohannis insists it is a good idea. România Liberă, 16 June [online]. Available at: http

Open access
The “New Cold Warriors” and the “Pragmatics”: The Differences in Foreign Policy Attitudes towards Russia and the Eastern Partnership States among the NATO Member States from Central and South-Eastern Europe


The post-communist NATO member states from Central and South-Eastern Europe (CSEE) comprise a group of 11 NATO/EU member states, from the Baltic to the Adriatic and Black Sea. The twelfth and thirteenth NATO member states from the region are Albania and Montenegro. The afore-mentioned NATO/EU member states have mostly shown a similar stance towards the Eastern Partnership Policy. However, since 2014, these states have shown more diverse stances, albeit declaratively supporting the anti-Russian sanctions. Due to the difference in stances towards Russia, the “New Cold Warriors” (Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania) and the “Pragmatics” (Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bulgaria), will maintain a mostly common course towards Russia and the Eastern Partnership states because they have to. The Czech Republic, although hosting a part of the US anti-ballistic missile shield, is not a genuine “New Cold Warrior”, while in 2016 Croatia effectively became one.

Open access
Application of Legal Entities to the European Court of Human Rights: a Significant Disadvantage as the Condition of Admissibility

and Shtekel vs. Ukraine, 5 August [online]. Available at: . (accessed 10 January 2018). ECHR, 2011. Finger vs. Bulgaria, 10 August [online]. Available at:{“itemid”:[“001-104698”] } (accessed 10 January 2018). ECHR, 2011. Giuran vs. Romania, 21 June [online]. Available at: (accessed 11 January 2018). ECHR, 2011. Luchaninova vs. Ukraine, 9 June [online]. Available at: https

Open access
Political Criteria vs. Political Conditionality: Comparative analysis of Slovenian and Croatian European Union accession processes

, and Minority Protection in Central and Eastern Europe.’ Paper presented at the 5th Convention of the Central and East European International Studies Association, Tartu, 25-27 June. Schwellnus, G., 2006. ‘Double standards? Minority protection as a condition for membership.’ In Sjursen, H. (ed.) Questioning EU enlargement - Europe in search of identity, (New York: Routledge), pp. 186-202. Sedelmeier, U., 2014. ‘Anchoring Democracy from Above? The European Union and Democratic Backsliding in Hungary and Romania after Accession.’ JCMS 52

Open access
Energy Charter Treaty – Standards of Investment Protection

at: [accessed 20 December 2017]. Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, S.C. European Food S.A, S.C. Starmill S.R.L. and S.C. Multipack S.R.L. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20. Award 11 December 2013. Available at: [accessed 20 December 2017]. Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18. Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability 14 January 2010. Available at: https

Open access