Search results

1

Macedonian Party System and European Integration Process

100%

Karadzoski M.

Studia Europejskie-Studies in European Affairs

|

2016

|

vol. 3

193-209

EN

The purpose of this paper is to determine the level of support for the process of accession of the Republic of Macedonia in the European Union by political parties, but also to determine whether that support is only nominal, i.e. declarative, or is it realistic, concrete and active support realized through instruments and mechanisms available to the political parties in the country. Also, in this paper will be analyzed the attitudes of political parties in Macedonia, referring to the name dispute with Greece, fostering good neighborly relations with Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania, but also in respect of certain internal political issues.

2

Competition Law in Macedonia in 2011-2012: New Perspectives and New Challenges

88%

Jashari A., Ziba Memeti N.

Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies

|

2013

|

vol. 6(8)

201-222

3

Effective tax burden on investment at corporate level in Macedonia

88%

Gruevski I., Gaber S., Gaber V.

Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business

|

2013

|

vol. 13

|

issue 2

19-31

EN

This article presents the estimates of effective tax rates on investment at corporate level in Republic of Macedonia in the period from 2006 to 2012. In addition to accomplishing this research, 3 basic and most commonly applied indicators of the corporate income tax (CIT) burden will be used. They are the cost of capital, the effective marginal tax rate (EMTR) and the effective average tax rate (EATR), according to the Devereux-Griffith methodology. The results of the analysis will clearly show that the implemented domestic tax policy reform have transformed this country into one of the most, if not the most tax favorable country for investment in Europe.

4

Polityczne aspekty sporu o status Macedońskiej Cerkwi Prawosławnej (MCP) (1991–2014)

87%

Paszkiewicz J.

Poznańskie Studia Slawistyczne

|

2016

|

issue 10

EN

The dispute about the autocephaly of the Macedonian Orthodox Church (MOC), one of the questions within the discourse on the Macedonian national identity since 1967, gained new significance after 1991, as a consequence of the political emancipation of the Republic of Macedonia (RM). This issue is strongly associated with other concerns, such as the country’s internal integration and the struggle to strengthen its sovereignty. In order to support the MOC the authorities attempt to rally the ethnic Macedonians around the idea of national independence and diminish the influences of other Orthodox Churches on the followers of this denomination in RM. Year 2002 saw the failure of the religious consultation and an imminent schism within MOC. It prompted the authorities to act as a guarantor of the undivided jurisdiction of the MOC over the country’s entire territory. This course of action resulted in worsening of the relations with the neighboring Orthodox Christian countries, since the governments cooperate with their respective Churches to contest the independence of MOC. Moreover, since 2002 the issue of MOC’s status is frequently presented within the context of accusations against the RM’s authorities of breaching the civil and religious rights.

5

Media Framing: How Can the Constitutional Name of One Country Be Changed?

75%

Serafimovska E., Markovikj M.

Central European Journal of Communication

|

2020

|

vol. 13

|

issue 1(25)

5-23

EN

The Macedonian-Greek agreement to change the name of the Republic of Macedonia resulted in a referendum. The columns of relevant opinion leaders published in electronic media during the offi cial referendum campaign was the focus of interest and research presented in this article. The sample comprised 57 columns by 19 columnists. The discussion of the findings in this paper is based on framing theory with media content analyses; the template for media monitoring was used as an instrument based on human coding. The main research question addressed in this paper is: “How are opinion leaders setting frames?” The hypothesis is that opinion leaders use different themes and scripts to construct media framing due to narrow public opinion “for” or “against/boycott” the change of the constitutional name. Two negative, emotionally charged frames were identified: the frame “for” promoted positive messages reinforced with ideas about the EU and NATO membership; the frame “against/boycott” promoted messages that Macedonian identity will be lost.

6

Spór o niezależność Macedonii we współczesnej ,,zjednoczonej” Europie. Cz. 1: Okres do wybuchu II wojny światowej

75%

Potkański W.

Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego ACTA POLITICA

|

2011

|

issue 24

EN

The problem of the recognition of the sovereignty of the Republic of Macedonia has been presented in this article. Macedonia was established in 1991, just after the demise of the Yugoslavian Federation. Greece, a member of NATO and the EU, is the main adversary that does not want to recognise Macedonian independence. Greece appeals to an ancient Helladic tradition, and attempts to prove that there is no historical continuity between Macedonians and Slavic population which has occupied disputed territories since the 6th century. Greece does not want to recognise a separate Macedonian language, whose roots are to be found in Old Church Slavonic. This State safeguards the division which was made after so-called the Balkan Wars in 1913. The division has lasted since the Second World War. In thia way, the former lands inhabited by this population were partitioned into: Vardar (Serbian) Macedonia, Aegean (Greek) Macedonia and Pirin (Bulgarian) Macedonia. The State, over which the dispute arose, was established on 17th November 2001 as a result of “a bloodless revolution”. The People’s Republic of Macedonia (existing in former Yugoslavia) was the base for establishing the State. The dispute, which has lasted since then, is supposed to lead to the full international recognition of the State of Macedonia. But, for the time being, Macedonia has been recognised (within the UN) under a name imposed by Greece “Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia” (FYROM). Apart from that the Greek government is torpedoing further Macedonian initiatives which aim at a full union. It is also against the membership of this State in NATO and EU structures.

PL

U progu XXI wieku dawna koncepcja państwa narodowego zdaje się być coraz bardziej anachroniczna. Wizję dotychczasowego państwa zastępują koncepcje konfederacyjne, jednoczące różne społeczności, grupy etniczne i uznane narody we wspólnych strukturach ponadnarodowych w imię wzajemnych korzyści gospodarczych i politycznych. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest omówienie historycznych aspektów konfliktu o niezawisłość i samodzielność macedońską, począwszy od epoki antycznej.

7

Spór o niezależność Macedonii we współczesnej ,,zjednoczonej” Europie. Cz. 2: Od II wojny światowej do współczesności

75%

Potkański W.

Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego ACTA POLITICA

|

2012

|

issue 25

PL

W artykule przedstawiono problem uznania suwerenności Republiki Macedonii, państwa, które powstało w roku 1991 po rozpadzie Federacji Jugosłowiańskiej. Głównym antagonistą w uznaniu tej niezależności jest Grecja (członek NATO i UE), która odwołuje się do antycznej tradycji Hellady, dowodząc, że nie ma ciągłości historycznej pomiędzy Macedończykami a ludnością słowiańską, która zamieszkuje sporne ziemie od VI w. Nie uznają oni również osobnego języka macedońskiego, który wywodzi się z tzw. staro-cerkiewno-słowiańskiego.

8

The Principles of ASNOM and the Constitutional Historic Legacy for the “Framework” Republic of Macedonia

75%

Jančeva L.

Politeja : Pismo Wydziału Studiów Miedzynarodowych i Politycznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego

|

2014

|

issue 4(30)

71-78

EN

The Republic of Macedonia is a state of highest democratic standards as reflected in the provisions of its constitution and laws concerning relations between various ethnic, religious and cultural communities. The multiethnic, multicultural and pluralistic nature of the Republic of Macedonia is visible and implemented in all spheres of social life. The human rights declaration adopted at the first sitting of the ASNOM1 is the basic document which defines the multiethnic nature of the just country established, much like the constitutional provisions of the DFM/LRM/SRM2 (1946, 1963 and 1974 respectively), as well as the 1991 constitution of the independent and sovereign Republic of Macedonia, where the Republic of Macedonia was defined asa nation (Macedonian) state with extensive rights granted to ethnic, national and religious minorities. Representatives of ethnic communities sitting in the parliament of the Republic of Macedonia, particularly Albanians, demanded that they be granted the status of the other equal nation. Dissatisfaction escalated and in 2001, i.e. a decade after the Republic of Macedonia had become independent, took a military form, and the conflict resolution was going towards the federalisation of the country. In 2001, a framework (Ohrid) agreement was signed brokered by international partners. Along with the accord, the notion of a nation state was abandoned and consequently also practising majority democracy, a model characteristic of states that are ethnically homogenous. The country was redefined as pluralist, multiethnic and multicultural; as a result instead of majority democracy a “division‑of‑power model” (in practice the term “participatory democracy” is used) was applied, characteristic of multiethnic communities, as prevention against interethnic confrontation.

9

Националните митови во современа Европа и негирањето на македонскиот идентитеm

63%

Проева [Proeva] Н. N.

Slavia Meridionalis

|

2012

|

vol. 12

EN

National myths in modern Europe and denial Macedonian identity The independence proclamation of the Republic of Macedonia in 1991 provoked ardent reactions and denials by its neighbours, against the fact that she was the only peaceful actor in the Yugoslavia’s dissolution. The first negative reactions and denials came from the Southern Neighbor, whose denial was directed towards the name, i.e. the identity, while the others referred to the language, identity and even a part of the territory. The most vociferous and at the same time the most successful was the reaction of the Southern Neighbour, who gained support of the European ‘democrats’, which de facto turned them into accomplices in the open blackmail that demanded the Republic of Macedonia to change its constitutional name. Namely, the 1992 Lisbon Declaration of the E(uropean) C(ouncil) imposed a demand to the Republic of Macedonia to accept any name that would not contain the word “Macedonia” in order to be recognized by the EU!?! The newly independent state was finally admitted to the UN under a reference “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” through violation of the provisions of the UN Charter. Twenty years later the country is still enforced to use the offensive reference, and often even to tolerate the FYROM acronym. This article deals precisely with the politics of pressures and blackmail exercised by NATO and EU with regard to the so‑called name dispute. It also centers on national myths that are used in order to “justify” such politics and on the attitude of the European ‘democrats’ towards those national myths. In contrast to the democratic rules preached by NATO and EU across the world, the Republic of Macedonia was and still is blackmailed by an unprincipled demand to select a NEW name in order to please one member-state. As a consequence of that demand, the national myth linked with ancient Macedonians (so-called antiquisation, although the better term is antique-mania) has been revived and upgraded. A number of pseudo-historians with various professional backgrounds, such as journalists, politicians, writers, physicians, and even university professors, has involved in this endeavor. To make things worse, even some historians and archaeologists may be seen in this group, with a mission to defend the right to the name and identity. The societal climate has been politicized to such a degree that not only the neighbours, but even EU has been caught in the vicious circle of competing and mutually exclusive national myths. The Union obviously insists on the philhellenic myth i.e. on the alleged Hellenic roots of the European culture as such. Mity narodowe współczesnej Europy i negowanie tożsamości macedońskiej Niepodległość Republiki Macedonii - państwa, które w 1991 roku drogą pokojową odłączyło się od struktur Jugosławii - wywołała ostre spory z jej sąsiadami. Pierwszy wywołał jej południowy sąsiad, negując jej nazwę, pozostali sąsiedzi podważali natomiast jej język, tożsamość i prawo do części terytorium. Najgłośniejszy i najbardziej skuteczny w tych działaniach okazał się sąsiad południowy, który otrzymał wsparcie demokracji europejskich, przyczyniając się do tego, że Europejczycy stali się de facto współodpowiedzialni za szantażowanie RM w celu zmiany jej konstytucyjnej nazwy. W oparciu o Deklarację Lizbońską z 1992 roku Rada Europy uwarunkowała uznanie Republiki Macedonii tylko wtedy, gdy z konstytucyjnej nazwy państwa usunięte zostanie słowo Macedonia. Niespotykanym dotąd precedensem w historii ONZ stało się przyjęcie nowego państwa do jej struktur pod nazwą „Była Jugosłowiańska Republika Macedonii”, skróconej do uwłaczającego akronimu FYROM.W artykule podjęto kwestię dotyczącą nacisków ze strony NATO i UE wobec tzw. problemu nazwy a także mitów narodowych, którymi usprawiedliwia się tę politykę oraz stosunku demokracji europejskich wobec tych mitów. Jednak wbrew zasadom demokracji, jakie szerzy UE i NATO, Republika Macedonii była i nadal jest szantażowana bezzasadnym żądaniem znalezienia NOWEJ nazwy według żądań jednego z jej członków.Następstwem tych działań w RM stało się odnowienie i rozszerzenie narodowego mitu o związki z Macedończykami antycznymi. Nieodłącznym elementem towarzyszącym temu zjawisku jest turbo folk oraz wsparcie pseudohistoryków wszelkich profesji: dziennikarzy, polityków, literatów, lekarzy a nawet profesorów uniwersyteckich. Najbardziej zatrważającym – w celu ochrony właściwej nazwy państwa dowodzącej tożsamości – stało się włączenie do tego nurtu zawodowych historyków i archeologów.Sytuacja uległa upolitycznieniu do takiego stopnia, że nie tylko sąsiedzi, ale również UE wkroczyła do magicznego kręgu demonstrowania mitów narodowych, odwołując się do filohelleńskiego mitu rzekomych helleńskich korzeni kultury europejskiej.

10

„Nieunijne” państwa pojugosłowiańskie w obliczu integrującej się Europy – uwag kilka

63%

Bujwid-Kurek E.

Studia Politologiczne

|

2018

|

vol. 47

169-185

EN

Main aim of analysis in the article titled “Non-EU” Post Yugoslav countries in the face of integrative Europe – few remarks” is to ascertain the extent to which Post Yugoslav countries, which are not European Union members yet, are prepared for the EU membership. Analysis includes four Post Yugoslav countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Serbia, Montenegro, Republic of Macedonia. It was confirmed, that all those countries aspire to fully-fledged membership in the EU. However, still none of them sufficiently comply with criteria imposed by the EU. In the nearest future, the greatest chances have: Montenegro, Republic of Serbia, Republic of Macedonia. The EU still has a lot of objections towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. The most important one is lack of conducting an institutional reform in the country. Preparation of that countries for the EU membership is systematically, yearly monitored by method of screening. Checking compatibility of law regulations, which exist in those countries standing as a candidate to EU, with the EU legislation acquis communitare gives a possibility to make an assessment of the level of their preparation to get a fully-fledged membership status. Countries, which has been analysed, are a ‘special case’, which find it very hard to face up to rigorous accession conditions imposed by European Union, although the EU is worried about the safety and stability in the region and strive for close relations with them.

11

Odtwarzanie czy zmiana? Zarys nowej problematyzacji zjawisk i proces

38%

Lubaś M.

Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej

|

2013

|

vol. 9

|

issue 3

60-88

EN

The text presents an outline of new problematisation of cultural phenomena and transformations. This new problematisation has emerged as a result of the critical debate on the classical anthropological concept of culture which took place in anthropology in the last decades. New problematisation repudiates an idea that cultures form discernible, bounded and complex objects. It focuses on cultural change as a new object of reflection and study. We can find three clusters of problems at the heart of new problematisation, the questions related to the problems of creativity, cultural variation and cultural integration and disintegration. I put forward my own type of questions in order to address these large problems. I draw attention to the conditions of cultural changes, or more specifically to the conditions constraining the scope, tempo, and depth of cultural transformations. I bring these questions to the level of ethnographic analysis. Drawing on my own ethnographic data collected during the fieldwork in Western Macedonia, I attempt to highlight the problem of conditions that constrain the processes of cultural transformations.

PL

Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie zarysu nowej problematyzacji zjawisk i procesów kulturowych, powstałej w antropologii społeczno-kulturowej w efekcie krytyki, jakiej w minionych dekadach poddano tak zwane antropologiczne pojęcie kultury. Nowa pro - blematyzacja odchodzi od traktowania kultur jako specyficznych obiektów na rzecz no - wego przedmiotu namysłu i refleksji teoretycznej – kulturowych przeobrażeń. Dowodzę, że w centrum nowej problematyzacji znajdują się trzy grupy zagadnień, związane odpo - wiednio z kulturową kreatywnością, wariantywnością oraz procesami integracji i dezin - tegracji kulturowej. Proponuję też własne podejście do zarysowanych zagadnień, skupione na pytaniach dotyczących uwarunkowań zmian kulturowych, w szczególności na tym, co ogranicza tempo, głębokość i skalę zmian. Aby uwyraźnić interesujące mnie pytania, od - wołuję się do materiału etnograficznego zaczerpniętego z własnych badań prowadzonych zachodniej części Republiki Macedonii.

Refine search results

Macedonian Party System and European Integration Process

Competition Law in Macedonia in 2011-2012: New Perspectives and New Challenges

Effective tax burden on investment at corporate level in Macedonia

Polityczne aspekty sporu o status Macedońskiej Cerkwi Prawosławnej (MCP) (1991–2014)

Media Framing: How Can the Constitutional Name of One Country Be Changed?

Spór o niezależność Macedonii we współczesnej ,,zjednoczonej” Europie. Cz. 1: Okres do wybuchu II wojny światowej

Spór o niezależność Macedonii we współczesnej ,,zjednoczonej” Europie. Cz. 2: Od II wojny światowej do współczesności

The Principles of ASNOM and the Constitutional Historic Legacy for the “Framework” Republic of Macedonia

Националните митови во современа Европа и негирањето на македонскиот идентитеm

„Nieunijne” państwa pojugosłowiańskie w obliczu integrującej się Europy – uwag kilka

Odtwarzanie czy zmiana? Zarys nowej problematyzacji zjawisk i proces