DOCSLIB.ORG

The Republic of Serbia Has Closed Bilateral Agreements on Various

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Republic of Serbia Has Closed Bilateral Agreements on Various The Republic of Serbia has closed bilateral agreements on various types of international legal assistance in criminal matters with a large number of countries, as indicated in the list. А l b a n i a Convention on Surrendering of Offenders between Convention on Surrendering of Offenders between The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and the Albanian Republic from 22 June 1926, effective from 1929 (“Official Gazette”, No. 117/1929). А l g e r i a Agreement on Mutual Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters between the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Algeria from 31 March 1982, effective from 1984 (“Official Gazette of SFRY” - International Instruments, No. 2/1983). А u s t r i a 1. Agreement on Legal Assistance Agreement on Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Austria from 01 February 1982, effective from 1984 (“Official Gazette of SFRY” - International Instruments, No. 2/1983). 2. Agreement on Surrendering between The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Austria from 01 February 1982, effective from 1984 (“Official Gazette of SFRY” - International Instruments, No. 2/1983). 3. Agreement on Mutual Enforcement of Court Judgments in Criminal Matters between The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Austria from 01 February 1982, effective from 1984 (“Official Gazette of SFRY” - International Instruments, No. 6/1983). B e l g i u m Convention on Extradition and Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and The Kingdom of Belgium from 04 June 1971, effective from 1972 (“Official Gazette of SFRY” - Appendix No. 9/1973). B o s n i a a n d H e r z e g o v i n a 1. Agreement between Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina on Mutual Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters from 24 February 2005 (“Official Gazette of SAM” - International Instruments No. 6/2005). Agreement effective from 09 February 2006. 2. Agreement between Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina on Mutual Enforcement of Court Judgments in Criminal Matters from 24 February 2005 (“Official Gazette of SAM” - International Instruments No. 6/2005). Agreement effective from 13 February 2006. 3. Agreement between the Republic of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina on Amendments to the Agreement between Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina on Mutual Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters, signed in Belgrade on 26 February 2010, and effective as of the same date (“Official Gazette of RS” - International Instruments No. 13/10). 4. Agreement between the Republic of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina on Amendments to the Agreement between Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina on Mutual Enforcement of Court Judgments in Criminal Matters, signed in Belgrade on 26 1 February 2010, and effective as of the same date (“Official Gazette of RS” - International Instruments No. 13/10). M o n t e n e g r o 1. Agreement between the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro on Mutual Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters from 29 May 2009 (“Official Gazette of RS” - International Instruments No. 1/10). 2. Agreement between the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro on Mutual Enforcement of Court Judgments in Criminal Matters from 29 May 2009 (“Official Gazette of RS - International Instruments”, No. 1/10). 3. Agreement between the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro on Extradition, from 29 May 2009 (“Official Gazette of RS - International Instruments”, No. 1/10). 4. Agreement between the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro on Amendments to the Agreement on between the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro on Extradition, signed in Belgrade on 29 October 2010, and effective from the same date. B u l g a r i a Agreement between The Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia and the Federative People’s Republic of Bulgaria on Mutual Assistance from 23 March 1956, effective from 1957 (“Official Gazette of FPRY”- Appendix No. 1/1957). C z e c h R e p u b l i c 1. Agreement between The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakian Socialist Republic on Regulating Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters from 20 January 1964, effective from 1964 (“Official Gazette of SFRY” - Appendix No. 13/1964). 2. Agreement between The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Czechoslovakian Socialist Republic on Mutual Surrender of COnvicted Persons for Serving Imprisonment Sentence from 23 May 1989, effective from 1990 (“Official Gazette of SFRY” - International Instruments No. 6/1990). D e n m a r k Agreement between the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Kingdom of Denmark on Mutual Surrender of COnvicted Persons for Serving Imprisonment Sentence from 28 October 1988, effective from 1989 (“Official Gazette of SFRY”- International Instruments No. 5/1989). F r a n c e 1. Convention between the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of France on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters from 29 October 1969, effective from 1970 (“Official Gazette of SFRY”- Appendix No. 16/1971). 2. Convention on Surrendering between the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Government of the Republic of France from 23 September 1970, effective from 1971 (“Official Gazette of SFRY”- Appendix No. 43/1971). 2 G r e e c e Convention between The Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia and the Kingdom of Greece on Mutual Legal Relations from 18 June 1959, effective from 1960 (“Official Gazette FPRY ”- Appendix No. 7/1960). N e t h e r l a n d s Agreement on Surrendering of Offenders between Serbia and Netherlands from 28 February (11 March) 1896, effective from 1896 (“Serbian Gazette”, No. 275/1896). C r o a t i a 1. Agreement between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Croatia on Mutual Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters from 15 September 1997, effective from 1998 (“Official Gazette СРЈ” - International Instruments 1/1998). 2. Agreement between the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Croatia on Extradition (Agreement signed on 29 June 2010, and effective from the same date ("Official Gazette of RS- International Instruments", No. 13/10). I r a q Agreement between The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Iraq on Legal and Court Cooperation from 23 May 1986, effective from 1987 (“Official Gazette of SFRY”- International Instruments", No. 1/1987). I t a l y 1. Convention between the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Italy on Surrendering of Offenders from 6 April 1922, effective from 1931 (“Official Gazette”, No. 42/1931). 2. Convention between the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Italy о Legal and Court Protection of their Citizens from 6 April 1922 (“Official Gazette”, No. 42/1931). Only Articles 13-16 remain in force, in accordance with Article 26 of the Convention between the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia and Italy on Mutual Assistance in Criminal and Administrative Matters from 31 December 1960. 3. Convention between the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia and Italy on Mutual Assistance in Criminal and Administrative Matters from 31 December 1960 (“Official Gazette of FPRY -Appendix-5/1963). C y p r u s Agreement between the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Cyprus on Mutual Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters from 19 September 1984, effective from 1987 (“Official Gazette OF SFRY” - International Instruments No. 2/1986). H u n g a r y 1. Agreement between The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the People’s Republic of Hungary on Mutual Legal Transactions from 7 March 1968, effective from 1969 (“Official Gazette of SFRY” - Appendix No. 3/1968). 3 2. Agreement on Amendments to the Agreement between the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia the People’s Republic of Hungary on Mutual Legal Transactions from 7 March 1986, effective from 1987 (“Official Gazette of SFRY” - International Instruments No. 1/1987). M a c e d o n i a Agreement between Serbia and Montenegro and the Republic of Macedonia on Mutual Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters, effective from 09 March 2005 (“Official Gazette of SAM”- International Instruments No. 22/2004). In November 2012, the following agreements were signed with the Republic of Macedonia to replace the above agreement: а) Agreement between the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia on Mutual Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters b) Agreement between the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia on Extradition c) Agreement between the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia on Mutual Enforcement of Court Judgments in Criminal Matters M o n g o l i a Agreement between the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Mongolian People’s Republic on Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters from 08 June 1981, effective from 1983 (“Official Gazette of SFRY” - International Instruments No. 7/1982). F R G e r m a n y 1. Agreement on Surrendering between the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Federal Republic of Germany from 26 November 1970, effective from 1975 (“Official Gazette of SFRY” - Appendix No. 17/1976). 2. Agreement on Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia the Federal Republic of Germany from 1 October 1971, effective from 1975 (“Official Gazette of SFRY”, No. 33/1972). P o l a n d Agreement between the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia and the People’s Republic of Poland on Legal Transactions in Civil and Criminal Matters from 6 February 1960, effective from 1963 (“Official Gazette of FPRY” - Appendix No.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DANCING in the the West, China and Russia in the Western Balkans
    DARKDANCING IN THE The West, China and Russia in the Western Balkans By Dr. Valbona Zeneli, Marshall Center professor | Photos by AFP/Getty Images n the new era of great power competition, Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolu- China and Russia challenge Western and trans- tion of Yugoslavia, which brought bloody conflict to Atlantic security and prosperity, not least in the Europe in the1990s, the political West — the United I Western Balkans. The region has shaped the States and the European Union — and its clear foreign history of modern Europe and has been a gateway policy toward the Western Balkans have been crucial between East and West for centuries. In recent years, throughout the process of stabilization, reconstruc- external players have amplified engagement and tion, state consolidation and, finally, NATO and EU influence in the region. The authoritarian external integration. For Western Balkan countries, accession to presence in the Western Balkans could be classified Euro-Atlantic institutions has been viewed internally and as “grafting” — countries such as Russia and Turkey externally as the main mechanism for security, stabil- with a long history of engagement in the region — ity and democracy in a troubled region. Albania and and “grifting” — countries such as China and the Croatia joined NATO in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, Gulf states that bring to bear a more commercial and North Macedonia signed its accession document to and transactional approach. become the 30th NATO member in March 2020. PER CONCORDIAM ILLUSTRATION Democratization has been the key feature of “Europeanization,” while the “carrot” of membership was used to motivate the political elites in the accession countries to adopt and implement important democratic structural reforms.
    [Show full text]
  • Monetary Conditions in the Kingdom of Serbia (1884-1914)
    Monetary Conditions in the Kingdom of Serbia (1884-1914) Branko Hinić, National Bank of Serbia Milan Šojić, National Bank of Serbia Ljiljana Đurđević, National Bank of Serbia Abstract: From 1884 to 1914, the Privileged National Bank of the Kingdom of Serbia managed to establish and maintain relatively stable monetary conditions. On the one hand, its interest rates and lending policy contributed to the lowering and stabilization of exceptionally high market interest rates, and on the other, the National Bank managed to preserve relative stability of the domestic currency. The conversion of paper money to gold or silver was ensured at all times, except in two instances – at the outbreak of the Balkan Wars and World War I. The National Bank could not eliminate agio, but did the best it could to ease its fluctuations. Agio declined as a result of a sharp turnabout in public finances never again to reach the level prior to 1903. The effectiveness of the National Bank in achieving relatively stable monetary conditions is particularly important in light of the circumstances prevailing at the time: wars and economic crises, budget deficits and internal political upheavals. It would be right to say that monetary conditions were largely shaped by the state of public finances. As budget expenditures outstripped the revenues, the government was forced to look for additional funds to cover the deficit by borrowing either abroad or locally, primarily from the National Bank. This had a direct negative effect on the level of gold reserves and indirectly affected the stability of the domestic currency and Bank lending activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Serbia and Montenegro
    ATTACKS ON JUSTICE – SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO Highlights Serbia and Montenegro (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia until February 2003) entered the process of democratic transition, the creation of a system based on the rule of law, much later than other former socialist countries. On 4 February 2003 the new state union of Serbia and Montenegro was proclaimed. Under the Constitutional Charter of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, there is only one instance of Serbia and Montenegro having a common judiciary – the Court of Serbia and Montenegro. Otherwise, each state – the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro – has its own internal courts system. A set of important judicial reforms came into force on 1 March 2002 in the Republic of Serbia and in July 2002 amendments to these laws were made that violate the principle of separation of powers and the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. In Montenegro, several laws relating to the judiciary were passed or amended during 2003. On 19 March 2003, the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia dismissed 35 judges from office, including seven Supreme Court judges, amid accusations that the judiciary had failed to take tougher measures in dealing with remnants of the former regime as well as in prosecuting organized crime. The legal system in Serbia and Montenegro is still characterized by a number of contradictory and inconsistent regulations, resulting in legal insecurity. BACKGROUND On March 2002 officials of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro signed a procedural agreement for the restructuring of relations between both states in Belgrade, in the presence of the high representative of the EU,.
    [Show full text]
  • (1389) and the Munich Agreement (1938) As Political Myths
    Department of Political and Economic Studies Faculty of Social Sciences University of Helsinki The Battle Backwards A Comparative Study of the Battle of Kosovo Polje (1389) and the Munich Agreement (1938) as Political Myths Brendan Humphreys ACADEMIC DISSERTATION To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Helsinki, for public examination in hall XII, University main building, Fabianinkatu 33, on 13 December 2013, at noon. Helsinki 2013 Publications of the Department of Political and Economic Studies 12 (2013) Political History © Brendan Humphreys Cover: Riikka Hyypiä Distribution and Sales: Unigrafia Bookstore http://kirjakauppa.unigrafia.fi/ [email protected] PL 4 (Vuorikatu 3 A) 00014 Helsingin yliopisto ISSN-L 2243-3635 ISSN 2243-3635 (Print) ISSN 2243-3643 (Online) ISBN 978-952-10-9084-4 (paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-9085-1 (PDF) Unigrafia, Helsinki 2013 We continue the battle We continue it backwards Vasko Popa, Worriors of the Field of the Blackbird A whole volume could well be written on the myths of modern man, on the mythologies camouflaged in the plays that he enjoys, in the books that he reads. The cinema, that “dream factory” takes over and employs countless mythical motifs – the fight between hero and monster, initiatory combats and ordeals, paradigmatic figures and images (the maiden, the hero, the paradisiacal landscape, hell and do on). Even reading includes a mythological function, only because it replaces the recitation of myths in archaic societies and the oral literature that still lives in the rural communities of Europe, but particularly because, through reading, the modern man succeeds in obtaining an ‘escape from time’ comparable to the ‘emergence from time’ effected by myths.
    [Show full text]
  • Nations and Citizens in Yugoslavia and the Post-Yugoslav States: One Hundred Years of Citizenship
    Štiks, Igor. "Brothers United: The Making of Yugoslavs." Nations and Citizens in Yugoslavia and the Post-Yugoslav States: One Hundred Years of Citizenship. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015. 25–36. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 26 Sep. 2021. <http:// dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781474221559.ch-002>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 26 September 2021, 07:06 UTC. Copyright © Igor Štiks 2015. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. 1 Brothers United: The Making of Yugoslavs The revolver came from Serbia, but the finger that pulled the trigger that would kill Franz Ferdinand and thus announce the end of one world and the birth of another acted upon two strong beliefs. If one can judge from his statement, underage Gavrilo Princip, like so many of his peers, was foremost convinced that South Slavs should be liberated from a foreign yoke and unite in their own state; this belief was strongly though not articulately mixed with another conviction that the world about to come must be the world of profound social transformation. Two motives with which our story of ‘one hundred years of citizenship’ begins will be repeated in many different forms during this century: should South Slavs have their own common state? Or form separate ones? And, regardless of the answer, should political transformations entail more social equality or only a change of the rulers at the top of the existing hierarchy? Every idea often has deep roots and various historic materializations.
    [Show full text]
  • Never Again: International Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina1
    Never again: 1 International intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina July 2017 David Harland2 1 This study is one of a series commissioned as part of an ongoing UK Government Stabilisation Unit project relating to elite bargains and political deals. The project is exploring how national and international interventions have and have not been effective in fostering and sustaining political deals and elite bargains; and whether or not these political deals and elite bargains have helped reduce violence, increased local, regional and national stability and contributed to the strengthening of the relevant political settlement. This is a 'working paper' and the views contained within do not necessarily represent those of HMG. 2 Dr David Harland is Executive Director of the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. He served as a witness for the Prosecution at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the cases of The Prosecutor versus Slobodan Milošević, The Prosecutor versus Radovan Karadžić, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladić, and others. Executive summary The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was the most violent of the conflicts which accompanied the break- up of Yugoslavia, and this paper explores international engagement with that war, including the process that led to the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement. Sarajevo and Srebrenica remain iconic symbols of international failure to prevent and end violent conflict, even in a small country in Europe. They are seen as monuments to the "humiliation" of Europe and the UN and the
    [Show full text]
  • China's Rise As a Geoeconomic Influencer: Four European
    ASIA PROGRAM CHINA’S RISE AS A GEOECONOMIC INFLUENCER: FOUR EUROPEAN CASE STUDIES BY PHILIPPE LE CORRE NON-RESIDENT SENIOR FELLOW IN THE EUROPE AND ASIA PROGRAMS, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE NOVEMBER 2018 ASIA FOCUS #93 ASIA FOCUS #93 – ASIA PROGRAM / November 2018 ver the past decade, China has become central to the world economy. Building on its economic successes, it is becoming increasingly central in world politics. O China is also now more ambitious, aiming to establish itself as a regional as well as a global power. In his October 2017 report to the Chinese Communist Party’s 19th Congress, President Xi Jinping stated that by 2050, China will have “become a global leader in terms of composite national strength and international influence.”1 Despite a growing internal debate about the country’s international positioning in the context of taking a confrontational tone with the United States, Xi believes he has the power to realize these ambitions. In June 2018, he chaired an important foreign policy meeting in Beijing, which reaffirmed the notions of a foreign policy with Chinese characteristics,2 “diplomacy of socialism with Chinese characteristics,”3 and redefined the concept of a “global community of common destiny.”4 China’s rise has been driven by economic development, starting with the launch almost exactly forty years ago of Deng Xiaoping’s Open-Door policy, which made China the economicOn the world powerhouse stage, China it is hastoday―not become just a strong domestically, player in but such in mostinstitutions parts of as the the world. United Nations and the World Bank.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Dynamics Within the Balkans: the Cases of Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 80 Issue 1 Symposium: Final Status for Kosovo: Article 4 Untying the Gordian Knot December 2004 Political Dynamics within the Balkans: The Cases of Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro Lisen Bashkurti Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Lisen Bashkurti, Political Dynamics within the Balkans: The Cases of Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro, 80 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 49 (2005). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol80/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. POLITICAL DYNAMICS WITHIN THE BALKANS: THE CASES OF BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA, MACEDONIA, BULGARIA, SERBIA, AND MONTENEGRO DR. LISEN BASHKURTI* INTRODUCTION The origin, history, political doctrines, and geopolitics of the Balkan region make its current political dynamic extremely complicated. The Bal- kan Peninsula lies between Western and Eastern Europe and contains a complex composition of populations. The main reasons for the multifarious nature of Balkan political dynamics are the presence of various civiliza- tions, ethno-cultural identities, contradictory geopolitical orientations, and unique affiliations with other peoples and countries in Europe and the rest of the world. The historical trends of Balkan political dynamics have had three in- terconnected dimensions: national, regional, and geopolitical.
    [Show full text]
  • The State-Building in Former Yugoslavia
    Nations into States: National Liberations in Former Yugoslavia Aleksandar Pavkovic Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Melbourne University / Macquaire University National Europe Centre Paper No. 5 The Australian National University 19 October 2001 1 State building and national liberations The process of the creation of new states in the Balkans started in the early 19th century with the creation of the Kingdom of Greece and the Principality of Serbia out of several provinces of the Ottoman Empire. This process has continued into the early 21st century: the Albanian-controlled Kosovo province as well as the Albanian-controlled parts of western Macedonia are likely to become the first new state or states to be created in the Balkans in this century. Moreover, several independence movements in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) are striving for independence or some form of autonomy which may, in time, be transformed into independent statehood. At time of writing, several major political parties in the federal unit of Montenegrov are demanding its secession, while a few major political parties of the Muslim population of Sandzak in Serbia and Montenegro also propagate secession or autonomy of that region. Whether these regions will form new states is, at the time of the writing, still unclear. The latest round of state-building started in June 1991 with the secessions of Croatia and Slovenia from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. By 1995 nine states or state-like entities of the territory of former Yugoslavia1 had proclaimed their independence. In April 1992, the remaining two federal units, Serbia and Montengrof, formed a new state called the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
    [Show full text]
  • Serbia (Srbija), Montenegro (Crna Gora) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosna I Hercegovina)
    Serbia (Srbija), Montenegro (Crna Gora) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosna i Hercegovina) Recent history Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH) were all (along with Croatia and FYR Macedonia) formed as a result of the break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. BIH declared its independence from Yugoslavia in 1992, following a referendum. This break-up sparked conflict among the three large ethnic groups within the federation. Bosniaks and Croats generally favoured independence, whereas Bosnian Serbs, supported by the Serbian government, wished for a union with Serbia. Further conflict later erupted between the Croat statelet of Herzog-Bosnia and the Bosniaks. The wars lasted until the intervention of NATO and the signing of the Dayton Accords in 1995, by which time an estimated 100,000 people had been killed, many in acts of ethnic cleansing. Under the Dayton Accords, BIH was administratively decentralised and divided into two entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. Central government is consociational, with three rotating Presidents and set numbers of seats in both Houses of the Parliamentary Assembly for Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs. After the dissolution of Yugoslavia,How Serbia does did maintaina General a federation Election with Montenegro. actually However, work? this gradually evolved into a looser relationship, and Montenegrins narrowly voted for independence from Serbia in May 2006. Montenegro The UK is a liberal democracy. This means that we democratically elect politicians, who is now recognised as a separate nation by both Serbia and the EU. represent our interests. It also involves that individual rights are protected. Much more problematic has been Serbia’s relationship with Kosovo, which has a majority (90%) ethnic Albanian population.
    [Show full text]
  • Serbia and Montenegro
    Serbia and Montenegro Main objectives Serbia and Montenegro • Provide legal assistance and encourage Serbia and Montenegro (SCG) to adopt a law on refugees, and create a national asylum system, including fair and effi cient Refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedures; • Phase out assistance to post-Dayton refugees by ensuring their inclusion in bilateral and government- sponsored development programmes, with continued assistance only for the most vulnerable; and • Facilitate the return of internally displaced persons (IDPs) to Kosovo where possible and continue to as- sist the most vulnerable in their situation of displace- ment. Kosovo • Contribute towards the creation of conditions which will prevent further displacement of minorities in Kosovo; facilitate the voluntary return of minority IDPs and refu- gees to their places of origin and help to promote their subsequent long-term reintegration; • Identify and facilitate the attainment of durable solu- to refugees and IDPs. Furthermore, refugees and IDPs tions for refugees from Croatia and Bosnia and Her- are now included in the World Bank’s Poverty Reduction zegovina (BiH). Strategy Paper processes. A large number of collective centres have been closed and the residents assisted in fi nding alternative housing. Working environment Recent developments Planning figures: Serbia and Montenegro Serbia and Montenegro Population Jan. 2004 Dec. 2004 The new State Union of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (refugees) 89,950 40,000 Montenegro (SCG) was established Croatia (refugees) 180,000 70,000 in February 2003. Upon accession IDPs 220,000 200,000 to the Council of Europe in April Mandate refugees and asylum-seekers 280 6,000 2003, SCG committed itself to the Other refugees 50 20 enactment of national legislation Returnee IDPs 2,000 2,000 compliant with international law Total 492,280 318,020 and standards, including refugee legislation, but, at the time of writing, Planning figures: Kosovo basic issues of institutional compe- Population Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORICAL PROFILES / Serbia
    HISTORICAL PROFILES / Serbia Battle for the country (1804–33) The period between 1804 and 1815 is marked by two major uprisings in Serbia and the beginning of the Serb’s fight for liberation from Turkish occupation, and abolition of feudalism. The leader of the first Serbian uprising was #or#e Petrovi#, progenitor of the Kara#or#evi# Dynasty, while the leader of the second Serbian uprising was Miloš Obrenovi#. Portrait of Karadjordje Petrovic 1841 The Vassal state (1833–78) In 1833, Serbia gained autonomy within the Ottoman Empire, thus becoming a vassal, i.e. a tributary principality with a hereditary ruler. The first prince was Miloš Obrenovi#, and the capital of the Principality of Serbia was in Kragujevac. By a Hatišerif (Turkish edict), from 1833, Serbia gained freedom of religion and the possibility that Serbs, instead of Greeks up until then, could be elected Metropolitan or Patriarch in Belgrade. In 1835, Serbia gained its first Constitution. In 1842, Kara#or#e’s son, Prince Aleksandar Kara#or#evi#, came to power, which marked the beginning of the rule of the Kara#or#evi# Dynasty. At that time, the capital was moved to Belgrade. In 1848, Serbs raised a revolution in the part of the Austrian Empire populated by Serbs, and proclaimed the autonomous region Srpsko Vojvodstvo (the Serbian Duchy). In 1859, the Obrenovi# Dynasty regained power. The period between 1876 and 1878 was marked by wars against Turkey. Milos Obrenovic, prince of Serbia 1824 Independent state (1878–1918) After the Berlin Congress in 1878, Serbia obtained territorial expansion and independence.
    [Show full text]