Miša Stojadinović

The subject of this paper is thorough analysis of value pluralism and moral and cultural relativism, as different meta-ethical theories. The focus of the analysis is Berlin’s understanding of value pluralism, distinction between value monism and pluralism, as well as the implications of this distinction. This topic is connected with other key issues, such as the concepts of freedom and human nature, therefore it is of great importance in the field of moral and political discussions. Drawing on the analysis of Berlin’s view on value pluralism, the authors examine the most relevant critiques of this view, which interpret Berlin’s understanding as radical pluralism, subjectivism, moral and cultural relativism and postmodernism. In that respect, the main purpose of this paper is to distinguish value pluralism from the above-mentioned standpoints. The authors will attempt to demonstrate that these critiques consist of wrongly derived implications of Berlin’s understanding. In the light of the mentioned considerations, the authors conclude that the recognition of the existence of the minimal core of universal human nature and morality is what distinguishes value pluralism from subjectivism and relativism.

Turkey can no longer be considered the West's periphery. The issue of finding a common language with Turkey for the United States has become a top priority of its foreign policy, even at the cost of making some difficult compromises. The alliance between the United States and Turkey, established during the Cold War, faced many challenges in the decades following this great global conflict. While this alliance was relatively reliable during the Cold War, this situation later changed significantly. From a relationship in which both sides knew what to expect from each other, to one in which disguised animosity began to strengthen. Bearing in mind that the paper deals with a very complex geopolitical phenomenon, the use of the geopolitical method becomes extremely important. The history of relations between the United States and Turkey is full of upheavals and challenges. Official diplomatic relations between the USA and Turkey were established earlier, but they intensified only after the end of the Second World War. Between the First and Second World War, things in international relations took a completely different direction, and caused strengthening cooperation between the Soviet Union and Turkey. The end of World War II and the escalation of tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union led to the Cold War, which called into question many alliances. Although the United States has seen Turkey as a possible ally in the past, it was only the Cold War that made it possible for the conditions to be formed for this alliance. Having in mind the change in the position of the President of the United States of America, this paper gives a detailed analysis ofhow different administrations have dealt with Turkey. From the moment Ankara refused to allow US troops to cross the Turkish-Iraqi border in 2003, to sharp bilateral disagreements with Obama which continued during the time of Donald Trump. The main question is what Biden’s administration is willing to do with this important alliance. Based on Joseph Biden's election campaign, it was impossible to predict in advance what his administration's foreign policy would be towards certain specific regions. This is also the reason why it was difficult to predict his moves when it came to relations between the United States and Turkey. One of the biggest challenges the Biden administration will face is that the United States and the European Union have allowed Turkey to expand into Kurdish areas outside its borders without any consequences.

The end of the 20^th and the beginning of the 21^st is characterized by numerous challenges in all fields. Limited resources and the need for energy have taken their place among the key factors in creating the international policy of all countries around the world. This influenced the birth of a new type of diplomacy – energy diplomacy. The main goal of this paper is a critical analysis of the energetic security of European countries, with a special focus on the energetic security of the Balkan countries. The paper relies on a geopolitical approach to understanding international relations using a geographical and comparative method. The author in this paper is especially analysing relations between Bulgaria and Serbia. A relation between those two countries is important in terms of geopolitical and economic perspectives. This is especially important in the light of the fact that their relations have been one of the least analysed issues in European international relations. Although the power has important role in international relations, some small and middle states such as Bulgaria and Serbia, despite their great underestimation can have a significant role in shaping geopolitical map of entire world. One of the main tools to achieve such position for Bulgaria and Serbia is the establishment of mutual cooperation and their joint strategy of using so called “soft power” and “soft balancing”. This is why bilateral relations between Serbia and Bulgaria should not be ignored in scientific analysis of international relations. Building the Turkish Stream pipeline on the Russian initiative might be exactly this. Serbia is one of the most important parts of this project in the process of its implementation from the Bulgarian to Hungarian border. There are also some notions coming from the side of the Republic of Bulgaria that this could become some kind of Balkan Stream pipeline which would deliver energy from different sources, which is an interesting initiative. Although the USA have not been particularly happy about this project, it is very important for entire Europe, and therefore both Bulgaria and Serbia.

The analysis of social and political consequences of coronavirus COVID-19 pandemics brought with it a huge number of challenges. Certainly, one of the largest one is the fact that this field is mainly studied from medical and economic perspective, while political and sociological aspects are set in the background. The second problem of our analysis is that it is happening in the moment when is currently happening right before our eyes. This makes any kind of analysis from the aspects of political and social science difficult, because there are no many studies on which we can rely on. This is why the main goal of this paper is to provide us general political and social framework for understanding coronavirus pandemic, without any kind of tendency to provide any kind of final answers. The first part of the paper deals with global preparedness for pandemics, while the second part analyse institutional challenges in the health sector. The numerous processes which characterized contemporary society ultimately have led to the fact that there are no more problems which can have only local consequences. Every local crisis can very fast become a global problem. This is especially important in the field of natural disaster, pandemics, global warming, pollution, security, poverty etc. The coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated the unwillingness of international organizations, and the international community in general, to face with coronavirus pandemic with some kind of global coordinated action. With all these mentioned we emphasis that there are three main lessons which we must be learned from coronavirus pandemic. The first lesson is that there were many signs in the past that some kind of global pandemic will happen in the near future. One of the main reasons why we did not recognize those signs is that large industries did not see the profit in dealing with preventive measures. The second lesson is that there were no reliable studies which can estimate global capacities for dealing with consequences of global pandemic. Because of that many states faced with this pandemic unprepared. The third lesson of the coronavirus pandemic, which is perhaps the most important one, is the lack of global cooperation and solidarity. The pandemic provoked a chaotic response of individual countries which were guided primarily by their own national interests. There were any kind of visible role of international organizations to organize a joint response on a global level, which would certainly be much more effective.

This paper represents a critical analysis of the position of the citizen in the contemporary democratic society. There is also a necessity for the analysis of the process of weakening social and political engagement of citizens. The main goal of this paper is to redefine the concept of citizen from the neoliberal aspect, underling at the same time the collapse of the democratic capacities of political institutions globally. Numerous social changes at the global level have led to numerous challenges that test democratic capabilities of political institutions daily. Many so-called humanitarian interventions are forced around the world in the name of democracy and human rights. For these reasons, the very concept of democracy has come under attack, with the emerging need for redefining it. Today, also, the concept of “good citizen” is called into question. There are tendentious of the development of a new type of citizen, who is an obedient and imperceptible consumer, excluded from all spheres of decision-making process. The loss of confidence in political institutions has produced a huge democratic deficit with which we must be faced as soon as possible. Creating an insecure environment automatically precludes any possibility of strengthening the democratic and national capacities of political institutions, which automatically leads to the disappearance of the citizen as an important actor from the political sphere. The notion of a citizen as an active participant in government has been called into question. Neoliberal democracy atomizes society by creating a disorganized group of individuals who is unwilling to take any collective action. A citizen in the most general sense represents a person with certain rights and duties within the socio-political community to which he is bound by relatively permanent membership. Bearing in mind the context of the study in this paper, it is necessary to emphasize in particular the political rights and duties of the citizen as an equal actor in political processes. This further leads to the need to develop a democratic environment in which citizens will be active participants, and not just passive observers. This underlines the importance for the development of participatory democracy, which has proven to be the most optimal model for fulfilling basic democratic principles.