![La place de la Hongrie dans la politique étrangère de la France entre 1944 et 1949](/api/image/getissuecoverimage?id=picture_2006_28501.jpg)
We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
The study presents Hungary after the signature of the Peace Treaty of Trianon, the question of reparation. The author uses French archival sources to present the rivalities between France and Great Britain in the question of the investissments in Hungary.
More...
French foreign policy to East-Central Europe before and during the First World War.
More...
The author pfesents Europe in the first part of the 19th century to understand the problems of the revolutions in 1848-1849. We know the attitude of Great Powers to the revolutions and the role of Russia in Central Europe.
More...
The study presents the plans of integration in the interwar period for Rumania. In the meantime we know the attitude of the Great Powers in Central Europe.
More...
In 1974, a coup inspired by the military dictatorship in Greece overthrew Cyprus’spresident, archbishop Makarios, event which led to a Turkish military intervention in the island. This article analyzes Romania’s position vis-à-vis the Cypriot crisis in the context ofits earlier proposals for Balkan cooperation. While the Soviet Union and the other Warsaw Pact members saw in the coup an Imperialist attempt to turn non-aligned Cyprus into aN.A.T.O. base by its forceful unification with Greece, Romania on the other hand had adifferent vision. For the Romanian diplomacy, the Cypriot crisis involved a double risk: not only of Cyprus becoming a N.A.T.O. base, but also of Soviet-American direct involvementin the region. A military conflict in the Eastern Mediterranean had the potential to increase the American and Soviet presence in the region therefore limiting the capacity of the smalland middle-sized states to affirm their own interests independently. It was for this reason in particular that Romania insisted on a peaceful solution to the crisis, a solution that would only involve the Greeks and the Turks and not permit the interference of the two superpowers.
More...
The classical ancient Greek world did not develop a clearly identifiable formal diplomatic apparatus and diplomatic administrative structures, but it created numerous informal forms of diplomatic relations, which generated to a great extent the diplomatic institutions known today. Neither Athens, not any other Greek state developed a regular diplomatic service.This phenomenon resulted from the specific status of the citizens of the city-states and accordingly of the polis system of social organisation. Outside the boundaries of his native city the polis citizen lost his identity and status. Outside the polis he is not a political subject and he needs an intermediary in order to communicate with the foreign political institutions. These specific circumstances generated the need of diplomatic figures that could act as intermediaries (proxenoi, prostates, epimeletai, xenodokoi, etc.) in the process of communicating with the foreign polis institutions, and to assist in every way the foreigners (xenos – “foreigner”, “guest”) in the polis receiving them. However, these diplomatic mechanisms were not regulated at public level by the formal legislation of the respective states, but at the level of informal, private and predominantly personal relations.
More...
After the defeat of the Ottoman army near Zenta in 1697, sultan Mustafa II agreed to start negotiations in order to conclude the war with Austria that had been going on for fifteen years. The Dutch ambassador to Istanbul, James (Jacobus) Colyer was invited to perform as a mediator, together with his British colleague William Padget. From mid-November 1798 to January 26, 1799, the representatives of the Ottoman Empire, Austria, Poland, Venice and Russia met at Sremski Karlovci, where there discussed the peace treaty. Proceeding from the principle uti possidetis (“keep what you have”), an basic agreement was reached relatively smoothly. It was further decided to create a special commission to draw the new borders taking into account the specific geographic conditions unknown to the negotiators. Subsequently, the commission would decide which fortifications along the border were to be demolished. Finally, the issue of the payment of damages was also settled. Although Padget substantially contributed to the success of the “congress”, it is generally assumed that Colyer actually played the most crucial part. This was due to the good relations the Dutch Republic had with the Ottoman Empire, mainly as a business partner, with Peter the Great’s Russia, and – after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, with the Austrian Empire. Moreover, Colyer, raised in Istanbul as the son of a diplomat, was acquainted with the Ottoman habits. Colyer also was the only mediator who spoke Turkish and German, in addition to Italian, the language most of the negotiators knew and in which the negotiations were conducted. Finally, originating from a federative, democratic, multi-religious state, Colyer was familiar with the art reaching a honorable agreement that would satisfy all parties involved.
More...
The article discussed military-diplomatic relations between Bulgaria and Serbia (Yugodslaviya). It is noted that relations between the two countries are too burdened and therefore require a special approach. The significance of this aspect of relations between Sofia and Belgrade need him to be involved officers who are distinguished by their qualities. Examined the activity of Bulgarian military attaches and summarizes the results. It is emphasized that it contributes significantly to strengthening the national security of Bulgaria.
More...
This article deals with the topic of Romania’s neutrality during the First World War and Great Britain’s efforts to bring Romania into the Great War along with the Allies. The main interest of the British Government, as well as of its western ally, the French Government, was to reduce the pressure on the Western Front by the entering of the Romanian Army into the war against Austria-Hungary and Germany. This strategy was supposed to oblige the Central Powers to send troops on a new theatre of war. In this period, the British diplomacy acted in the direction of getting Romania’s support for Serbia against Bulgaria in order to defend the balance of powers in the Balkans. The Romanian Prime Minister, Ion I. C. Brătianu rejected any intervention of Romania into the war until the end of military preparations and without the conclusion of political and military agreements with the Allies. In the summer of 1916, the Brusilov offensive precipitated the entering of Romania into the war, a decision demanded ultimately especially by France and supported by Russia and Great Britain.
More...