Search

The paper explores the reports of UK and US diplomatic missions in Zagreb and Belgrade, as well as those of the CIA on the 1965 economic reform in Yugoslavia, the removal of Aleksandar Rankovic and the results of the 1966 Fourth Plenum of Brioni. The paper is based on documents from the National Archives of the United Kingdom and the United States. It provides the analyses and impressions of British and American diplomats on everyday life in Croatia and Yugoslavia in the 1960s, political situation and the changing role of the Party as a consequence of the liberalization process (in particular, the changes in political and economic life), and the impact of these changes on relations between different Yugoslav republics and nationalities. The analyzed documents offer a precise view of the British and American -- and therefore the Western -- policies towards Croatia and its position within the socialist Yugoslavia, both within the context of the global Cold war and the Western interests in the region. It can be argued that the West supported political and economic liberalization and decentralization in Yugoslavia. Both US and UK expected that further liberalization and decentralization would diminish the ever present nationalist and inter-republic animosities, and consequently strengthen the process of Yugoslav integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As we know, in 2005 the new Croatian Law of Obligations was enacted and one of the institutes which were changed was precontractual liability. In this paper, the author analyses the historical developement of this institute concentrating primarily on Jhering's culpa in contrahendo doctrine. The regulation on precontractual liability by the former Law of Obligations was also shown so as to compare it with the existing one which represents a step forward concerning the extent of this liability. Significant attention was also paid to the measure of damages. Moreover, it was interesting to see how common law countries treat precontractual liability, especially Great Britain and the USA, having in mind that their standpoint regarding this institute is somewhat different than that of civil law countries one of which is Croatia (with particular regard to the good faith principle). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]