Suchergebnisse

Познато је, и у научној литератури мање-више елаборирано да је повратак религији на подручју бивше СФРЈ ишао руку под руку са стварањем нових националних држава и успостављањем нових/старих етничких граница и идентитета. Због тога је логично што се ова појава често квалификује као религија нације и национализма. Међутим, из ове квалификације често изостаје увид у чињеницу да је повратак религији значио и повећање интересовања за религијска учења и знања, те масовније учествовање у црквеним обредима. Иако је извесно да од високог процента оних који су се на последњем попису идентификовали као православни Срби сасвим мали део одлази на активне вернике, евидентна обнова унутрашњег, литургијског живота Цркве сугерише одређена питања и опрезност при етикетирању савремених облика религиозности и улоге Цркве у њиховом формирању. Историјске околности које доводе до појаве религије нације у Србији у 19. веку чине оправданом хипотезу да религија нације ни тада, а ни данас није изникла из крила Цркве, већ да се она појављује као државни/секуларни идеолошки пројекат, чије су везе са религијом сасвим нерелигијске природе. Да бих поткрепила ову тврдњу, покушаћу да установим и покажем шта се налазило у основама ове световне религије 19. века, те да одговорим на питање начина обликовања њених садржаја. Ово ћу учинити на основу анализе политичке употребе мртвих тела, тј. доношења посмртних остатака Вука Караџића из Беча у Београд и обнављања гроба Доситеја Обрадовића том приликом. ; It is widely known and has been more or less elaborated in scientific literature that return to religion in the area of former SFRY was conducted hand-in-hand with the development of the new national states and establishment of new/old ethnic borders and identities. This is why it is logical that this phe- nomenon is frequently qualified as the religion of the nation and nationalism. However, this qualification frequently lacks insight into the fact that return to religion also meant increased interest in religious teachings and dogmas, as well as greater attendance at Church rituals. Even though it is certain that, among the large percentage of those who declared themselves as Orthodox Serbs during the last Census, a very small number of them are actually active believers; thus, the evident restoration of the internal, liturgical life of the Church suggests certain issues and advises prudence in labeling modern forms of religiousness and the role of the Church in their development. Historical conditions which led to the phenomenon of religion of the nation in Serbia in 19 century justify the hypothesis that religion of the nation was not, and still is not, something to have sprouted out under the auspices of the Church, but that it has occurred as a state/secular ideological project, whose links to religion are of purely non-religious nature. In order to corroborate this statement, I will try to determine and show what was in the basis of this secular religion of 19 century, and answer the question relating to the manner in which its content was shaped. I will do this based on an analysis of political use of dead bodies, i.e. relocation of mortal remains of Vuk Karadžić from Vienna to Belgrade, and restoration of the grave of Dositej Obradović, which was performed on the same occa- sion.

For over a century, rumours have been spread from Croatia about Serbia's intention to create a Greater Serbia and its aspirations to greater Serbian hegemony. This has been a constant refrain in all anti-Serbian speeches delivered both before the Yugoslav and international public. On the one hand, the Serbs and Serbia were presented as aggressors with great territorial appetites, whereas on the other, the aim was to conceal one's own aggression and territorial pretensions to the ethnic, state and historical territories that belonged to others. Though such tactics is a well-known and long-lasting feature of Croatian politics, it has not been given an appropriate place and explanation in Serbian and foreign historiography. Croatia inherited such political approach from Austria-Hungary which demonised and satanised the Serbian intentions aimed at liberation and unification all the more so as its appetites towards the territories in the Balkans increased and as it more strongly expounded the German Drang nach Osten policy. According to such tactical approach, everything that was Serbian was proclaimed greater Serbian in order to nip in the bud and thwart Serbian interests which conflicted with the AustroHungarian ones. Following in the wake of Austro-Hungarian policy, in which they participated and often played the leading role, in all historical periods – from the 1848 revolution to this day the Croats have been denouncing Serbian often labelling it as greater Serbian. By reviling Serbhood and greater Serbhood, in which they saw the main rival to Croatdom and greater Croatdom, Croatian politicians did not only dream about a Greater Croatia, but also worked on building it, with determination and consistency, faithful to the principle that such end justifies all means, including even the genocidal annihilation of the Serbs. The Croatian aspirations to territorial enlargement have a rather long history. Although small in numbers and in a small territory, the Croats have fostered great imperial ambitions. This may be well illustrated with the various names such as: "Alpine or mountainous Croats" (Slovenes), "Orthodox Croats" (Serbs), "indisputable Croats" or the "flower of the Croatian nation" (Muslims), "Turkish Croatia", "Red Croatia", "White Croatia" or "Carpathian Croatia", which were the territories of Bosnia, Montenegro, Dalmatia and Slovenia. These names have been carefully cherished and for centuries instilled in the consciousness of a Croat with the aim to develop the awareness of Croatia's greatness and the numerical strength of the Croats. With the present two studies, I wish to demonstrate and prove when, how, on what foundations and with what objectives the Croats have endeavoured, from the 1848/49 revolution until the present time, to get hold of some parts or the entire territories of Vojvodina and Bosnia and Herzegovina. As precious data on this topic are scattered in different places, it is hard to gain insight into the entirety of this national, state-legal and geopolitical issue. With this in mind, I have elaborated in these papers, in a chronological sequence, on all important Croatian territorial claims on Vojvodina and Bosnia and Herzegovina. I have thus practically uncovered the decades-long greater Croatian politics and have provided concrete answers to the Croatian attacks at Serbia and the Serbs in regard to the so-called greater Serbian politics. I would also like to inform readers that this book is the second, supplemented and expanded edition of the book first published in 2012 in small print run (500 copies) and sold out a long time ago. Belgrade, 20 July 2016 Vasilije Đ. Krestić ; Посебна издања / Српска академија наука и уметности ; књ. 685. Председништво ; књ. 6

Doktorska disertacija Jugoslovenska politika prema zemljama narodne demokratije u susedstvu 1953 – 1958. godine zasnovana je na jugoslovenskim arhivskim izvorima iz Arhiva Srbije i Crne Gore, Diplomatskog arhiva Ministarstva spoljnih poslova Republike Srbije i Vojnog arhiva kao i na relevantnoj domaćoj i stranoj literaturi. Disertacija se bavi jugoslovenskom politikom prema Albaniji, Bugarskoj, Rumuniji i Mađarskoj u periodu normalizacije odnosa Jugoslavije sa ovim zemljama posle Staljinove smrti tj. posle petogodišnjeg perioda tokom koga su njihovi odnosi bili u gotovo potpunom prekidu. Ona predstavlja pokušaj da se sagleda odnos Jugoslavije prema neposrednom susedstvu u uslovima hladnog rata i sadejstva jugoslovenskih interesa sa jedne i spoljnih faktora poput uloge Sovjetskog Saveza u procesu normalizacije odnosa Jugoslavije sa pomenutim zemljama ili uloge vodećih zapadnih zemalja i njihovih interesa u Jugoslaviji i susednim zemljama "narodne demokratije" sa druge strane. U nekoliko faza kroz koje su od marta 1953. do aprila 1958. godine prošli odnosi Jugoslavije sa Albanijom, Bugarskom, Rumunijom i Mađarskom (od Staljinove smrti do potpisivanja Beogradske deklaracije, od potpisivanja Beogradske deklaracije do XX kongresa KPSS-a, od XX kongresa KPSS-a do izbijanja događaja u Mađarskoj 1956. godine i od događaja u Mađarskoj do kritike novog Programa SKJ) jugoslovenska politika se menjala u skladu sa okolnostima zadržavajući kao konstante izražen interes za normalizaciju odnosa i insistiranje na tome da sve susedne zemlje "narodne demokratije" javno osude svoju raniju politiku prema Jugoslaviji i rehabilituju sve koji su na montiranim sudskim procesima osuđeni zbog špijunske delatnost u korist Jugoslavije. Osnovni cilj rada na ovoj dioktorskoj disertaciji je bio da pruži nova znanja o ovoj temi, nove poglede na jugoslovensku spoljnu politiku i ponudi novi ugao gledanja na odnose Jugoslavije sa SSSR-om i Varšavskim paktom u celini. U vezi sa tim definisan je i drugi cilj ovog rada koji se odnosi na rekonstrukciju jugoslovenske politike prema ovim zemljama i na pokušaj da se uoče specifičnosti, metode i ciljevi te politike koji su se razlikovali u odnosu na jugoslovensku politiku prema ostalim istočnoevropskim zemljama. Treći cilj na temu jugoslovenske politike prema susednim zemljama "narodne demokratije" od 1953. do 1958. godine bio je i sistematizacija postojećih znanja o ovoj temi i njihova evaluacija s obzirom na veći stepen dostupnosti izvora nego što je to bio slučaj pre više decenija kada su nastali najznačajniji radovi koji su se delimično bavili pojedinim segmentima ove teme. Četvrti cilj istraživanja bio je utvrđivanje hronološki jasno određenih faza kroz koje su prolazili odnosi Jugoslavije sa Mađarskom, Rumunijom, Bugarskom i Albanijom u posmatranom periodu i identifikacija faktora koji su na to uticali. U trenutku Staljinove smrti, susedne zemlje "narodne demokratije" bile su daleko od centra pažnje jugoslovenske spoljne politike jer je , između ostalog, i njihov značaj za nju u uslovima prekida međudržavnih odnosa bio mali. Međutim, promene koje su ubrzo posle Staljinove smrti usledile u Sovjetskom Savezu omogućile su početak normalizacije odnosa Jugoslavije i "prve zemlje socijalizma" što je za sobom povuklo i mogućnost da Jugoslavija normalizuje svoje odnose i sa susednim zemljama "narodne demokratije". Kada su u pitanju bile te zemlje, primarni jugoslovenski interes nije se nalazio u sferi politike i ekonomije kao u slučaju Sovjetskog Saveza već u sferi praktičnih međudržavnih pitanja koja su teško opterećivala Jugoslaviju. Na prvom mestu to je bio interes da se što pre otkloni vojna pretnja na granicama i stanje na zajedničkoj "liniji razgraničenja" koje je u godinama posle 1948. iziskivalo velika materijalna i kadrovska ulaganja. Osim toga, Jugoslavija je jasan interes imala i po pitanju poboljšanja položaja pripadnika jugoslovenskih manjina u susednim zemljama "narodne demokratije" kao i po pitanju normalizacije saobraćaja. Razlog što Jugoslavija nije pokazivala izražen interes za političku i ekonomsku saradnju sa ovim zemljama ležao je u činjenici da je ona u međuvremenu, u vreme godina sukoba, uspela da pronađe alternativu kako u sferi spoljne politike tako i u sferi ekonomije i na taj način obesmisli blokadu kojoj je bila izložena sa Istoka. Međutim, cena iznalaženja te alternative bila je visoka i pretila je da ugrozi monopol vlasti Saveza komunista Jugoslavije što je za Tita i njegovo najbliže okruženje bilo neprihvatljivo. Iz tog razloga, mogućnost da se nađe zajednički jezik sa Moskvom predstavljao je za Tita priliku da uspostavi ravnotežu kada je u pitanju bio jugoslovenski položaj prema suprotstavljenim blokovima u zaoštrenoj hladnoratovskoj atmosferi. Odnos Jugoslavije prema SSSR-u, i obrnuto, može se smatrati jednim od najznačajnijih faktora koji su uticali na oblikovanje jugoslovenske politike prema susednim zemljama "narodne demokratije" sa jedne i na kreiranje politike koje su sve istočnoevropske zemlje vodile prema Jugoslaviji sa druge strane. Drugi značajan faktor koji je uticao na jugoslovensku politiku prema zemljama "narodne demokratije" u susedstvu od 1953. do 1958. godine bio je u tesnoj vezi sa jugoslovensko-sovjetskim odnosima a ticao se prevashodno ideologije i s tim u vezi destaljinizacije. Kreirajući u godinama sukoba sa Informbiroom sopstveni model "samoupravnog" socijalizma, Jugoslavija tokom procesa normalizacije odnosa nije pristajala na "jedinstvo lagera" i povratak u njega što je bio glavni kamen spoticanja u njenim odnosima kakao sa SSSR-om tako i sa drugim istočnoevropskim zemljama pa i susednim kao što su bile Albanija, Bugarska, Mađarska i Rumunija. S tim u vezi je i destaljinizacija, odnosno njen napredak i dubina u susednim "zemljama" narodne demokratije kao i njihova spremnost da se distanciraju od staljinističke ideologije, predstavljala jedan od glavnih faktora koji su uticali na oblikovanje jugoslovenske politike prema tim zemljama. Najzad, važan činilac koji je uticao na jugoslovensku spoljnu politiku uopšte pa i na njenu politiku prema delu ili celini Istočnog bloka bili su i njeni odnosi sa Zapadom, koji su iz pragmatičnih razloga tokom godina sukoba sa Informbiroom bili poboljšani do te mere da su Jugoslaviju, iako nevoljno, doveli na rub uključenja u zapadni vojni savez. Zapad je bio taj kome se nije dopadalo jugoslovensko približavanje SSSR-u i istočnoevropskim zemljama i u periodu normalizacije njihovih odnosa svaki korak koji je vodio približavanju dveju do tada suprotstavljenih strana izazivao je na Zapadu sumnje u iskrenost Jugoslavije i zebnju kada je u pitanju bila budućnost odnosa Zapada i Jugoslavije. Kao rezultat sadejstva nekoliko najvažnijih spoljnih faktora i jugoslovenskih interesa u neposrednom susedstvu iz okvira socijalističkog "lagera" nastajala je jugoslovenska politika prema Istoku uopšte pa i prema Albaniji, Bugarskoj, Rumuniji i Mađarskoj ponaosob, onakva kakva je bila. U periodu od 1953. do 1958. godine ta politika je bila aktivna i pozitivna ali ne i bez ograda. Tih godina, Jugoslavija je bez sumnje pokazivala interes da normalizuje svoje odnose sa susedima sa kojima je osim granice delila i ideologiju ali najčešće nije želela da ona bude ta koja će dati inicijativu za konkretne korake u tom procesu. Smatrajući da su međusobni odnosi narušeni ne njenom već krivicom suseda, ona je strogo poštovala načelo (koje je inače zastupala i kada je u pitanju bila njena politika prema SSSR-u) da prvi korak treba da učini onaj koji je odgovoran za prekid normalnih dobrosusedskih odnosa. Imajući u vidu sve interese, želje i aspiracije koje je Jugoslavija imala kada je u pitanju bio prostor neposredno uz njene granice kao i faktore koji su neminovno uticali na njenu politiku, može se reći da je Jugoslavija prema zemljama "narodne demokratije" u susedstvu u periodu normalizacije međusobnih odnosa od 1953. do 1958. godine vodila politiku mogućeg. Ta politika, međutim, iako osmišljena na isti način, nije uvek bila ista prema svakoj pojedinačnoj zemlji u susedstvu iz prostog razloga što u njima nije nailazila na istovetne uslove i mogućnosti. Tamo gde su mogućnosti bile veće, Jugoslavija je postizala više. Međutim, kako je vreme odmicalo i kako je Jugoslavija bivala sve uspešnija u pronalaženju svog sopstvenog "trećeg puta", čini se da joj je sve manje i manje bilo stalo do sadržajnije saradnje sa većinom suseda od kojih je (budući da su sve bile deo Istočnog bloka), u skladu sa svojom novom spoljnopolitičkom strategijom koja je ekvidistancu prema blokovima predviđala kao imperativ, trebalo da napravi određeni otklon. ; The Ph.D. thesis Yugoslav Policy Towards the Neighboring Countries of People's Democracy 1953-1958 is based on Yugoslav archival sources from the Archives of Yugoslavia, the Diplomatic Archives of the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of Serbia and the Military Archives, as well as on the relevant domestic and foreign literature. The thesis deals with Yugoslav policy towards Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary during the period of normalization of relations between these countries and Yugoslavia after Stalin's death, i.e. after a five years' period of almost complete interruption in bilateral relations. It is an attempt at a study of the interplay of Yugoslavia's relations with immediate neighborhood during the Cold War and Yugoslav interests on the one hand, and interests of foreign factors, such as the Soviet Union and the leading Western nations in Yugoslavia and in the neighboring countries within the framework of the normalization of Yugoslavia's relations with the above mentioned countries. During the several phases the Yugoslav relations with Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary went through between March 1953 and April 1958 (from Stalin's death until the signing of the Belgrade Declaration, from then to the 20th congress of the CP of the USSSR, from then until the beginning of the events in Hungary in 1956 and from then until the critique of the new Program of the CP of Yugoslavia), the Yugoslav policy changed in accordance with the situation, preserving the interest in normalizing relations and insisting that all neighboring countries of "people's democracy" should condemn their former policy towards Yugoslavia and rehabilitate all those who had been sentenced as Yugoslav spies at show trials. The main goal of this Ph.D. thesis was to provide new knowledge of the topic, new views on Yugoslav foreign policy and to propose a new vantage point on the Yugoslav relations with the Soviet Union, and on relations with the Warsaw Pact as a whole. Connected with this was another goal of the thesis that concrens the reconstruction of Yugoslav policy toward these countries and the attempt to pinpoint the characteristics, methods and goals of that policy that were different from those of Yugoslav policy toward other east European countries. The third goal of the topic of Yugoslav policy toward the neighboring countries of "people's democracy" between 1953 and 1958 was also to systematize the existing knowledge on the subject in view of better accessability of sources as compared with the situation of several decades ago when the most important works touching upon some aspects of this topic were written. The fourth goal of the research was to determin chronologically clearly defined phases that the Yugoslav relations with Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania had gone through during the researched period and to identify the factors that influenced the process. At the time of Stalin's death the countries of "people's democracy" were far from the focus of the Yugoslav foreign policy, because, among other things, their importance was small due to the severed inter-state relations. However, the changes that set in the Soviet Union soon after Stalin's death made the beginning of normalization of relations with the "first country of socialism" possible. This entailed the possibility that Yugoslavia also normalizes its relations with neighboring countries of "people's democracy". When these countries were in question, Yugoslavia's primary interest didn't lie in political or economic spheres as in the case of the Soviet Union, but rather in the sphere of practical inter-state matters weighting heavily on Yugoslavia. Supreme was the interest to do away as soon as possible with the military threat on the borders and to change the situation on the "line of demarcation" that had required much material and human resources in the years after 1948. Furthermore, Yugoslavia had a clear interest in improving the situation of members of Yugoslav minorities in the neighboring countries of "people's democracy", as well as in normalization of trafic. The reason why Yugoslavia showed no great interest in political or economic cooperation with these countries lay in the fact that she had in the meantime, during the years of conflict, found alternative solutions in the spheres of foreign policy and economy, reducing thus to insignifficance the blocade imposed on her from the East. However, the price of that alternative solution was high and it threatened to endanger the power monopoly of the Union of the Communists of Yugoslavia, which was unacceptable for Tito and his innermost circle of collaborators. For that reason, the possibility of finding common grounds with Moscow was for Tito an oportunity to balance Yugoslavia's position between the two competing blocs in a worsened Cold War atmosphere. Yugoslavia's relation to the USSSR and vice versa, can be seen as one of the most important factors influencing Yugoslav policy toward the neighboring countries of "people's democracy" on the one hand, and on the other, one that was decisively shaping their policy towards Yugoslavia. Another important factor influencing Yugoslav policy toward the countries of "people's democracy" in the vicinity between 1953 and 1958 was closely connected with the Yugoslav-Soviet relations and it concerned primarily ideology and, in that context, destalinization. Having created her own model of "self-managing" socialism during the years of conflict with the Cominform, during the process of normalization Yugoslavia didn't accept the unity of the Eastern Bloc and the matter of her return to it was one of the main stumbling blocks both in her relations with the USSR and with the neighbors such as Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. In that context, destalinisation, i.e. its progress and depth in the neighboring countries of "people's democracy" and their willingnes to distance themselves from the Stalinist ideology was one of the major factors influencing Yugoslavia's policy toward those countries. Finally, the important factor influencing Yugoslav foreign policy in general, including part of the Eastern Block or it as a whole, were Yugoslavia's relations with the West that had been so improved during the years of conflict with the Cominform, that they led Yugoslavia, although unwillingly, to the brink of joining the western military alliance. The West was unhappy with Yugoslav rapprochement with the USSR and eastern European countries and every step that brought closer the two once confonted parties during the process of normalization of their relations, caused the West to doubt Yugoslavia's sincerety and cause fears for the future relations between the West and Yugoslavia. As a result of interplay of several major foreign political factors and Yugoslav interests in the imediate socialist block neighborhood, the Yugoslav policy toward the East in general and toward Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary individually, emerged in the given form. Between 1953 and 1958 that policy was active and positive, but not without restrains. During those years Yugoslavia clearly showed interest in normalizing her relations with the neighboring countries with whom she shared not only borders, but ideology too, but in most cases she was not willing to be the one to initiate concrete steps in that process. Deeming that it had not been her fault but that of her neighbors that the bilateral relations had been spoiled, she observed strictly the principle (that she also championed in her relations with the USSR) that the side that had been responsible for the interruption of normal good neighborly relations should also make the first move. Having in mind all the interests, wishes and aspirations that Yugoslavia had concerning the space imediatly bordering on her territory as well as the factors necessarily infuencing her policy, it can be said that Yugoslavia led the policy of what was possible toward the neighboring countries of "people's democracy" during tthe period of normalization of bilateral relations 1953-1958. However, that policy wasn't always the same toward all these neighboring countries, for simple reason that it didn't meet with the same conditions and possibilities in them. Where possibilities were greater, Yugoslavia acheived more. However, as the time went by and as Yugoslavia became increasingly more successful in finding her own "third way", it seems she was increasingly less interested in substantial cooperation with most of the neighbors from whom (since they were all members of the Eastern Block) certain distance should be kept – in keeping with the new foreign political strategy that foresaw equidistance towards both blocs as a must.

Početak dvadeset i prvog veka obeležio je najveći teroristički akt u istoriji čovečanstva, 11. septembar 2001. godine. Samoubilački napadi izvršeni tog dana na teritoriji Sjedinjenih Država su načinom na koji su izvedeni, svojom veličinom i posledicama, osigurali da početak novog milenijuma ostane upamćen u svetu po nagloj ekspanziji međunarodnog terorizma, koji je zbog neposrednih žrtava, materijalnih razaranja, i stalnog straha i nesigurnosti koje izaziva, gotovo sve šokirao i prestravio. Savremeni terorizam, dramatično oslikan kroz 11. septembar, danas predstavlja jedan od ključnih bezbednosnih problema i izazova globalizovanog društva, čiji sve češći, razorniji i smrtonosniji akti jasno ističu njegovu dominaciju nad drugim oblicima ugrožavanja bezbednosti. Ubrzo nakon 11. septembra, predsednik SAD Džordž V. Buš Mlađi objavio je sveopšti, prostorno i vremenski neograničen rat terorizmu, uz podršku većine zemalja u svetu kao i međunarodnih institucija, poput NATO i UN. Ovaj nekonvencionalni rat obuhvatio je mnoštvo vojnih, političkih i legislativnih akcija koje za glavni cilj imaju sprečavanje i suzbijanje terorizma na globalnom nivou. U tu svrhu donesene su posebne protivterorističke strategije kao i mnoštvo podstrategijskih dokumenata, kako u SAD, tako i u Evropskoj uniji kao i u njenim zemljama članicama. Američka nacionalna strategija za borbu protiv terorizma otklonila je propuste protivterorstičke prevencije i rezultirala podizanjem nivoa unutrašnje bezbednosti SAD. Glavni pokazatelj njene efikasnosti je činjenica da su Sjedinjene Države ostale pošteđene velikorazmernih terorističkih napada posle 11. septembra. To nije bio i slučaj sa Evropskom unijom, njihovim najvećim saveznikom, koju je u prvoj deceniji ovog rata Al Kaida prestravila sa dva velika napada (Madrid 2004. i London 2005. godine). Nažalost, EU je još uvek i meta i baza islamističkih ekstremista što predstavlja dokaz, a i najozbiljnije upozorenje, da je njena protivteroristička prevencija, za razliku od američke, u jednom ili više segmenata neadekvatna (propustljiva). ; The beginning of the twenty-first century was marked by the biggest terrorist act in the history of humanity, September 11, 2001. In the way that they were carried out, their size and consequences, suicide attacks committed on that day on the territory of the United States have ensured that the start of the new millennium will be remembered in the world by the rapid expansion of international terrorism, which has shocked and horrified almost everybody due to the direct victims, material damage, the fear and insecurity which evokes. Today, modern terrorism, dramatically portrayed through 9/11, represents one of the key security issues and challenges of a globalized society, whose frequent, more destructive and deadly acts clearly emphasize its domination over the other forms of endangering safety. Shortly after 9/11, the U.S. President George W. Bush Jr. announced an all-out, spatially and temporally unlimited war on terrorism, with the support of most countries in the world as well as international institutions, such as NATO and the UN. This unconventional warfare included a variety of military, political and legislative actions whose main objective is to prevent and combat terrorism on a global level. For this purpose, the special anti-terrorism strategies, and a number of other relevant strategic documents were adopted, both in the USA and in the European Union, as well as in its Member States. The U.S. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism has eliminated the glitches in American anti-terrorism prevention and resulted in raising the level of internal security of the United States. The main indicator of its effectiveness is the fact that the United States have been spared of large-scale terrorist attacks after the 9/11. This was not the case with the European Union, its biggest ally, which in the first decade of this war was terrified with two large attacks by Al Qaeda (Madrid 2004 and London 2005). Unfortunately, the EU is still the target and a base of Islamist extremists, which is an evidence and a most serious warning that its anti-terrorism prevention, unlike the U.S.'s, is in one or more segments inadequate (permeable).

The subject of this dissertation is the mutual relationship between institutions and economic growth and development. The analysis focuses especially on this relationship during the privatization process in Serbia, as well as the influence of institutional quality on the process of privatization. Accordingly, the theoretical framework of this thesis represents institutional economics, which as a theoretical concept, points out the role and importance of institutions for economic growth and development of each country. The institutions create the "rules of the game", that represent the normative framework of given economy, as well as the mechanisms that affect its efficiency. According to this theoretical concept, economic analysis can not be reduced to an examination of the market and market relations, but must also include the institutions that regulate the market and allow its efficient functioning. The dissertation first discusses the theoretical bases of institutional economics and provide the basic elements of its genesis (old institutionalism and new institutional economics). On this basis, the basic concepts of institutional economics are defined and their methodological meaning for the purposes of the analysis are determined in this dissertation. That is why it is specifically discussed the role of rules and contracts and property rights and transaction costs, particularly in terms of economic efficiency. Using the above basic concepts of institutional economics is analyzed and the fundamental question of this dissertation - the influence of institutional quality on the privatization process and its effects in Serbia, and consequently its economic growth and development. Different outcome of institutional reforms and attitude towards them is in transition countries resulted in different levels of their economic development and to a large extent determined by the character of the economic system and the quality of its institutions. Uneven development in these countries is due to the different institutional capacities, conditioned by the political and economic determinants. Developed countries in transition had the better of the institution, which has allowed them to implement the overall reform faster and more efficiently. On the other hand, the less developed countries find themselves in front of urgent institutional reforms that did not have adequate economic base, resulting in the potential for economic growth was much slower. There were no adequate and quality institutions. Determine what kind of economic and institutional environment did the process of privatization in Serbia is an important element of this dissertation. ; Predmet istraživanja ovog rada je međusobni odnos institucija i privrednog rasta i razvoja. Analiza se posebno fokusira na ovaj odnos tokom procesa privatizacije u Srbiji, kao i na uticaj kvaliteta institucija na sam proces privatizacije. U skladu sa tim, teorijski okvir ove disertacije predstavlja institucionalna ekonomija, koja kao teorijski koncept, u prvi plan ističe ulogu i značaj institucija za privredni rast i razvoj svake zemlje. Institucije kreiraju "pravila igre", odnosno predstavljaju normativni okvir date ekonomije, kao i mehanizme koji utiču na njenu efikasnost. Prema ovom teorijskom konceptu, ekonomska analiza se ne može svesti samo na ispitivanje tržišta i tržišnih odnosa, već mora obuhvatiti i institucije koje uređuju tržište i omogućavaju njegovo efikasno funkcionisanje. U radu se najprije razmatraju teorijske osnove institucionalne ekonomije i daju osnovni elementi njene geneze (stari institucionalizam i nova institucionalna ekonomija). Na toj osnovi se definišu osnovni pojmovi institucionalne ekonomije i određuje njihov metodološki smisao za potrebe analize koja se vrši u ovom radu. Tako se posebno razmatra uloga pravila i ugovora, te svojinska prava i transakcioni troškovi, prvenstveno sa aspekta ekonomske efikasnosti. Primjenom navedenih osnovnih pojmova institucionalne ekonomije analizira se i osnovno pitanje ovog rada – uticaj kvaliteta institucija na proces privatizacije i njegove efekte u Srbiji, a posledično i na njen privredni rast i razvoj. Različit ishod institucionalnih reformi i odnos prema njima je u zemljama u tranziciji rezultirao različitim nivoom njihovog ekonomskog razvoja i u značajnoj mjeri je odredio karakter ekonomskog sistema i kvalitet njegovih institucija. Nejednak razvoj u tim zemljama je posledica različitih institucionalnih kapaciteta, uslovljenih političkim i ekonomskim determinantama. Razvijenije zemlje u tranziciji su imale i kvalitetnije institucije, što im je omogućilo da sveukupne reforme sprovedu brže i efikasnije. Sa druge strane, manje razvijenije zemlje su se našle pred neodložnim institucionalnim reformama za koje nisu imale odgovarajuću ekonomsku podlogu, usled čega je njihov ekonomski razvoj bio znatno sporiji. Nisu postojale adekvatne i kvalitetne institucije. Utvrditi u kakvom ekonomskom i institucionalnom okruženju je tekao proces privatizacije u Srbiji predstavlja važan element ovog rada.

Predmet ove disertacije je teorijska analiza regulatornog, komunikološkog, tehnološkog i socio-kulturnog okvira u kome nastaje i širi se "govor mržnje", kao i analiza sadržaja i analiza efekata govora mržnje u internet komunikaciji u Srbiji. Cilj disertacije bio je da preciznije definiše sadržaj govora mržnje i kontekst u kome on nastaje, da u odnosu na kulturološke specifičnosti Srbije preciznije utvrdi granicu između mere u kojoj je neophodno omogućiti nesmetanu slobodu izražavanja i ograničiti širenje govora mržnje. Osnovna hipoteza u ovom radu bila je da je koncept govora mržnje višeznačan i da njegovo razumevanje zavisi od geografskog, kulturnog i uopšte socijalnog konteksta u kome se on manifestuje. Govor mržnje na internetu negativno utiče na javnu komunikaciju te samim tim i na proces formiranja javne sfere. Budući da tako ometa kvalitetnu raspravu o problemima od društvenog značaja, govor mržnje otežava donošenje demokratskih odluka i na direktan način urušava demokratske vrednosti u društvu. U istraživanju je sprovedena komparativna analiza evropskih i nacionalnih pravnih akata u oblasti govora mržnje i slobode izražavanja, dat je kritički pregled ključnih međunarodnih naučnih studija i istraživanja govora mržnje na internetu, kao i institucionalna analiza postojećih mehanizama za suzbijanje govora mržnje. Pored toga sprovedena je analiza odabranih aktera i analiza sadržaja internet stranica na kojima je plasiran govor mržnje prema određenim manjinskim grupama u Srbiji. U istraživanju je identifikovan, opisana i problematizovan fenomen govora mržnje na internetu u kontekstu javne komunikacije u Srbiji. U definisanju samog pojma govora mržnje, kroz komparativnu analizu različitih izvora, uočeno je da njegovo identfikovanje zavisi od toga šta se u određenom društvenom, političkom i kulturnom konetkst smatra za osnovni problem koji želi da se reši ovakvim definicijama. Posebno je istaknuta razlika u shvatanju govora mržnje u različitim pravnim tradicijama u svetu. Pored toga, u široj 4 javnosti kao i u različitoj stručnoj literaturi često nije dovoljno dobro definisana jasna granica govora mržnje u odnosu na uvrede, klevete, negaciju nekih istorijskih događaja ili opravdavanje zločina, vređanje simbola, kritiku javnih ličnosti, različitih političkih stavova i religija. Nedovoljno jasna granica između dozvoljenog i potencijalno zabranjenog izražavanja dovodi do nesporazuma i neefikasne borbe protiv govora mržnje koji bi potencijalno mogao da izazove ozbiljne negativne posledice. Oštra kritika nekog pojedinca ili neke grupe veoma lako može biti protumačena kao govor mržnje, a takav pristup zapravo zatvara prostor za diskusiju o nekom problemu i na direktan način sputava slobodu izražavanja, te ugrožava deliberativan proces u demokratskom društvu. ; The topic of this dissertation is the theoretical analysis of the regulatory, communication, technological and socio-cultural framework in which the "hate speech" is being developed, as well as analysis of the content and analysis of the effects of hate speech in online communication in Serbia. The aim of the dissertation was to more precisely define the content of hate speech and the context in which it arises, and in relation to the cultural specifics of Serbia, more precisely determines the boundary between the measure in which it is necessary to provide unhindered freedom of expression and limit the spread of hate speech. The main hypothesis in this work was that the concept of hate speech is multidimensional and that its understanding depends on the geographical, cultural and general social context in which it manifests itself. Hate speech online has a negative impact on public communication and, consequently, on the process of forming a public sphere. Since it hinders the quality debate on the problems of social coercion, hate speech makes it difficult to make democratic decisions and directly undermines the stability of democratic values in society. The study has conducted a comparative and normative analysis of European and national legal acts in the field of hate speech and freedom of expression, as well as other international scientific studies and research in order to better understand the problem of hate speech online, as well as institutional analysis of existing mechanisms for combating hate speech. In addition, an analysis of selected actors of hate speech was conducted through an analysis of the content of the websites where hate speech was addressed to certain minority groups in Serbia. The research described the phenomenon of hate speech online as a complex phenomenon needed to be analysed from several angles to show more clearly all the problems and all the challenges of its precise definition. In defining the notion of hate speech itself, through a 8 comparative analysis of various sources, it is noted that it depends on what is considered to be a basic problem which particular country wants to solve with such definitions. There is a particular difference in understanding of the hate speech in various international legal traditions. In general public, as in various professional literatures, the definition of hate speech is often not clear enough in relation to insults, defamation, denial of some historical events or justification of crimes, insulting symbols, and criticism of public figures, political affiliations and religions. The insufficiently clear boundary between permitted and potentially prohibited expression leads to misunderstandings and ineffective fight against hate speech that could potentially cause serious negative consequences. A sharp critique of an individual or of a group can easily be interpreted as hate speech, and such an approach actually closes the space for discussion and directly suppresses freedom of expression and endangers the deliberative process in a democratic society.

Jevrejski istorijski muzej (JIM) u Beogradu predstavlјa jednu celovitu, po mnogo čemu jedinstvenu muzejsku ustanovu u Srbiji. To je jedini jevrejski muzej u našoj zemlјi, tematski specijalizovan, a sadržajno veoma kompleksan. Osim muzejskog materijala, Jevrejski istorijski muzej ima sopstveni, srazmerno veliki arhiv čija dokumentacija i foto-dokumentacija svedoči kako o Holokaustu, u kojem su mnoge jevrejske opštine bukvalno nestale, tako i o životu i aktivnostima jevrejskih zajednica iz Srbije i sa teritorije cele bivše Jugoslavije u 19, još više 20. veku, uklјučujući i savremene periode. Jevrejski istorijski muzej je osnovan 1948. godine u okviru Saveza jevrejskih opština bivše Jugoslavije. Zanimlјiva je činjenica da je ideja o osnivanju muzeja ovakvog tipa mnogo starija. Već posle prvog Redovnog kongresa Saveza jevrejskih veroispovednih opština Kralјevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca održanog 1921. godine u Zagrebu, bilo je predloga i planova za stvaranje muzeja - pravog mesta za čuvanje jevrejske baštine i kulturnog identiteta. Ipak, ova ideja nije ostvarena. Imajući u vidu Drugi svetski rat i događaje koju su usledili počev od 1941. godine u Jugoslaviji, sa ove vremenske distance, može se slobodno reći da je ״sreća u nesreći" što jevrejski muzej nije tada osnovan. Pošto je uspeo da se obnovi, kao vodeća institucija preživelih jevrejskih opština oslobođene Republike Jugoslavije, Savez se, u jesen 1945. godine, obratio svojim članicama sa molbom da prikupe sve raspoložive podatke o Holokaustu i učešću Jevreja u Norodnooslobodilačkoj borbi. Bio je to prvi, ali sasvim konkretan korak ka muzeju. Relativno brzo, u Zagrebu je formiran Muzejsko-istorijski odsek u okviru Pravnog odelјenja Saveza. Otpočelo je sistematsko traganje za sačuvanom arhivskom građom. Godine 1952. do tada sakuplјena građa je preselјena u Beograd, kada se nastavilo sa traganjem i sakuplјanjem. ״Odsek" je počeo da se razvija u pravcu kompletne muzejske ustanove. Te 1952. godine, organizovana je izložba povodom otkrivanja impresivnog spomenika Bogdana Bogdanovića na sefardskom groblјu u Beogradu, posvećenog jevrejskim žrtvama Holokausta. Povodom obeležavanja desetogodišnjice obnove, Savez je 1955. postavio još jednu izložbu o radu celokupne jevrejske zajednice u tadašnjoj Jugoslaviji. Za sve to vreme, kao osnivač i vlasnik Muzeja, Savez je bio u stalnom kontaktu sa svim svojim jevrejskim opštinama, obnovlјenim posle neviđenog stradanja 1941-1945. godine. Za zajednički Muzej i dalјe su stizali materijali koji su se odnosili na istoriju jugoslovenskih Jevreja. Pozivu Saveza su se odazivali i pojedinci, preživeli Jevreji koji su donosili poneki predmet ili porodične fotografije, kolekcionari čije su zbirke opstale sakrivene, i drugi . Mnogi su Muzeju zaveštali predmete iz porodičnih kuća od istorijskog, etnološkog ili umetničkog značaja, a povremeno je vršen i otkup eksponata, u zavisnosti od trenutnih uslova. Počev od datuma osnivanja, pa do 1959. godine, sakuplјen je muzejski i arhivski materijal, dovolјan da se iste godine otvori lepa, slikovita - prva stalna, muzejska postavka. Na dan 19. maja 1960. godine, za javnost je otvoren Muzej Saveza jevrejskih opština Jugoslavije, u istoj zgradi u kojoj je i Savez. Posle izvesnog vremena, naziv muzeja je preinačen u Jevrejski istorijski muzej (JIM), što mnogo više odgovara njegovoj nameni i sadržaju. Sa sakuplјanjem i stručnom obradom materijala se nastavilo, pa je 1969. godine otvorena druga stalna postavka Jevrejskog istorijskog muzeja, znatno bogatija i izražajnija. Za njenu koncepciju je bila zaslužna prof. dr Vidosava Nedomački, prvi upravnik Muzeja. Posle raspada Jugoslavije 1992. godine, formiran je Savez jevrejskih opština Srbije u kojem se okupilo deset jevrejskih opština, koliko ih ukupno ima u našoj zemlјi. Status Jevrejskog istorijskog muzeja ostao je isti - on je deo Saveza jevrejskih opština Srbije. Iako je u sastavu Saveza, Muzej se razvio u instituciju za sebe, sa svojim specifičnim životom, svojom stručnom ekipom i svojim poslovnim kontaktima sa drugim muzejima. S obzirom na to da je stalna izložbena postavka Muzeja otvorena mnogo pre raspada Jugoslavije, ona se bavi istorijskim, etnološkim i opštekulturnim temama vezanim za jevrejstvo celokupnog nekadašnjeg jugoslovenskog područja. Usled teških političkih i ekonomskih problema koji su, počev od 1992. godine pritiskali našu zemlјu, Srbiju, nisu se zasad stekli uslovi za izradu nove, drugačije koncipirane postavke. Međutim, ako imamo u vidu činjenicu da su Jevreji ovog dela Balkana imali zajedničku istoriju i kulturna obeležja - onda je neizbežno da i koncept nove postavke zadrži, bar delimično, širi pristup u svojoj budućoj prezentaciji. Zbog svega toga, a i zahvalјujući složenoj i veoma suptilno osmišlјenoj koncepciji, realna starost stalne izložbene postavke Jevrejskog istorijskog muzeja nikome ne smeta, jer ne utiče na izvanredan kvalitet informacija o jevrejskoj istoriji i načinu života. ; The Jewish Historical Museum (JHM) in Belgrade is a comprehensive and, in manу ways, a unique museum in Serbia. It is the only Jewish museum in the country, thematically specialized, and very complex in terms of contents. Apart from museum exhibits, the Jewish Historical Museum also has its own, relatively large, archives whose documentation and photo documentation are testimony both of the Holocaust, during which manу Jewish communities literally perished, and of the life and activities of Jewish communities from Serbia and the whole territory of former Yugoslavia during the 19th and, even more, the 20th century, including the present times. The Jewish Historical Museum was founded in 1948, as part of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Yugoslavia. It is interesting to note that the idea of founding a museum of this type dates much further back. Already after the First Congress of the Federation of Jewish Religious Communities of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, held in 1921 in Zagreb, there were recommendations and plans concerning the foundation of such a museum as the right place to preserve the heritage and cultural identity. Yet, the idea had not materialized. Having in mind the World War II and the events that followed from 1941 in Yugoslavia, from this time perspective one could say that it is, in fact, a lucky coincidence that the Jewish museum had not been founded at that time. After the Federation managed to revive itself as the leading institution of the surviving Jewish communities of the liberated Republic of Yugoslavia, in autumn of 1945, it invited its members to collect all data available about the Holocaust and the participation of Jews in the National Liberation Movement. This was the first and very specific step towards founding a museum. Relatively soon afterwards, the Museum - Historical Department was established in Zagreb within the Legal Division of the Federation. Systematic efforts to identify and preserve the archives began. In 1952 all the archives collected until that time were moved to Belgrade, and the search and collection efforts continued. The ״Department" was beginning to develop towards a full museum institution. The same уеаг, 1952, an exhibition was organized on the occasion of launching the impressive monument by artist Bogdan Bogdanovic at the Sephardic cemetery in Belgrade, dedicated to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. On the occasion of commemorating the tenth anniversary of its revival, in 1955, the Federation staged another exhibition on the topic of activities of the whole Jewish community in the then Yugoslavia. During that period, the Federation, as the founder and owner of the Museum, was in permanent contact with all the member Jewish communities that were revitalized after the unprecedented persecution during the period 1941-1945. The Museum continued to receive materials relevant to the history of Yugoslav Jews. The individual, surviving Jews also responded to the invitation of the Museum and contributed individual exhibits and family photographs, and there were contributions from collectors whose collections were hidden and preserved, and others as well. Маnу of them made legacies to the Museum containing artefacts from their families and homes, and these legacies possessed historical, ethnological and artistic value; also depending on its resources available the Museum on occasions also purchased exhibits. From its very establishment, until the уеаг 1959, the Museum had managed to collect sufficient museum and archive materials to establish that same уеаг a good and picturesque permanent museum exhibition. On 19 Мау 1960, the Museum of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Yugoslavia was opened to the public, in the same building which presently houses the Federation. Soon afterwards, the name of the Museum was changed to The Jewish Historical Museum (JHM), which is much better suited to its purpose and content. The collection and professional processing of collected materials continued, so that in 1969 the second permanent exhibition of the Jewish Historical Museum, much richer and more expressive, was presented. The credit for its concept goes to Vidosava Nedomacki, Ph.D., the first Museum Manager. After the disintegration of Yugoslavia in 1992, The Federation of Jewish Communities of Serbia was established, consisting of ten Jewish communities, which is the total existing in our country. The status of the Jewish Historical Museum remained unchanged - it is an integral part of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Serbia. Although existing within the framework of the Federation, the Museum developed into an institution of its own right, living its own specific life, its professional team and business contacts with other museums. Since the permanent exhibition of the Museum was opened long before the disintegration of Yugoslavia, it deals with the historical, ethnological and general cultural topics relevant to the Jewery of the overall then Yugoslav region. Due to the grave political and economic difficulties which, beginning in 1992, overwhelmed our country, Serbia, it has not yet been possible to develop a new, differently designed museum exhibition. However, having in mind the fact that the Jews from this part of the Balkans have had a common history and cultural features - it is unavoidable that the concept of such a new exhibition should maintain, at least partially, a more comprehensive approach to such a presentation which will develop in the future. For all of these reasons, and thanks to the complex and subtly designed concept, the actual age of the permanent exhibition of the Jewish Historical Museum does not bother аnyone, as it does not have an impact on the excellent quality of information regarding Jewish history of the way of life. ; 2. dopunjeno izdanje (2nd enlarged edition). ; Uporedo srpski tekst i engleski prevod. ; Ilustracija za korice knjige: Tora i jad - pokazivač za tekst Tore iz Judaika zbirke Jevrejskog istorijskog muzeja (motive for the cover page: The Torah scroll with a Torah pointer from the Judaica collection of the Jewish Historical Museum).