Ovaj diplomski rad pruža svojevrstan pregled razvoja sigurnosne i antiterorističke politike EU temeljene na idejama manjeg zla, ravnoteže i trgovanja između slobode i sigurnosti, uz analizu samih ideja. Analizirajući izvanrednost sigurnosne politike EU s jedne, te terorizma kao glavnog izazova sigurnosti EU (uz etničke sukobe) s druge strane, u radu se prikazuju određene proturječnosti sigurnosnih mjera EU utemeljenih na ideji ravnoteže sigurnosti i slobode. Proturječnosti su vidljive, ne toliko u smislu neprestanog pozivanja na nužnost i važnost očuvanja sigurnosti i slobode i paralelnom ograničavanju istih, koliko u smislu ograničavanja ili ukidanje ljudskih prava i sloboda kao načina podizanja općeg stanja sigurnosti bez pružanja konkretnih procjena o učinkovitosti istih, bez stvarnih jamstava ili dokaza o postizanja sigurnosnih uspjeha. Europska integracija počiva na vrijednostima mira, slobode, jednakosti i tolerancije od samih svojih početaka. U kompleksnosti odnosa europskih liberalnih vrijednosti i ciljeva s jedne, te sigurnosne nužnosti i opravdanja s druge strane, ovaj rad svoju tezu temelji na nekoliko primjera ograničavanja temeljnih ljudskih i građanskih sloboda. Građanska prava koja se obrađuju temelje se na Ugovoru iz Maastrichta, dok se ljudska prava temelje se na Europskoj konvenciji o ljudskim pravima. Kada se govori o postizanju, povećanju ili ugrozi sigurnosti, sigurnost se definira kao (I.) "Sigurnost kao stanje osjećaja zbrinutosti i smirenosti, slobode od straha ili tjeskobe" i (II) "Sigurnost kao poduzimanje mjera i postupaka s ciljem poboljšanja sigurnosti države ili organizacije". Europska sigurnost je shvaćena kao strategija vrlo bliska konceptu europskog identiteta tj. kao artikulacija zajedničkih europskih vrijednosti i interesa. ; This master's thesis provides an unique overview of the development of security and counter-terrorism policies of the EU based on the ideas of the lesser evil, balance and tradeoffs between freedom and security, along with an analysis of the ideas ...
In this paper we are presenting the results of a scientific research on the changes in the characteristics of terrorism in the information age, relating to the influences of network technologies, results of the information revolution, the paradigm of terrorism. Perceiving the terrorism in a wider context as a conflict, Arquilla, Ronfeldt & Zanini have found two particularly interesting aspects of the influence of the information revolution on its characteristics: one, information revolution is favoring & strengthening network forms of organization, & is at the same time enabling the realization of their comparative advantages over hierarchical forms & two, the conduct & outcome of conflicts will increasingly depend on information & communication technologies. Exploring the influence on organizational forms, they have formulated a hypothesis on evolution of the hierarchical forms into network forms of organization; chain network, star network & all-channel network, substantiating the evolution of terrorism towards netwar. Netwar refers to an emerging mode of conflict at societal level, in which the protagonists use network forms of organization & related doctrines, strategies & technologies of the information age. The choice of the opus operandi of the netwar by the terrorist organization depends on the doctrinal paradigms that formulate their goals & strategies, which can be defined as the coercive diplomacy paradigm, the war paradigm & the new-world paradigm. The particular problem is that all three paradigms offer room for cybotage with the goal of disruption & destruction of information infrastructure. Based on the above stated premises we have researched "new" terrorism characteristics at organizational, doctrinal, strategic & technological levels. The study has confirmed the evolution of terrorism towards netwar & the emerging of "new terrorism," hence the counter terrorism activities will needed to be adapted at the organizational, strategic & technological levels respectively. Given methodology also represents a research model for the terrorism phenomenon which could be applied at a multidisciplinary approach to the antiterrorist activities. Tables, Figures, References. Adapted from the source document.
Koncept ljudske sigurnosti prvi put je istaknut u izvješću UNDP-a (United Nations Development Programme: Razvojni program Ujedinjenih naroda) 1994. i bazira se na slobodi od oskudice (freedom from want) i slobodi od straha (freedom from fear). Na Svjetskom samitu o hrani (World Food Summit) 1996. sigurnost hrane je definirana na način koji naglašava dostupnost hrane, pristup hrani te korištenje i stabilnost kao ključne dimenzije sigurnosti hrane. Iako najčešće nije jedini uzrok sukoba, nesigurnost hrane predstavlja sigurnosnu prijetnju jer služi kao pokretač nasilnog djelovanja. Glad i nesigurnost hrane povećavaju vjerojatnost da će doći do prosvjeda i nereda što potiče nesigurnost među stanovništvom i ostavlja dugotrajne posljedice na cjelokupan razvoj zajednice. S druge strane, sukobi uzrokuju degradaciju okoliša, raspad ekonomije i prisilno raseljavanje stanovništva što u konačnici uzrokuje glad i, naposljetku, bolest i smrt. U posljednjem desetljeću mnoge zemlje ulažu napore u provođenje zakona i strategija usmjerenih na rješavanje problema gladi. Nastoji se potaknuti i društvene skupine da aktivno sudjeluju kako bi uz pomoć međunarodne zajednice unaprijedili sigurnost hrane i osigurali pozitivne transformacije. ; The concept of human security was first highlighted in the UNDP report of 1994 and is based on two freedoms; freedom from want and freedom from fear. The widely accepted World Food Summit definition from 1996 emphasizes the importance of food availability, food access, food use and stability of food as key dimensions of food security. Although usually not the only cause of conflict, food insecurity represents a security threat since it serves as an initiator of violent actions. The presence of hunger and food insecurity increase the probability of protests and riots, which further causes insecurity among the population and leaves long-term consequences to the overall development of the community. On the other hand, conflicts cause the degradation of environment, economic disruption, forced displacement of the population which, in the end, causes hunger and ultimately disease and death. In the last decade, many countries have invested their efforts in law enforcement and strategies aimed at solving the problem of hunger. Countries also seek to activate social groups for participating actively in cooperation with international communities in order to enhance food security and ensure positive transformation.
Ideja o nastanku jedne zajednice koja bi obuhvatila Europu seže daleko u prošlost, ali tek 1950. godine nastaju prvi koraci ka stvaranju Europske unije. Velika razaranja u ratovima nametnula su razmišljanja o tome kako nadići antagonizme među europskim državama. Nakon Drugog svjetskog rata, europske države shvaćaju da imaju zajedničke probleme i odlučuju se dobrovoljno udružiti u zajednicu kako bi stvorile bolju budućnost za nadolazeće generacije. Tako nastaje Europska zajednica za ugljen i čelik, koja se kasnije udružuje s Europskom ekonomskom zajednicom i Europskom zajednicom za atomsku energiju te se od 1993. godine formalno formira Europska unija pod tim nazivom. Sadrži veliki broj članica koje se povećavaju iz dana u dan. Osnovni cilj rada jest prikazati kakva je to zapravo bila ideja o osnivanju zajednica koje bi ujedinile Europu, kako je nastala Europska zajednica te kako se razvijala, prikazati ciljeve EU-a, kakve je promjene donijela u Europi te je li ispunila svoj prvobitni i najznačajniji cilj, a to je ujedinjenje Europe. ; The European Union represents the most significant segment of the European integration. The idea about its formation and the formation itself have a long history. In 1950, the French Foreign Minister – Robert Schuman, motivated by the need of establishing peace, presented a project as the beginning of the European federalization process or more clearly as the first step towards the European Federation. Under this influence, in 1952¸ European Coal and Steel Community was established. In the upcoming years, two more communities were founded – European Economic Community and European Community for Atomic Energy. The result of the cooperation and integration of these two communities is the European Union. Formally, it is established on the 1st of November, 1993 by the Maastricht Treaty. European Union is the result of a discussion on building the everlasting peace in this region. It was created as a consequence of fear from the internal and foreign threats to the safety of Europe. The main goals of the European integrations are: encouraging the balanced and tenable economic development; to confirm its identity on the international scene, especially by spreading common foreign and secure politics; to strengthen the protection of rights and interests of the citizens of its members by the introduction of the rights of Union citizenship; to develop a close cooperation in the field of judiciary and internal affairs. Political activities of the European Union can be seen in different spheres – from the health care and economics to the foreign affairs and defence politics. Depending on the development of every country individually, the organization of the European Union differs on different fields. European Union, as the organization that unites Europe and that represents an important segment in development of the international cooperation and the peacekeeping, has become a subject of a study and research of the international historiography. Today, the establishment and development of the European Union are being studied greatly, but also is a question whether it shows some indications of its disruption and disadvantages that could be the reasons of the EU falling apart. Therefore, thanks to many authors, a lot of work exists that talks about this. Is EU going to fall apart in the future - remains the question for which we will be able to find an answer only in days ahead of us.
Pri analizi dvaju suprotstavljenih narativa povezanih s temom uspostave vojske Europske unije (EU) u europskom medijskom i političkom prostoru u ovome radu upotrebljava se teorija sekrutizacije te se temeljem analize diskursa i javnog mnijenja dokazuje da suprotstavljeni narativi ispunjavaju uvjete da ih prema definiciji Kopenhagenske škole svedemo pod pojam sekuritizacije. Prema autorima Kopenhagenske škole, sekuritizacija je govorni čin kojim provoditelj sekuritizacije do tada nepolitizirani odnosno politizirani predmet debate prikazuje kao egzistencijalnu prijetnju prema referentnom objektu koja zahtijeva hitne mjere. Prvi narativ koji rad analizira je neizvjesna sigurnosna situacija u Europi i oko nje koja bi mogla prerasti u egzistencijalnu prijetnju društvu Europske unije i europskom identitetu zbog nepostojanja vojske Unije. Drugi, tome oprečni narativ pak interpretira uspostavu vojske Europske unije kao egzistencijalnu prijetnju NATO savezu i suverenitetu država članica Unije. Rad postavlja pitanje je li sekuritizacija upotrebljiva poluga u nastojanju provođenja odnosno blokiranja čvršće intergracije EU na području obrane. Analizom diskursa glavnih aktera, provoditelja sekuritizacije i sigurnosnih strategija EU, Velike Britanije i Sjedinjenih Američkih Država te analizom prihvaćanja narativa od strane publike, rad zaključuje da su ti oba narativa činovi sekuritizacije. Prvi narativ, sekuritiziran od strane europskih federalista na čelu s predsjednikom Europske komisije Jean-Claudeom Junckerom, kao referentne objekte koji se pod hitno moraju zaštiti postavlja društvo EU i europski identitet. Egzistencijalna prijetnja referentnim objektima dolazi od ruske politike, ali i neizvjesne sigurnosne situacije u neposrednom susjedstvu EU-a. Ovaj narativ kao rješenje nameće uspostavu vojske EU-a. Drugi narativ, sekuritiziran od strane euroskeptika, NATO saveza te političkih elita Velike Britanije, SAD-a i Rusije, kao referentne objekte koji se pod hitno moraju zaštititi postavlja suverenitet država članica EU i opstanak NATO saveza koji se nalaze u egzistencijalnoj prijetnji od strane uspostave vojske Europske unije, čija bi uspostava oduzela nacionalne vojske tj. suverenitet država članica u području obrane, a postojanje NATO saveza učinilo izlišnim ; The thesis proves that around the establishment of the European Union army, we can infer two opposing narratives in European Union's media and political space and that both meet the conditions to be called a securitization. The first narrative (positive securitization) that the thesis analyses argues that the precarious the security situation in and around Europe could become an existential threat to the society of European Union (EU) and European identity because of the paucity of the EU army. The second narrative (negative securitization) that the thesis analyses interprets the establishment of the EU army as an existential threat to the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) and the sovereignty of EU member states. Securitization is defined through the Theory of Securitisation by the scientists belonging to Copenhagen School (Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde) as a speech act by which an actor (securitizing actor) presents a specific issue, until then only politicised in the political or public space, as an existential threat to the referent object that requires extraordinary measures. For a speech act to be an act of securitization and not just an attempt of securitisation, public (or a target group) needs to accept the speech as such. Thus, the Theory of Securitization affirms that the chosen narratives are acts of securitizations through discourse analysis and public opinion analysis. Elements of securitization are before mentioned securitization actor, referent object and public, as well as functional actors, which indirectly affect security decisions by lobbing or directing the securitization actors, and context, as a speech act cannot be an independent factor in the securitization process but is dependent on historical, political, societal, economic, geographic, and other variables. The principal difference between Theory of Securitisation and the mainstream security theories: Traditional Security Studies (TSS) and Critical Security Studies (CSS), is that Theory of Securitization is not concerned if the issue that a speech act wants to present as a security issue, really is a security issue, but how a speech act presents the issue as a security issue. Unlike the Theory of Securitisation, TSS is a realistic security theory that examines is the issue a real security threat while CSS is a constructive security theory that examines the reality of security threat. Both, TSS and CSS, analyze already present security threat, while Theory of Securitisation analyses the creation of the security threat. Positive securitisation, the precarious security situation in and around Europe that could become an existential threat to the society of the EU because of the paucity of the EU army, is securitised by European federalists headed by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and HR/VP Federica Mogherini. Referent objects that are in urgent need of protection are the EU society and the European identity (values and principles) that are in the existential threat of Russia and uncertain security situation in the immediate neighbourhood of the EU. As a solution for the existential threat, securitising actors impose the establishment of the EU army. Functional actors of positive securitisation are stakeholders in the European defence industry who have a purely economic reason for the backing of positive securitisation, and European elite which advocates the federalisation of the European Union. The prime public, core target group, for the positive securitisation should be the Heads of 28 EU member states who make decisions concerning Common Security Defence Policy (CSDP). As the decisions concerning CSDP must be unanimous, and some member states, mostly United Kingdom (UK), steadily use the instrument of veto to block further development of the CSDP, the thesis assumes that the securitising actors of positive securitisation decided to expand the target group for their securitisation onto European Union society as a whole. Reasons behind the expansion of the target public, which thus makes the whole society of the European Union a the public is a pressure onto the Heads of EU member states since the citizens of the EU have a very favourable opinion about the further development of the CSDP and mostly positive opinion regarding the establishment of the EU army. Negative securitisation, which interprets the establishment of the EU army as an existential a threat to the NATO and the sovereignty of EU member states, is a complex form of securitisation. Instead of one securitising actor or one group of securitising actors with the same motive (European federalist with Juncker as champion in positive securitisation), negative securitisation is securitised by several securitising actors without the leading champion with sometimes the same and sometimes different motives: Eurosceptics, NATO, decision-makers in the United Kingdom, the United States (US) and Russia. Furthermore, negative securitisation accumulates the referent objects that are in urgent need of protection: the sovereignty of the EU member states and the survival of the NATO alliance. The only element of the negative securitisation that is unambiguous is the existential threat from the establishment of the EU army whose establishment would take away the national armies, i.e. the sovereignty of the EU member states and made the NATO alliance vulnerable. Hence, for the sake of simplicity of understanding the elements of negative securitisation and their synergy, the thesis uses the Classical Security Complex Theory (CSCT) for the proper consideration of the patterns of the security connections. Using discourse analysis of the speech acts and official documents the thesis shows how the decision-makers in the US (regardless of their political affiliation) securitise the establishment of the EU army as an existential threat to NATO and future of Atlantic security cooperation. Same is evident with the NATO as a securitising actor. The decision-makers in the UK (mostly conservatives) securitise the establishment of the EU army and further development of CSDP as an existential threat to the national sovereignty of EU member states. Russia too securitises the establishment of the EU army as an existential threat to the national sovereignty of EU member states but does the deed backstage financially supporting nationalist and Eurosceptic EU parties and via cyber-attacks and disinformation campaign. Functional actors of negative securitisation are stakeholders in the non-EU defence industry and other industries which prosper due to unstable global security situation, private military organisations, non-independent think thanks, etc. The public for the negative securitisation is the Eurosceptic part of the EU society, but the core target group are the citizens of the UK. Securitising actors of the negative securitisation narrowed the public of their securitisation for the same reason why the securitising actors of the positive securitisation broaden theirs – decisions concerning CSDP must be unanimous. Consequently, the securitising actors of the negative securitisation to be successful in their securitisation need to persuade only citizens of the UK that their narrative is correct. As already mentioned, the Theory of Securitisation analyses the creation of the security threat, so very important for the understanding of the results of discourse analysis is the context behind the construction of the securitisation. In the case of the securitisations analysed in the thesis, the contexts of both narratives have foundations in the conflict between neorealist and neoliberal doctrines in foreign politics, different security strategies of the countries, and change in a global security system, as well as historical, political, societal, economic, geographic and other variables. No EU member state can be a superpower on its own in today's world. This notion and aim to hinder the possibility of another armed conflict in Europe prompted the creation of the Union. After more than 60 years of enlargement and integration, the EU is an economic superpower. Nevertheless, to protect its economic superiority as well as to impose its doctrine in foreign politics and expand its multilateral security strategy, the EU needs to be and defence union. This idea is not a new one but exists and was attempted to be implemented from the beginning of the EU existence. The securitising actors of the positive securitisation believe that with the establishment of the EU army, the EU can keep the US hegemony in the global security system and the Russian renewal of bloc-system aspirations under control. Some securitising actors of the positive securitisation also believe that the further integration of the EU is necessary to prevent the disintegration. Above all, is the strong desire of the EU elite for the federation of the EU. Expectedly, not least because of the postulate of the security dilemma, the US and Russia are afraid of the military-strong EU which could change the current global security system, while the UK believes that with the strengthening of the EU its military and political strength will wane or disappear. As the UK is the EU member state and its citizens are the most Eurosceptic the public in the EU, both and the US and Russia focused most of their securitisation's efforts toward the UK's citizens. The US also uses the UK as a tool of disruption in the EU – it's right to veto decisions about the further development of CSDP, integration of the EU in the defence field and the establishment of the EU army. The thesis hypothesises that the two opposed narratives that the thesis considers to be securitisations have generated the status quo in the development of CSDP. Through the discourse analysis of speech acts and the official documents of securitising actors of both narratives as well as analysis of the acceptance of narratives by the audience (public opinion analysis), the thesis positively answers the research question: Is the securitisation theory usable the instrument in the effort to implement/block more effective EU integration?
