Search results

The war in Kosovo and Metohia was the result of a decade long tensions between ethnic Serbs and Albanians. It was led from the air in order to avoid more potential victims in case of land invasion. The end of war was the result of mutual concessions: from NATO side and the Serbian one. The sovereignty of FRY was not put into question, but a great autonomy of Kosovo was predicted including the possibility of independence acquisition (secession). The Resolution 1244 was not abolished, but it was being derogated in order to prepare the fundament of Kosovo independence. Serbian military-security forces were withdrawn from the territory of Kosovo and Metohia. NATO intervention was not legal from the point of view of international law, but it subordinated sovereignty to human rights. Intervention was justified in cases of humanitarian need. Event though humanitarian need (catastrophe) is taken as the basis for the intervention, the example of such kind could not be found in the past. So, Kosovo cases were qualified as sui generis one. Thus, the war in Kosovo became an example to be followed in the future, and an unresolved situation may become the threat to the peace and security in the surrounding countries. Democratic countries give themselves the right to interfere and intervene into internal affairs of others differently from the autocratic ones, which was supposed to be neither correct nor consistent. Kosovo conflict and war rattled global power structure, especially with China and Russia as new challengers of the USA power. Both countries are trying hard to reach USA, but they are still in transition with unstable financial systems, migrations and unresolved system of social protection. Regarding Kosovo conflict and war, they engaged themselves rather indirectly than directly. As Security Council permanent members they were voting against the independence of Kosovo, but did not involve themselves into the war directly. Kosovo war showed how China is backward regarding war technique, and Russia regarding financial engagement. In addition, China expected membership in WTO, and Russia a great financial assistance. Russia engaged in negotiations via the Contact Group. With the arrival of Putin, Russia could not engage in Balkan more militarily but only commercially due to the fact most Balkan countries entered NATO or Partnership for Peace Programme. Internal cohesion of Russia with centralistic governance was reinforced, and ethnic tensions were calmed down. The perspective of Russia is United Nations and commerce through pipeline.

The diplomacy of socialist Yugoslavia paid a lot of attention to the international reputation of the country in the sphere of culture, and thus literature. At the same time, Yugoslav writers in the Writer's Union of Yugoslavia, faithfully supported Yugoslav foreign policy, both individually and institutionally. The most impressive example of collaboration between literature and diplomacy was awarding Ivo Andrić a Nobel Prize. The Writers' Union of Yugoslavia nominated the writer in 1958, and Yugoslav diplomacy lobbied in favor of Andrić for several years. The efforts were successfully crowned in 1961. In socialist Yugoslavia, the existence of a special Macedonian nation and its culture and language was insisted on, so in that sense, the greatest challenge was denying the Macedonian identity that came from Bulgaria. The Yugoslav Writers' Union, consistently pursuing state policy, suspended official co-operation with the Bulgarian Writers' Union in the second half of the 1960s due to Bulgaria's refusal to recognize the Macedonian language. Yugoslav writers also adapted to the state policy of non-alignment. They did not reach the level of cooperation with those countries that existed in the field of politics, economics or science, but they maintained ties with writers from those parts of the world in various ways. Among other things, the twentieth anniversary of the Belgrade Conference of the Non-Aligned Nations in October 1981 was a meeting of writers of non-aligned countries in Belgrade.

U savremenim društvima se smatra da visoko obrazovanje ima značajnu ulogu za ekonomski razvoj tako što obezbeđuje kvalifikovanu radnu snagu, ekonomsku konkurentnost, produktivnost, političku stabilnost i stvaranje demokratskog društva. Predmet rada je da se predstave i kritički ispitaju sociološka stanovišta koja pripadaju funkcionalističkoj i institucionalističkoj paradigmi koje na različite načine tumače značaj obrazovanja za razvoj društva. Prvi cilj je da se predstavi na koji način autori koji pripadaju ovim teorijskim pravcima opisuju ulogu obrazovanja u ekonomskom i političkom razvoju. Drugi cilj je da se ispita na koji način isti autori tumače značaj visokog obrazovanja za pojedince: za zaposlenje, napredovanje i životne šanse. Funkcionalistička paradigma smatra da je visoko obrazovanje neophodno za tehnološki, ekonomski i društveni napredak, jer priprema pojedince za rad u odgovarajućem segmentu kapitalističke ekonomije i povezana je sa shvatanjem progresa i pojmova: modernist, profesionalizacija i racionalizacija. Institucionalistička perspektiva takođe pokazuje da je obrazovni sistem strukturalno povezan sa nastankom moderne privrede i nacionalne države, da ima alokativnu funkciju i da na taj način utiče na životne šanse pojedinaca. Za razliku od funkcionalističke, institicionalistička perspektiva naglašava ideološku i legitimacijsku stranu ovih procesa i značaj pridaje političkim faktorima u odnosu na ekonomske faktore. Preispitivanjem i suočavanjem različitih teorijskih polazišta ukazuje se na kompleksan odnos obrazovanja i šireg društva. Stoga je potrebno kontinuirano ispitivati suprotstavljena stanovišta koja ovoj temi prilaze na različite načine. Jedino celovito i kritičko teorijsko promatranje ovih procesa može imati značajne implikacije za kreiranje obrazovnih politika, kao i sveobuhvatnijih reformi društva. ; In modern societies, higher education is considered to be playing a significant role in economic development by providing skilled labor, economic competitiveness, productivity, political stability and building a democratic society. The subject of this paper is to present and critically review sociological standpoints belonging to functionalist and institutionalist paradigm which interpret the importance of education for development of a society in a different way. The first objective is to present how authors belonging to these theoretical concepts describe the role of education in economic and political development. The second objective is to examine how these authors interpret the importance of higher education for individuals: for their employment, promotion and life chances. The functionalist paradigm holds that higher education is necessary for technological, economic and social progress, as it prepares individuals for work in the relevant segment of capitalist economy and is linked to understanding of progress and concepts of modernity, professionalization and rationalization. The institutionalist perspective also shows that education system is structurally linked to emergence of modern economy and the nation-state, that it has an allocative function and thus affects the life chances of individuals. Unlike the functionalist, the institutionalist perspective emphasizes the ideology and legitimacy of these processes and attaches importance to political rather than economic factors. By reviewing and confronting different theoretical starting points, a complex relationship between education and wider society is revealed. It is therefore necessary to continually examine the opposing viewpoints that approach this topic in a different way. Only a comprehensive and critical theoretical observation of these processes can have significant implications for creating educational policies and far-reaching societal reforms. ; Zbornik rezimea / 24. Međunarodna naučna konferencija "Pedagoška istraživanja i školska praksa ; Book of abstracts / 24th International Scientific Conference "Educational Research and School Practice"

In this paper, we tried to analyze the consequences of the transitional process in the societies of the South-West Balkan, primarily on the example of Serbia. The indicators that we have found by the research clearly speak in favor of the fact that the transition is the cause of peripheralization of these societies. Citizens who entered the transitional processes with hope - imagining them as the accomplishment of the best European values - soon were convinced that the transition is only another manner to place these countries in the position to be exploited by multinational capital and developed, 'old' member of the EU, as well as to serve for squaring accounts in geopolitical games of the creators of the 'new world order'. In the case of the countries of the Western Balkan, the transition had the characteristic that, among other things, it was performed in conditions of political violence: destruction of the joint state of Yugoslavia, civil and religious war in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, aggression of NATO to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, destabilization of Serbia through the attempt of Kosovo secession, etc., therefore, in the conditions that were extremely antihistorical. While the Europe was uniting, the Balkan was disintegrating. At least two out of the three 'ideas that conquered the world' (Mandelbaum) have been violated: the peace and the democracy. Free market in the conditions when there was no peace and regarding democratically insufficiently consolidated societies could not bring their progress, but on the contrary, as we established, only regression. That is the reason why the destroyed and collided South-Balkan societies, contrary to the European vow of their political elites, are today de facto much further from the European aspirations than they were quarter of the century ago. With their policy, the countries of the West have contributed to De- Europeanization of the South-West Balkan and strengthening of the Euroscepticism with citizens of those countries that still have not joined the EU, like Serbia. In fact, the citizens of Serbia can hardly recognize in the policy of the EU those values that have been usually considered European and which we mentioned at the beginning of this paper.

The article explores the Baltic musicological conferences as a non-hierarchical network and its role and meaning in the changing political and cultural contexts. Starting from 1967, when the first conference took place, the annual meetings of the Baltic musicologists soon became a transnational space for the professional exchange and crosscultural discussion. Based on the results and the impact of cooperation between musicologists of neighbouring countries, the Soviet formation of the national history writing and the development of the Baltic musicological comparativism is discussed, given the political and cultural factors of these changes. The theoretical foundations and cultural aspirations of the concept of national music historiography by Vytautas Landsbergis is highlighted as representative example of the national self-confidence in Lithuanian musicology during the Soviet period. ; Балтички културни простор – да ли је то реалност или фикција, спонтана транскултурална традиција или вештачка геополитичка конструкција? Ова питања, која доводе под сумњу балтичке музиколошке конференције, које се у континуитету одржавају већ педесетак година, уопште нису реторичка. Од 1967. године, када је одржана прва конференција, годишња окупљања балтичких музиколога нису била ограничена само на остваривање професионалних циљева. Политичке промене и културне пукотине увек изнова остављају своје отиске у историји транснационалне балтичке музиколошке сарадње. Приликом покретања прве конференције пре више од пет деценија, примењен је совјетски метод обредног посвећења: окупљање музиколога из три балтичке државе формално је било посвећено 50. годишњици Октобарске револуције, чиме је је успостављена традиција која је пркосила совјетској централизацији. Ускоро су конференције постале простор за професионално самоизражавање и транснационално нехијерархијско умрежавање младих музиколога који су стасавали током шездесетих година ХХ века, као и каснијих генерација. Ова традиција је допринела успостављању институционалног статуса балтичке музикологије, настале као алтернатива званичној доктрини совјетске музике и музикологије у другој половини ХХ века. Супротстављајући се наметнутом совјетском приступу развоју националне културе, балтичке музиколошке конференције прошириле су геополитичко и хронолошко истраживачко поље у вези са музиком својих земаља. Скромни покушаји да се развије компаративизам најбоље су промовисани заједничким напорима да се дефинише појам националне музичке културе и категорије типичне за овај концепт: национална школа и национални стил. Компаративна перспектива била је посебно карактеристична за презентације Арнолдса Клотинша (Arnolds Klotiņš), Марта Хумала (Mart Humal), Витаутаса Ландсбергиса (Vytautas Landsbergis) и Алгирдаса Амбразаса (Algirdas Ambrazas), који су сумирали своја фундаментална истраживања у области музике као културне праксе и музичких стилова. Међутим, чак и у радовима наведених музиколога, универзалнији аспект је био засењен традиционалном концепцијом националног израза у музици. Успостављање алтернативних канона националне класичне и модерне музике, као и модернизација музикологије, спадају у резултате ових конференција. Током година политичких промена деведесетих година прошлог века, културно оживљавање је инспирисало дискусије о општијој потрази за балтичким културним идентитетом и могућностима његовог институционалног успостављања. Међутим, истовремено су се отворила питања идентитета ове манифестације, доводећи у питање сам формат балтичког музиколошког простора као могуће совјетске геополитичке конструкције. ; Часопис је индексиран на http://doiserbia.nb.rs/, http://dais.sanu.ac.rs/handle/123456789/914 и у међународној бази ProQuest. / The journal is indexed in http://doiserbia.nb.rs/, http://dais.sanu.ac.rs/handle/123456789/914 and in the international database ProQuest. Издавање ове публикације подржали су Министарство културе и информисања Републике Србије, Министарство просвете, науке и технолошког развоја Републике Србије и СОКОЈ - Организација музичких аутора Србије / The publication of this volume was supported by the Ministry of Culture and Information of the Republic of Serbia, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia and SOKOJ - Serbian Music Authors' Organization

The impact of 'glass ceiling' syndrome and party selection on participation of women in parliament and other political institutions are examined in this article. 'Glass ceiling' syndrome, which means invisible, but almost impenetrable border that women face in professional life, keeping them away from positions of influence and progress in career, is the main reason for the small number of women involved in politics. According to the focus of the research, there are three groups of barriers to women's political participation. Most researchers examine the influence of the political system, institutional and legal mechanisms, the question of their transparency and functional improvement. Significantly less frequent approach came from authors who are concentrated on the social and economic barriers, financial conditions and the broader social context. The third group consists of those who are considering the ideological and psychological barriers, patriarchal cultural patterns, traditional gender roles, self-confidence, ambition and women's desire to be involved in politics. Political parties are key actors in the process of discrimination against women, because they do not allow them to be selected in a number of political functions. There are many factors that determine that the issue of gender equality is variously interpreted in political parties. The most present are contextual and ideological factors, referring to a different definition of the status of women on the political agenda, the social climate in terms of gender equality and respect for human rights, the level of social development and political freedom. Then come organizational factors pertaining to the structure of parties, the manner in which the leadership is elected, whether there are internal women's pressure groups and lobbying, and are women leaders are visible on high positions in decision-making process. Finally, there are institutional-legal factors, which include the type of electoral system, the legal and constitutional framework and the prescribed quotas on national and / or party level.

Although the topic of dividing Kosovo and Metohija into the Serbian and Albanian part was mostly avoided by officials, both national and international, it has been discussed in public since the 1960s, mostly owing to Dobrica Ćosić. By choosing the concept of "demarcation" as "the final solution" during the negotiations between Belgrade and Priština from 2018, the thinking about partition has been reaffirmed. At one point, the highest officials of the Republic of Serbia have announced that the idea represents an official position. However, there are four problems with this approach. Firstly, this concept has never been concretized at the official level. The proposals by Branislav Krstić and Dušan Bataković were probably considered, but not adopted as a part of the Serbian state strategy. Secondly, there was no preparation of the public for such an outcome or that work was sloppily done at the moment when the proposal, at least in principle, was declared official. Hence, the "shallow support" was relative, which is why the legitimacy of the idea was questioned. Thirdly, there are no serious indications that the Albanian party is interested in such an outcome. The attitude of politicians, their readiness to discuss this topic is not well accepted by the Albanian public, thus such a course of action is disputed. Even if a consensus was reached in the negotiations and some kind of agreement was signed with such content, it would remain open how long-term it would be and what consequences there would be in the future. The indications that demarcation can be considered are conditioned in such a way that it would actually represent essential delimitation, exchange of territories, with the accompanying request to continue the process of enlarging the Albanian ethno space. Fourthly, there is no agreement of international factors to carry out something like that. Also, when certain proposals were finally considered and "leaked to the public", they were in line with what the Albanian party was asking for and largely ...

The paper analyzes military capabilities of the European Union, as an important element of the credibility of the EU Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). It discusses the development of these capabilities, and main problems that go along with the operationalization of these capabilities, as well as the prospects of their further development. Is the intergovernmental approach to the area of the EU security and defense policy a barrier to the development of EU military capabilities? What is the extent of the harmonization between 'military' competences of the EU and national specificities? The paper aims to provide answers to these questions. The first section analyzes the institutionalization of the EU security and defense policy, which includes both the establishment of special political and military structures responsible for the decision-making process within the framework of this policy, and the adoption of specific goals for the development of EU military capabilities. The second section analyzes the main difficulties met in the operationalization of EU military capabilities, concerning the efficiency of decision-making procedures, lack of strategic capabilities, the discord of national reforms regarding the modernization of the armed forces, and duplication of national programs covering the military equipment. The third section discusses the prospects of the development of EU military capabilities in the light of EU member states' military budget cuts. It concludes that the gradual evolution of the EU security and defense policy can be seen as an incentive for coordinating the efforts of the member states in the development of EU military capabilities.

Post-cold war concept of security is based on realistic postulates and emphasises a concept of state, forces,power and national interests. Military and political concept of security was dominant while the relations between the superpowers was based on the so called bipolar balance of power. Identity of states was realised by membership in military, political and economic organisations. The strategy of returning to the era of nuclear weapons reaches its full flowering. The crucial point of security after the end of Cold war consists of searching for giving answers to the threats coming from the outside and abilities of states to maintain their independent integrity against changed relations among the powers, which potentially may become enemies. Under such circumstances powers should not be ignored in any interpretation of any aspect of security, for realistic theories of international relations are still of great influence in the field of security. They will be modified in different conditions and will act in the sense of enlarged concept of security - instead of dominant concepts of political and military security typical for the Cold War era, economic, social and environmental factors will appear. Basic weakness of the realistic theories of security is in the lack of recognising the importance of cooperation between main factors in international community. This failure will be replaced neo realistic and liberal and institutional theories of security which emphasises the concept of cooperation in the first place. Concepts of power, forces and integral processes will be observed within the context of changes in the international relations.