Suchergebnisse

The term politics, from its origin until nowadays, has been closely related to coercion and effects of coercion. The first rulers were finding support in a belief in the divine nature of power, but since, in time, this belief faded, the solution was found in physical superiority of rulers. The development of politics as an activity by which a community can be governed instrumentally, conditioned its closer linkage to force. Politics was sometimes identified with force, and sometimes politics was using force as an instrument for taming the bullying by others. Undoubtedly, the man is a rational and instinctive being. Monopolization of bullying within political activity made it possible to place the force, depending on the circumstances, into the service of one or the other attribute of human nature. Integration processes in political, economic, military and other areas, significantly contributed to changing the role of a national state in its formerly inviolable spheres, even in those elements that are considered classic attributes of the state as an institution (sovereignty, independence, monetary policy, defense, state power legitimacy, etc). Does this power, which is 'taken away' from the national state, go away, through integrative processes with other international subjects, to some distant power and alienated centers, or does it, on the contrary, enter the corpus of political activity that strengthens its overall position? Without immersing into more profound analysis about what is closer to the truth, it is a fact that through integrative processes a number of 'state' activities is transferred to joint institutions. In the spirit of this paper, the most important institutions are those which decide about organization, preparing, functioning, and using of the state (interstate) power. Strategic solutions concerning these matters, are a part of domestic and intergovernmental policy. They are products of a great number of internal and external factors, starting from economic and institutional, to social and cultural-traditional, and to international.

In today's world, marked by an increasing interdependence, national security is becoming a component of international security, which is not a mere sum of individual national securities, but a permanent international framework of universally acceptable values. Interethnic relations today are central for a state's security, as well as for international order. There is the question whether the international system must guarantee individual and collective security of ethnic groups/minorities, regardless of the state they live in. Today, human and minority rights have become an important institutionalized international factor of security and stability and a concern of the entire international community, despite the fact that many states still claim that minority policy is their internal problem into which international community has no right to interfere. The affirmation of the rationalist approach to contemporary security implies that the responsibility for guaranteeing security lies not only on individual states and unions but also on the international system as a whole. (SOI : PM: S. 35)

The Republic of Slovenia, having obtained independence and sovereignty in the June-July war of 1991, launched the intensive buildup of the system of nationa security. As guidelines it used the experiences of other states, its own historical experience and the attitudes of the public and the political parties. The analysis of Slovenian national security shows that the threats to it come in the forms of military threats, internal threats and the threat to the living space. This was the reason that the system of national security was outlined as including the defense system, the security system, and the system of protection and preservation. Though encountering momentous problems in the build-up of the system of national security (particularly its military aspect), Slovenia has made remarkable shifts in order to embrace the NATO standards. However, it was not enough and Slovenia was not among the countries that were admitted to this organisation in the first wave - Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary. (SOI : PM: S. 102)

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 deployment of NATO missile defense shield (EuroPRO) elements in Eastern Europe determines explicitly the so-called strong security of Russia and it represents a serious disruptive factor in its relations with the West. In such context, in the last three years the Ukrainian crisis has additionally complicated and actualized security situation because it turned out that, besides internal factors, it is largely influenced by some external factors, as well. In March 2014 Crimea unilaterally separated from Ukraine and it was joined to Russia whereas an armed conflict between central authorities and armed formations of rebellious pro-Russian population started in the parts of Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine accused Russia of the annexation of Crimea; their relations were reduced to minimum and in the last three years they have remained such tendency. The change of Crimean status has largely aggravated the relations of Russia with Western countries, which resulted in complex political and security situation in the Black Sea Region, which threatens to disintegrate the whole system of regional stability with potential implications for global security, as well. The deployment of EuroPRO elements in Romania and militarization of the Crimean Peninsula affect to a great extent regional stability of that part of the old continent and they represent one of essential destabilizing factors that is in direct correlation with a high level of entropy of the European political and security system.

Wars and suffering in the 20th century, mostly the consequences of ethnic and religious antagonisms, have been typical for Europe's southeast. That is why the ethnic aspects of security are central to the understanding of the totality of this region's security, particularly in the 21st century. The security of southeast Europe can be analyzed using realistic, idealistic and neo-realistic approaches to contemporary security as its starting point. The security of this region is affected by the internal circumstances of the region's states and by the economic situation and inter-ethnic relations in particular. Similarly, significant influence is exerted by the relations among the states and nations living there as well as by the ethnic-based conflicts which are the outcomes of these relations. A series of problems caused by the east-European transformations includes the unresolved ethnic and minority issues. That is why no southeastern European state today has worked out the issue of the relations with its neighbors. This part of Europe is to remain a volatile region, fraught with economic difficulties and crises, nationalisms and xenophobia. In such circumstances, with the open sores of simmering ethnic feuds and the specter of various nationalisms, is it realistic to expect rational politics which is supposed to lead the countries of southeastern Europe towards the united Europe? This is the question the answer to which is sought not only by this region's states but also by the leading European states and the USA. (SOI : PM: S. 78)

After World War Two there have been opposing views of the role and the importance of the state in international affairs. Some think that the importan the state is slowly decreasing, since the increasing interdependence of the wo has an enormous influence on internal and foreign policies of a state. On the hand, some point out that the state has not lost any of its importance and tha the contrary, this importance will only be enhanced since the world community has not as yet come up with a model by which to replace sovereign state entities. States generate the structure which has a significant influence on individual group security. This particularly applies to the post-cold-war period since th problems and the threats of the present-day world - economic collapse, politic oppression, poverty, ethnical conflicts, nature degradation, terrorism, crime diseases - directly affect many other elements of security. It is these very problems that turn our attention to the state as the most important institution of the day world which still has at its disposal the resources for reducing or eliminating these threats. (SOI : PM: S. 43)

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 article presents a public echo of the 1966 party conference which dealt with the misuses of the State Security Services (SDS). The issue is described in four parts; the Brijuni Plenary as a subject of investigation in domestic and foreign literature; chronology of events; discussions in political organizations and newspapers; the dossiers - police documentation on citizens. In the literature. the political fall of Aleksandar Rankovic, the founder and for a long time leading figure of that agency, is considered as a political struggle for power or the outcome of the confrontation between "reformist" and "conservative" stream in the Union of the SKJ. The chronology deals with the time between the "Plenary", July 1 - 2, 1966 and the adoption by the Federal Parliament of Yugoslavia of the new law of internal affairs by the end of the same year. In December of that year Josip Broz Tito issued a clemency to S. Rankovic and fifteen other highest officials of that agency. The discussion in the political organizations and newspapers showed that political activists, and "simple" people as well, think that the responsibility for the misuses lie not only on individuals but on the way the organization was structured and on the unlimited power it had. The party leadership tried to subdue those criticisms. because they did not want to be left without the most valuable partner in the system of power. The public was also made aware of a great number of private dossiers - the police documentation on citizens which came into existence in the preceding twenty years. The most diligent was the SDS in Croatia, which amassed one million three hundred thousand such dossiers. (SOI : CSP: S. 489)

The situation in Kosovo up to 1999, and all attempts which failed in order to find a just and lasting solution for that problem, have fully justified the above criteria for a lawful humanitarian intervention which was undertaken by the NATO forces against the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It seems, however, that the responsible persons in the NATO were not aware of the competence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to investigate to prosecute persons responsible for use of prohibited arms and for destruction of some objects. Some of these unlawful acts constitute grave breaches of the 1959 Geneva Conventions and violations of laws and customs of war. In these circumstances it is the legal duty of the Prosecutor to undertake an investigation. In case that he fails in his duty, there are no statutory limits in respect of the crimes provided in the Statute of the Tribunal. (SOI : SOEU: S. 98f.) + Most legal writers in their writings confuse notions of humanitarian intervention, intervention of a State in order to protect its citizens abroad and humanitarian relief. The use of force for protection of citizens abroad, when they are in immediate danger of losing their lives or suffering serious injury, can exceptionally be justified by a state of necessity as regulated in article 33 of Drafts Article on State Responsibility by the International Law Commission. Further conditions for such an intervention are provided in the wording of the US State Secretar, Daniel Webster in the Caroline case of 1837, relating to the self-defence. Actions of humanitarian relief have nothing unlawful in their character, but a question can arise of the obligation of parties to a conflict to receive and allow its distribution to a who are in need. The 1949 Geneva Conventions and the First Protocol of 1977, provide in this respect a legal obligation of all parties to internation armed conflicts. Such relief actions can be imposed as obligation to parties to internal armed conflicts as well, by UN Security Council resolutions based on Chap. VII of the UN Charter. + In the view of this author there is no rule of positive international law granting a right to foreign States to intervene by force, either in protection of their citizens, or when a humanitarian intervention is required. The matter can only be of exceptional circumstances precluding wrongfulness of the use of force, which otherwise remains prohibited. When the matter is of humanitarian intervention, circumstances precluding the wrongfulness would, according to this author, be the following: (1) There should be a situation of systematic, repeated and widespread commission of international crimes by a State authority against its own citizens. Special problems are created to the international community by widespread practices of ethnic cleansing. (2) Such a situation constitutes itself a "threat to the peace" calling for an enforcement action by the Security Council according to the Chap. VII of the UN Charter. (3) In case that the Security Council fails in its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security and when there are no other means, a group of States or an organization can undertake a humanitarian intervention by use of force in order to stop the commission of crimes. In these circumstances it acts as de facto organ of the entire international community of States. (4) In these extreme and exceptional circumstances, States taking part in such an action cannot obtain any advantages in their profit. (5) Collective intervention by a single State acting in the name of several other States or an organization. However, even such an intervention should have priority over humanitarian intervention undertaken by a State acting in its o name. (6) It is self-evident that in performing a humanitarian intervention there should not be committed international crimes especially against protected persons, including civilian population