Search results

The paper is an attempt at geopolitical contextualization and realpolitik
reading of comic works by Alejandro Jodorowsky. The focus of the analysis is
on the so-called ?Jodoverse? - a segment of Jodorowsky?s opus which includes
three great science-fiction sagas - ?The Incal?, ?The Saga of the
Metabarons? and ?Technopriests?. These works, which can be defined as ?space
operas? in terms of genre, vividly evoke a futuristic vision of one of the
possible cosmic futures of humanity. This paper aims to map those motives in
this fictional universe that draw inspiration from the tradition of
classical geopolitics, i.e., the practice of political realism. The author?s
initial assumption is that the Jodoverse is designed to function as a
(popular-cultural) reflection of earthly geopolitical principles in the
mirror of outer space and that, therefore, the depiction of astropolitics in
the works of Jodorowsky is nothing but cloning of realpolitik in infinite
space above the earth?s orbit. In order to confirm this assumption, the
author will use the geopolitical and astropolitical concepts of Karl Schmidt
and Everett Dolman as a key to unravelling the secrets of the Jodoverse. For
that purpose, Schmidt?s concept of the nomos of the earth will be used, as
well as the teaching on technological determinism which is present in the
works of both theorists. By applying these concepts to Jodorowsky?s comics,
the author will try to prove how the ideas of classical geopolitics have
their counterparts in the cosmic phantasms of this genius of the ninth art.

This paper is dedicated to the second generation of so-called cultural strategists, whose contribution to the development of strategic culture and the study of strategy as a form of discourse is unjustly neglected, especially when it comes to the most prominent representative of the entire generation, Bradley Klein. According to the author of this paper, Klein's NEO-Gramscian approach to strategic studies remains the underused scientific potential, which could, in the future, contribute to a better understanding of international relations and international security. Therefore, the author aims to acquaint the reader with Klein's critical interpretation of strategic culture, seen as a discursive instrument of the hegemony of political and military elites, and to point out the importance of Klein's analysis of strategic discourse, which is intentionally marginalized by other theorists of this subdiscipline.

Although the agreement of different theoretical approaches regarding the role
and importance of power in world politics can easily be reached, when it
comes to its definition even elementary consensus is lacking. In this paper,
we analyze theoretical interpretations of power given by David Lake, which
in its conceptual scope and explanation of international order deviates from
the established theoretical tracks in the field of IR. We focus on the
concept of authority as a form of international power, which is one of the
fundamental pillars of Lake's theory of hierarchy in international
relations. Comparing the content of Lake's concept of authority with
different theoretical interpretations of international power, primarily
those that preceded it, we emphasized the theoretical advantages of Lake's
interpretation of the structure of the international system. We conclude
that Lake?s theory can be characterized as "non-canonical" rethinking of
world politics to some extent. The relation of superiority and
subordination, which does not rest on coercion, nor fear of force, but on
voluntary consent, forms the backbone of Lake's theory, and at the same time
represents its most recognizable and controversial part. Subjugation to the
force is often read as a dark chapter of human history, a chapter that
humanity seemingly scornfully closed after the rise and success of the
anti-colonial movement in the second half of the twentieth century. In this
context, Lake's study indicates that reality is something completely
different. Former colonies still agree to a subordinate position in order to
benefit from it, but today voluntarily. By analyzing his concept of
authority and comparing it to other conceptions of power, we tried to
explain Lake's view on world politics, and why his findings on authority,
subordination, superiority and international hierarchies in the field of
economics and security represent unavoidable theoretical destinations for
every scholar interested in the study of contemporary international
relations.

The Great Debates are an important stage in the development of International Relations (IR) as a science. However, the 'exactness' of its chronology and content, as well as the precise determination of the actors and results, is questionable on several grounds. Therefore, relying on this, often contradictory, interpretations of the outcome of the Great Debates, little can be said about the current state of the mentioned theoretical dialogue. Today, IR scholars mostly discuss abandoning the idea of macro theory and the pluralistic silence in which medium‐scale theories resonate in peace. However, this 'diagnosis' still does not give us an answer to the question of who really won the fight of so‐called big theories, or which theoretical paradigm today has the greatest influence within the disciplinary field? Applying the idea of reflexivity between the theory of international relations and the practice of foreign policy, the author of this paper rejects the restrictions of the mythos of the discipline (at the center of which is the myth of the Great Debates) and turns to the analysis of international political praxis as an instrument for the identification of the mentioned theoretical impact. At the center of the analysis are the foreign policy principles of the United States, which the author reviews in a hundred‐year time interval, in particular emphasizing the doctrine of Wilsonianism and the principles of foreign policy advocated by the current US President Donald Tramp. Facing Wilsonianism and Trampism (determining, in turn, the latter as a realistic‐constructivist Anti‐Wilsonian coalition), the author offers his view of the current state of paradigmatic 'clashes' in the theory and practice of international relations. ; Velike debate predstavljaju važnu fazu u razvoju nauke o međunarodnim odnosima. Međutim 'egzaktnost' njihove hronologije i sadržaja i precizno određenje aktera i raspleta, upitno je po više osnova. Stoga se oslanjanjem na brojne, često međusobno kontradiktorne interpretacije ishoda Velikih debata malo toga može reći o trenutnom stanju pomenutog teorijskog dijaloga. Mada se najviše govori o napuštanju ideje makro teorije i pluralističkom zatišju u kome u miru obitavaju teorije srednjeg obima, nema odgovora na pitanje ko je zaista pobedio u okršaju tzv. velikih teorija, odnosno koja teorijska paradigma danas ima najveći uticaj unutar disciplinarnog polja. Vodeći se idejom refleksivnosti teorija međunarodnih odnosa i prakse spoljne politike, autor odbacuje ograničenja mythos‐a discipline (u čijem središtu se nalazi mit o Velikim debatama) i okreće se analizi međunarodnog političkog praxis‐a kao instrumentu identifikacije pomenutog uticaja. U središtu analize nalaze se spoljnopolitički principi SAD, koje autor posmatra u stogodišnjem vremenskom intervalu, posebno akcentujući doktrinu vilsonijanizma i principe spoljne politike koje zagovara aktuelni američki predsednik Donald Tramp. Sučeljavajući vilsonijanizam i trampizam autor nudi svoje viđenje trenutnog stanja paradigmatskog 'okršaja' u teoriji i praksi međunarodnih odnosa.

The Great Debates are an important stage in the development of International
Relations (IR) as a science. However, the ?exactness? of its chronology and
content, as well as the precise determination of the actors and results, is
questionable on several grounds. Therefore, relying on this, often
contradictory, interpretations of the outcome of the Great Debates, little
can be said about the current state of the mentioned theoretical dialogue.
Today, IR scholars mostly discuss abandoning the idea of macro theory and the
pluralistic silence in which medium-scale theories resonate in peace.
However, this "diagnosis" still does not give us an answer to the question of
who really won the fight of so-called big theories, or which theoretical
paradigm today has the greatest influence within the disciplinary field?
Applying the idea of reflexivity between the theory of international
relations and the practice of foreign policy, the author of this paper
rejects the restrictions of the mythos of the discipline (at the center of
which is the myth of the Great Debates) and turns to the analysis of
international political praxis as an instrument for the identification of the
mentioned theoretical impact. At the center of the analysis are the foreign
policy principles of the United States, which the author reviews in a
hundred-year time interval, in particular emphasizing the doctrine of
Wilsonianism and the principles of foreign policy advocated by the current US
President Donald Tramp. Facing Wilsonianism and Trampism (determining, in
turn, the latter as a realistic-constructivist Anti-Wilsonian coalition), the
author offers his view of the current state of paradigmatic ?clashes? in the
theory and practice of international relations.

Despite the great geopolitical importance of U.S.-Turkish bilateral relations and multilateral cooperation in which both countries participate, it is noticeable that only a small number of authors outside the United States and Turkey deal with this topic directly. As both countries are considered to be important players in the international arena, such small number of authors outside the bilateral circuit can be understood as illogical in academic terms. Especially if we take into account a large number of countries which, after the adoption of Davutoglu's foreign policy doctrine, found themselves in a stronger international interaction with Turkey. Therefore, we consider that a selective review and critical analysis of scientific literature on modern U.S.-Turkish relations can provide the possibility of a deeper insight into the current Turkish foreign policy. In this paper author gives a critical review of thirty-five academic papers. In order to facilitate transparency and more complete analysis, the author suggests a classification of papers according to three criteria: the timeframe of the paper, the attitude of the author (towards the given problem), and theoretical approach of the author. The aim of this paper is to review the literature, and enable the reader to summarize certain conclusions which then can be used as guidelines for further research of U.S.-Turkish relations, and the Turkish foreign policy in general. ; Rad daje kritičku analizu dela literature o odnosima SAD-a i Turske sa ciljem da domaćoj akademskoj javnosti ponudi dublji uvid u aktuelnu tursku spoljnu politiku i tako pruži smernice za dalje istraživanje. Uprkos velikoj geopolitičkoj važnosti američko-turskih bilateralnih odnosa, kao i multilateralnih oblika saradnje u kojima obe zemlje učestvuju, mali broj autora izvan SAD-a i Turske direktno proučava ovu temu. Kako obe države zauzimaju značajno mesto na međunarodnoj sceni, ta činjenica se može shvatiti kao svojevrsna akademska nelogičnost. Naročito ukoliko se u obzir uzme veliki broj država koje su se, nakon usvajanja Davutogluove spoljnopolitičke doktrine, našle u jačoj međunarodnoj interakciji sa Turskom. Autor je analizom obuhvatio trideset i pet stručnih i akademskih radova, a njih je radi lakše preglednosti klasifikovao u skladu sa tri kriterijuma - vremenskim okvirom rada, stavom autora prema datom problemu i teorijskim pristupom u izučavanju problema. Analiza odabrane literature pokazala je kako se istraživački fokus tokom protekle decenije pomerao sa prirode odnosa dve države na objašnjenje prirode novonastalih problema, kao i da je stav autora prema perspektivama američko-turskih odnosa u velikoj meri determinisan aktuelnim sledom događaja. Autor zaključuje da se realistički i konstruktivistički pristup snažno preporučuju kao najpodesniji teorijski okvir za dalja istraživanja savremenih američko-turskih odnosa.

Despite the great geopolitical importance of U.S.-Turkish bilateral relations
and multilateral cooperation in which both countries participate, it is
noticeable that only a small number of authors outside the United States and
Turkey deal with this topic directly. As both countries are considered to be
important players in the international arena, such small number of authors
outside the bilateral circuit can be understood as illogical in academic
terms. Especially if we take into account a large number of countries which,
after the adoption of Davutoglu's foreign policy doctrine, found themselves
in a stronger international interaction with Turkey. Therefore, we consider
that a selective review and critical analysis of scientific literature on
modern U.S.- Turkish relations can provide the possibility of a deeper
insight into the current Turkish foreign policy. In this paper author gives a
critical review of thirty-five academic papers. In order to facilitate
transparency and more complete analysis, the author suggests a classification
of papers according to three criteria: the timeframe of the paper, the
attitude of the author (towards the given problem), and theoretical approach
of the author. The aim of this paper is to review the literature, and enable
the reader to summarize certain conclusions which then can be used as
guidelines for further research of U.S.-Turkish relations, and the Turkish
foreign policy in general.

Religious divisions are an important part of the historical heritage of the Is-lamic world, which is still, to a large extent, heavy burden of mutual relations between "countries of Prophet Muhammad". These divisions determine not only the nature of relations between Islamic countries, and the rules of the for-eign affairs "game" in the Islamic world but they also determine their internal political turmoil. The "Earthquake" of the Arab Spring which has been shak-ing the Middle East for two years now is the latest example of how divisions among Muslims create not only reality but also future of this region. Without understanding the Islamic schism it is impossible to understand the uprising against Assad in Syria or answer as to why Arab countries such as Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia support the rebels in that country and yet at the same time violently suppress the revolution in Bahrain. Without understanding these is-sues it would be impossible to understand the complex relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran, two Middle Eastern states which both claim the right to be considered as the guardians of the "true" Islam. Through the lens of Middle Eastern version of the "Cold War", an expression which can most suitably de-scribe the relationship between these two countries in the past few decades, best reflects the depth and significance of the religious divisions in Islamic world, and above all, the importance of Sunni-Shia divisions. However, it is important to emphasize that the Sunni-Shia division and the diverse consequences which this rift carries is something which is primarily related to the Middle East. This region represents both the cradle of the Islamic faith and the root of its division. On the other hand, the Balkan Muslims as authentic and "autochthonous" European Muslim populations have, until recently, nev-er faced this kind of division. After the Ottoman conquest of this part of Eu-rope a significant number of Christians converted to Islam. One part of the local Slavic population embraced the new Islamic religion and life in this region was getting, slowly but surely, a completely new and different physiognomy, marked by the spirit of the Sunni Islam. Due to centuries of stability in the Ot-toman Empire and to the lack of religious reform movements in this part of the "Islamic" world, the Balkan Muslims remain primarily aware of the Sunni Islamic teaching and practice. The other interpretation of Islam remained re-mote and exotic to them.

The purpose of this paper is to provide answers to the questions why health is viewed through the lens of national and international security, and what might be the potential role of the armed forces in strategic response to health security challenges. Relying on theoretical settings of Foucault's discourse studies and securitization concept developed by the Copenhagen School of security studies, authors will try to illuminate the nexus between political discourse, military and securitization of health. The analysis of the political and academic discourse has found that with regard to security the most important health challenges are considered the occurrence and spread of infectious diseases, especially HIV/AIDS, and the ability to make use of biological agents as weapons. As the most important reasons why health is viewed through the lens of security are considered to be major economic losses incurred due to health crises, high mortality rates, migration, the impact of health crises on the armed forces and peacekeeping operations. The paper concluded that the armed forces play a role in the public health security through monitoring and early warning, through epidemiological and laboratory opportunities for early detection of new epidemics or pathogens, as well as through providing assistance after major natural disasters. The paper analyzes the public health and security in the Republic of Serbia, and it was concluded that it is necessary to undertake more efforts in recognizing health as a field of national security, and health risks as the risks of security.

This paper determines, through the analysis of political institutions, as well as analysis of the key moments of the modern Turkish history, the main characteristics of the political system of Turkey. Also, the authors analyze the role of the military in the establishment and maintenance of the secular society, and try to illuminate the essence of the current Islamist shift in Turkish politics. The paper first gives a historical overview of Ataturk's reforms and the emergence of the Turkish republic, followed by review of basic characteristic of its political institutions. Then the authors analyze the past and present role of the military in Turkish political life, as well as reform shift after the victory of Islamists on parliamentary elections in 2002. The final part of the paper raises the question of whether the current policies of the ruling AK party leads to ? greater democratization of society, its Islamization, or domination of one party over the entire political system?